[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 18 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H907-H916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 74, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 37
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 Department of Defense,
the General Services Administration, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562
(August 25, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or
effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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 H.J. Res. 37.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution.
During the past 8 years, the number of newly issued regulations and
the costs of those regulations have surged. By the prior
administration's own estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over
the last 10 years alone have imposed a cost of more than $100 billion
annually on American taxpayers.
H.J. Res. 37, which we are considering today under the Congressional
Review Act procedures, represents an important step toward rolling back
this tsunami of rules. Once a CRA resolution of disapproval for a rule
is enacted, agencies cannot reissue the rule or any substantially
similar rules in the future.
H.J. Res. 37 revokes the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, otherwise
known as the blacklisting rule.
I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx for her leadership on this resolution
of
[[Page H908]]
disapproval. I also want to recognize my fellow original cosponsors,
Mr. Chabot and Mr. Mitchell, for their leadership on this issue as
well.
I want to highlight the impact of this rule on the Federal
acquisition system as well as contractors. This rule requires Federal
contractors to report violations and alleged violations of 14 Federal
labor laws and undefined equivalent State labor laws for the previous 3
years. Contractors must collect and report this information every time
they submit a proposal for a contract and then every 6 months during
the contract performance. Then Federal contract officers consult with
their agency's newly created agency labor compliance adviser before
determining if a contractor is eligible for a contract award.
There are a number of reasons this rule should be revoked. The
Federal acquisition system is already a very complex, inefficient
system. This contractor blacklisting rule is exactly the type of
requirement an already complex Federal acquisition system does not
need. The rule adds another contractor clause to an increasingly long
list of clauses in every Federal contract. It slows down a process that
already has trouble delivering goods and services in a timely manner.
It increases the burden on Federal contract officers who have to review
and assess the significant volume of information and take on the role
of labor law experts.
The rule imposes significant costs on contractors, which means the
government, which ultimately means the taxpayers. The rule itself is
estimated to cost contractors and subcontractors more than $458 million
in the first year and $413 million in the second year of its
implementation. Some experts believe the government underestimated
these costs.
The cost to establish a new information collection, reporting, and
assessment system to comply with the rule would be prohibitively
expensive for most contractors, especially the small contractors. Mr.
Speaker, this is where the rubber meets the road. It is these small
contractors.
In fiscal year 2016, the Federal Government spent more than $470
billion contracting for goods and services. We need to be looking for
ways to reduce, not increase, spending in this area.
The rule discourages competition and reduces access to innovation.
The last thing we need to do for the Federal acquisition system is to
discourage competition and innovation, particularly for first time
participants who want to join the Federal marketplace. There are
already so many barriers to entry, particularly for these small
businesses. So think about the small business at home. They want to
compete for these Federal contractors. They may be a very small
organization.
Even after we pass the resolution of disapproval, there are still
rules, there are still laws, and there are still a lot of burdens that
they have to deal with. But I want to cite some Bloomberg data about
the number of first time Federal vendors. We have fallen to a 10-year
low--down 24 percent in 2007 to only 13 percent in 2016.
What that means is the big are probably getting bigger, but the small
guy, the mom, the pop, and the woman who is starting a new business and
wants to compete for these Federal contracts don't have a fighting
chance. For the Federal Government to put more burdens on there,
especially things that haven't been substantiated, is just not fair,
and it is just not right.
{time} 1445
The rule duplicates existing labor enforcement mechanisms to hold
contractors accountable and, therefore, I believe, is not necessary.
Revoking this rule will not leave Federal contractors free to violate
labor laws. To the contrary, the Department of Labor has significant
oversight and investigation resources to enforce the Federal labor law.
Further, if there is a bad-apple contractor not complying with the
law, contract officers already have the authority to refer contractors
for suspension and disbarment.
This rule raises due process and First Amendment concerns. One of the
most disturbing parts of the rule is that contractors would be required
to report alleged violations--not confirmed--just the alleged
violations of the 14 Federal labor laws, and the undefined equivalent
of State labor laws.
It deprives contractors of their legal rights to challenge such
allegations. The reporting requirement covers non-final administrative
merits determinations without regard to the severity of the alleged
violation.
Contractors would have to disclose National Labor Relations Board
complaints, OSHA citations, EEOC non-final letters of determination,
even though these cases have not been adjudicated and the record is
incomplete.
Contractors challenged this rule in Federal Court, and the judge, in
granting a preliminary injunction for the rule, found this reporting
requirement could also impact contractors' First Amendment rights. The
judge said that the rule could result in compelled speech by requiring
contractors to report allegations that would cause a reputational harm,
particularly if after adjudication the allegation is found to be
without merit.
This rule increases costs, complexity, and reduces competition in the
Federal acquisition system. We are having trouble getting new entrants
in to compete as contractors, and, therefore, I urge the support of the
passage of H.J. Res. 37.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution which
would disapprove of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule that was
finalized in August of 2016.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires Federal contractors to be
``responsible,'' to have a satisfactory record of integrity, and
business ethics.
The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would require Federal
contractors to self-report on violations of 14 fundamental Federal
labor and nondiscrimination laws.
This includes laws like the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or
OSHA; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act;
and the Civil Rights Act.
These Federal laws apply to all businesses in the United States, and
a vast majority of Federal contractors comply with them as well.
Unfortunately, studies by the GAO, the Center for American Progress,
and others show that there are a few bad apples that consistently
violate these fundamental Federal labor laws, yet continue to be
awarded Federal contracts.
That is just plain wrong. Americans' tax dollars should not go to
contractors who persistently and willfully violate such laws.
It also puts contractors who do obey the law at an unfair
disadvantage because they willingly bear the cost of compliance to
provide safe and fair workplaces.
The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would also improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal acquisition process by
promoting healthy and productive workplaces.
As the final rule notes, ``Contractors that consistently adhere to
labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance
productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable, and
satisfactory delivery of goods and services.''
This rule should be a win-win. It helps the Federal Government ensure
compliance with fundamental labor and nondiscrimination laws and, at
the same time, improve the efficiency of the Federal contracting
process.
I urge our Members to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived disapproval
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bobby Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, be allowed to control the time on this side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the lead sponsor of the
joint resolution and the chair of the committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee for yielding time.
[[Page H909]]
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to stand up for workers, taxpayers,
and small businesses.
We all agree employers who do business with the Federal Government
should be held to high standards, and their employees deserve strong
protections. That is why for decades the Federal Government has had a
system in place to deny contracts to employers who violate Federal
labor laws.
Time and again, Republicans in Congress urged the Obama
administration to enforce the current system to ensure workers receive
fair pay and safe workplaces.
Instead, the previous administration did the exact opposite. It went
in search of a problem that doesn't exist. It took its eye off the
ball, and we are here today to demand better.
The Obama blacklisting rule empowers government agencies to deny
employers Federal contracts for alleged violations of various Federal
labor laws and similar State laws. That is right. Under this rule,
bureaucrats can determine employers are guilty until proven innocent,
and then deny them the ability to do business with the Federal
Government.
This is one important reason why a Federal district judge recently
blocked implementation of the rule because it would have a chilling
effect on the due process rights of American citizens. But that is not
the only reason why we are here today. Rather than streamline the
procurement process to better protect taxpayers and workers, the Obama
administration added new layers of red tape on to a system plagued by
delays and inefficiencies. Simply put, this rule is a bureaucratic
nightmare. It turns our already complex Federal procurement process
into a convoluted regulatory maze.
Despite what our Democrat colleagues will claim, this rule will
actually hurt workers by making a system designed for their protection
less efficient. Law-abiding small-business owners, the backbone of our
Nation's economy, will be less inclined to bid on Federal contracts.
As a result, we will see less competition in the Federal contracting
process. With less competition, hardworking taxpayers will be forced to
pay more for goods and services provided to the U.S. Government.
Perhaps most concerning is the threat this rule poses to our national
security. Higher costs and a delayed contracting process will
jeopardize the resources our Armed Services depend on to keep our
Nation safe. With men and women currently stationed in harm's way, this
is simply unacceptable.
If workers, taxpayers, and small businesses stand to lose, then who
stands to gain?
The answer is Big Labor. Union leaders often file frivolous legal
complaints to gain leverage against employers. This is just one more
partisan rule that stacks the deck in favor of union leaders.
The facts are clear: this rule is fatally flawed. It is not in the
best interest of workers, small-business owners, our military or
hardworking taxpayers. It is also unnecessary, but you don't have to
take my word for it.
Last October, our colleagues in the Congressional Progressive
Caucus--Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva said: ``The
Department of Labor has full authority under current law to hold
Federal contractors accountable.''
I could not agree more. In fact, that is what Republicans have been
saying all along.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers, small-business owners,
taxpayers, and our national security by supporting this commonsense
resolution. Then let's work together to ensure existing policies are
enforced and workers have the protections they deserve.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) be permitted to control the
remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Before I address the disapproval resolution, I just want to
acknowledge the important role Federal contractors have in meeting the
needs of the Federal Government. Employment and critical services in
many districts, including my own, are heavily reliant on Federal
contractors, including those who serve a critical role for our Nation,
supporting the needs of the military, the Coast Guard, Homeland
Security, and many others.
That said, it is imperative that contractors are bidding on a level
playing field when they compete for contracts. Unfortunately, this
resolution would effectively reward contractors who cut corners,
endanger the rights of their workers, and, studies show, compromise
quality.
Although most Federal contractors obey labor laws, studies by the
GAO, the Senate HELP Committee, and others document that Federal
contractors with histories of serious, willful, and repeated violations
of labor employment and nondiscrimination laws continue to be rewarded
with Federal contracts.
For context, it is important to know that contracting rules already
require agencies to determine whether or not a prospective contractor
is responsible before awarding a contract. Amongst the criteria
considered is whether or not the contractor has ``a satisfactory record
of integrity and business ethics,'' and ``a satisfactory performance
record.''
As previous speakers have noted, violations can already be
considered. However, contracting officers don't have access to a list
of those violations until this rule is issued, nor are contracting
officers required to review a bidder's labor violations history.
The rule implementing the executive order on Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces does not add any extra layers of review. Rather, it would
fill that data gap by requiring contractors to disclose whether they
have violations of 14 longstanding labor laws, including the Fair Labor
Standards Act, OSHA, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act,
and nondiscrimination laws.
It only applies to contracts over $500,000, so we are not talking
about mom-and-pop operations. But if listing those violations of fair
pay and safe workplace laws constitutes an administrative burden, more
the reason to make them be listed.
They are to be disclosed. And although we have heard about
allegations, and although some violations may not be final, the only
thing that has to be disclosed are those violations for which there has
been an agency determination. That is, an allegation is made, it is
investigated, and the company has been found to be in violation. It may
be on appeal or whatnot, but there has at least been an agency
determination of guilt.
The rule requires contracting officers to focus on whether such
violations are serious, repeated, willful or pervasive. The rule helps
bring those contractors with a history of violations into compliance by
way of labor compliance agreements so they can continue to be
considered for contracting opportunities while they improve their
records.
Some have mislabeled this rule as the ``blacklisting rule,'' but this
suggestion and characterization ignores the rules' meaningful
compliance provision. The reality is that this rule would, according to
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, encourage agency
contract officials to push bidders with serious labor law violations
``to enter into labor compliance agreements'' rather than to disbar or
suspend them.
I want to point out that a coalition of 20,000 construction
contractors submitted testimony to the Small Business Committee where
they wrote: ``Employers--primes and subs have more rights, remedies and
redress for non-responsibility determinations based on lack of
integrity or business ethics under the executive order than the current
Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures specifically provide.''
Now, this testimony suggests that the rules are far more contractor-
friendly than the detractors have characterized.
It would be premature to dismantle this rule because it hasn't even
been put into effect because it has been under a court injunction.
Further, repealing the rule under the CRA would bar future
consideration of substantially similar rules unless Congress enacts
subsequent enabling legislation.
[[Page H910]]
So the bottom line is that there are winners and there are losers if
this legislation passes. The winners, if this legislation passes, would
be companies who willfully, and repeatedly, and pervasively violate
labor laws. The winners would be the contractors who cut corners and
gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding contractors.
{time} 1500
The losers will be workers who are employed by Federal contractors.
They will be more susceptible to wage theft, unfair working conditions,
and unsafe workplaces run by unscrupulous contractors. Losers will be
the law-abiding contractors who lose contracts because they abide by
the laws protecting their workers.
This is why the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule enjoys support from
a widespread number of businesses, veterans, civil rights, and labor
organizations from the Easterseals to Paralyzed Veterans of America, to
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. That is why I oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chair of the Committee on Small
Business.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res.
37. I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for
her leadership in sponsoring this measure. I am proud to be a
cosponsor.
The blacklisting rule is a textbook example of executive overreach
that became standard operating procedure during the previous
administration. Instead of using the existing suspension and debarment
system to deal with bad actors, the Obama administration imposed an
unnecessary regulation that placed significant burdens on all Federal
contractors, even though they admitted that ``the vast majority of
Federal contractors play by the rules.''
This kind of action--failing to enforce existing rules and then
imposing a burdensome, redundant regulatory scheme--is exactly what
frustrates the American people about Washington. We all want bad actors
to be held accountable, but this rule is unnecessary red tape that
punishes everyone for the actions of a few.
As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am concerned that
we already have 100,000 fewer small businesses doing business with the
Federal Government than we did back in 2012. So in the second term of
the Obama administration, we lost 100,000 small businesses doing
business with the Federal Government across the country. That means we
have less competition, and that is bad for job creators and it is bad
for taxpayers alike because, when there is less competition, we pay
more, so the tax dollars that we send here to Washington are not used
as efficiently as they ought to be.
The Committee on Small Business held several hearings and roundtables
on this rule over the last 2 years, heard directly from small
businesses, and examined the Obama administration's rule very closely.
What we found was quite alarming.
The blacklisting rule would force innocent small businesses to settle
unproven claims, disclose commercially sensitive information to their
competitors, and report information the Federal Government already has.
So we are going through this whole process, and the Federal Government
has already got it; but they are not competent enough to use what they
have already got, so they want to put it on the contractor to do even
more. It makes no sense.
Ultimately, this rule will result in small businesses being
blacklisted from participating in Federal contracting based on
accusations--just accusations--where they may ultimately be found
innocent. They didn't do anything wrong, yet they are barred from doing
business with the government. Again, it makes no sense.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 37. Passage of this joint
resolution will undo a duplicative and unnecessary regulation that
harms small business, hurts competition, and prevents taxpayers from
getting the best bang for their buck.
I again want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership in pushing
this forward. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
congressional Republicans' attempt to repeal Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces protections for Federal contract workers.
We all know President Trump is no fan of transparency. He has
steadfastly refused to disclose his own tax returns, so it is no
surprise that he and the Republicans would oppose disclosure of labor,
employment, civil rights, and nondiscrimination law violations by
bidders for Federal contracts.
What I really don't understand is why Members of Congress would ask
American taxpayers to subsidize companies that routinely violate our
labor laws. Voting for this resolution actually rewards companies that
discriminate, stiff their employees on pay, or cut corners on safety,
and it puts responsible businesses that play by the rules at a
disadvantage.
This resolution harms women. Women make up the majority of low-wage
workers. Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections ensure that our tax
dollars do not support sexual harassment and sex discrimination on the
job, regular occurrences especially for low-wage working women.
This resolution harms veterans, including disabled veterans. Repeal
means that we won't know whether a contract bidder routinely violates
section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which Paralyzed Veterans of
America, Disabled American Veterans, and Vets First say is ``necessary
to prevent discrimination in the workplace and during the hiring
process.''
This resolution also harms older workers. To quote AARP: `` . . . age
discrimination in the workplace persists as a serious and pervasive
problem. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is the first
executive order since 1964 addressing the obligation of those who
receive federal contracts not to discriminate on the basis of age.''
If you don't want your taxpayer dollars to be used to undermine Fair
Pay and Safe Workplaces protections, then all Members should oppose
this resolution.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37. I
am proud to join Chairwoman Foxx and Chairmen Chaffetz and Chabot as an
original cosponsor.
H.J. Res. 37 would void the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule,
commonly known as the blacklisting rule. The blacklisting rule is an
additional layer of Federal bureaucracy that crushes the ability of
small and midsize companies to compete for Federal contracts and
adversely impacts timing and efficient procurement while massively
increasing costs.
The blacklisting rule requires Federal contractors to report
violations, including alleged violations of 14 Federal labor laws and
equivalent State laws, over the previous 3 years. Contractors have to
collect that information from all of their subcontractors, and they are
liable for that information, placing a huge administrative burden on
those contractors. Also, not only when they bid for the contract, but
every 6 months, they must renew that information.
Federal contract officers--by the way, there are over 37,000 of them,
an amazing number--would then be required to consult with newly created
labor compliance advisers. Yes, it creates more bureaucrats.
The final rule, itself, estimates costs for contractors and
subcontractors of more than $458 million in the first year--a half a
billion dollars--and more than $413 million in the second year. Amazing
costs. This compliance cost is catastrophic for small and midsize
businesses.
Those who deny workers basic protections are already protected by the
suspension and debarment process. The blacklisting rule is simply
another bureaucratic hoop. In 2015, nearly 1,000 suspensions and 2,000
debarments were undertaken. Put simply, the suspension and debarment
system has worked to protect workers and government.
[[Page H911]]
Moreover, the rule requires contractors and subcontractors to report
on alleged labor law violations and violations that have not been fully
adjudicated. A business could be deemed ineligible for a Federal
contract, or blacklisted, because the contractor reported alleged labor
law violations while still exercising their legal right to pursue
adjudication. That is antithetical to our Constitution.
H.J. Res. 37 will remove a regulation that raises serious due process
concerns, duplicates existing enforcement mechanisms, increases the
cost of Federal contracting, and expands the Federal bureaucracy.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
37.
President Obama's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule reinforces
employment protections and laws that help veterans, individuals with
disabilities, older Americans, minorities, and LGBTQ workers. It
protects workers in our country so they receive a fair day's pay for a
fair day's work.
This rule was passed in response to discovering that billions of
taxpayer dollars went to companies that violated Federal workplace
laws. A contractor who cheats workers out of their pay, endangers their
safety at work, or engages in discriminatory practices should be
required at least to disclose this information when bidding for Federal
contracts. Taxpayer dollars should not support the exploitation of
workers. That is just common sense.
The resolution before us would also remove critical protections for
workers that allow them to access our judicial system. The Fair Pay and
Safe Workplaces rule bans forced arbitration in workplace
discrimination and sexual assault cases for contracts of $1 million or
greater, a policy already in place at the Department of Defense that
was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 2010. Workers deserve the
opportunity to have their day in court to seek justice for their sexual
assault and discrimination claims.
I oppose this resolution to disapprove of these protections because
it gives serial law violators a free pass at the cost of workers'
safety, and it disadvantages the law-abiding contractors in Oregon and
across the country who follow our Nation's laws.
H.J. Res. 37 before us today would reward unlawful and discriminatory
conduct. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
for introducing this legislation and sponsoring it. I rise today in
support of H.J. Res. 37.
We all agree that bad actors who deny workers basic protections and
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act should not be rewarded with
government contracts funded by taxpayer dollars. However, the
Department of Labor's rule effectively blacklists Federal contractors
for alleged violations and would require contractors to defend
themselves against these allegations without being entitled to a formal
hearing.
The Federal District Court has already ruled that the Department of
Labor rule violates contractors' due process rights. Additionally, this
rule is unnecessary because the Department of Labor already has
significant oversight and investigation capabilities to assess
contractor compliance with Federal labor laws.
This rule supersedes agencies' existing authority to hold contractors
accountable under the current suspension and disbarment system. My
question is why don't they use it?
Misguided regulatory policies, like the blacklisting rule, don't stop
bad actors, but they do end up adding new layers of redundant
bureaucratic red tape, harming employers and older workers, disabled
workers, female workers, minority workers, and workers, in general,
alike.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and
roll back this duplicative and unnecessary rule.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, can you advise both sides how
much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 17\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from
organizations that have long led the fight for workers' rights: the
AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
AFL-CIO,
February 1, 2017.
Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the
Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval of the
regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces
Executive Order.
The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulations implement the
common-sense proposition that companies wanting to receive
lucrative taxpayer-funded government contracts should comply
with the law and respect workers' rights. The Executive Order
and implementing regulations establish a process for
reviewing the records of companies bidding for federal
business and ensuring that companies that receive this
business comply with the law and respect workers' rights. The
regulations improve the contracting process and establish
more fairness, so that companies that respect workers' rights
do not have a competitive disadvantage when competing against
companies that cheat by misclassifying their workers as
independent contractors, ignoring health and safety hazards,
or engaging in wage theft. Repealing these regulations will
remove an important incentive for companies to pay their
workers what they are due, protect their health and safety,
and comply with the law.
The regulations are needed because the current procurement
system does an inadequate job screening prospective
contractors and their compliance (or non-compliance) with the
law. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
federal contracts have been awarded to companies with
significant records of violating wage and hour, health and
safety, and other worker protection laws. A report by the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions similarly
found that the government regularly awards federal contracts
to companies with significant violations of worker protection
laws.
Wiping out these regulations using the Congressional Review
Act is a draconian and unnecessary act. If Congress adopts
this resolution, agencies will be forever barred from
adopting similar regulations in the future. This is overkill.
If Congress has concerns about aspects of the regulations, it
can work with the Trump Administration to modify those
provisions through the regular rulemaking process. Congress
should not use the blunt instrument of the CRA to wipe out
the rules and prevent their adoption in the future.
Sincerely,
William Samuel, Director.
Government Affairs Department.
____
[From the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Feb. 2, 2017]
Roll Back of `Fair and Safe Workplaces' Will Hurt Workers, Reward Bad
Actors
hoffa statement of legislation aimed at rescinding executive order
Washington.--The following is a statement from Teamsters
General President James P. Hoffa on the House of
Representative's consideration of legislation later today
that would roll back the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces
executive order issued by President Obama in 2014 and
instituted last year.
``Federal government contractors receive taxpayer dollars
to provide a service or product. And as part of that
agreement, they should be expected to follow the law when it
comes to the workplace and their employees. When they don't,
they hurt working families, they gain unfair advantage over
companies that play by the rules, and they should be held
accountable for their actions.
``That's what the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive
order that took effect last August ensures. There is nothing
controversial about it. Lawmakers should want workers to
receive the paychecks they earn, be safe on the job and not
be discriminated against.
``Taxpayer money should not be handed to companies that
blatantly violate labor and workplace laws. If elected
representatives are as truly interested in standing up for
workers as they claim, they will stop efforts to overturn
rules that protect employee pay and ensure workers can
provide for their families.''
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout
the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, before entering public office, I was an
electrician. I used to work on top of bridges doing very dangerous
work. Imagine climbing 150 feet up over
[[Page H912]]
water. But over the course of that career, three times, there were
gentlemen I worked with who never went home, never clocked out, never
went home to see their wife or their children.
Every day, 13 Americans are killed on the job; they didn't go home to
see their wife, their children, their husband. Sometimes accidents are
unavoidable, but many, many times they aren't, and that is what we are
talking about here.
{time} 1515
The rule doesn't talk about hurting companies. We are talking about
basic information, the same information that everybody in this room
would ask if they were building an addition on their house. You would
want to know, if you were spending $10,000, whether or not that
contractor had any violations, did he finish the job, were people
killed on the job. But when we are spending $81 billion of the American
taxpayer, somehow we don't want to know that. If you go for a loan,
they want to know what your background is, even if you had given it ten
times before. If you are going to college, they certainly want to know
your background.
So what we are talking about here is simple transparency. It is not
just about workplace safety. It is about giving a free pass for
something that they did wrong. Let me repeat that. Something that
contractors did wrong. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to
fear. That is why I stand in opposition to this rule.
When I vote against this legislation, I want everybody in this room
to think about 13 men and women who aren't going home tonight, who
wouldn't have to tell anybody that they were killed on their jobs.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my distinguished colleague.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairwoman for yielding, and
for her leadership on our committee.
I rise today to offer my strong support for H.J. Res. 37. This
legislation is about protecting our Nation's workers, small businesses,
and taxpayers.
As a former labor and employment attorney, I have seen the maze that
businesses must jump through in order to become a Federal contractor.
Well, this rule would only make things that much harder for them.
This regulation, due to the price of compliance, could force small-
and medium-sized businesses, who can't afford to hire a massive legal
team, out of being able to get contracts with the Federal Government.
This rule will add subjectivity to the Federal procurement process
and deprive contractors of due process rights. As an attorney, I take
that threat very seriously.
We should be in the business of supporting policies to make it easier
for these kinds of businesses to get new work, not harder.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side say this is
just about punishing bad actors. But this rule would require Federal
contractors to disclose even alleged violations of wrongdoing,
regardless of whether or not there is any credibility to the claims.
Right now, there are effective policies in place to prevent bad actors
and contractors that break the law from receiving government contracts.
This could be especially damaging for employers who are the target of
union organizing campaigns, or in a situation where a competitor files
a claim in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. It elevates the
risk of frivolous complaints and the loss of business.
Instead of muddying the water and making it harder for our Nation's
small- and medium-sized businesses, let's use the current framework,
not a new burdensome regulation, to enforce the law and hold any bad
actors accountable.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution to
block an overreaching and counterproductive rule.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overturning the Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces rule under the Congressional Review Act. Undoing
this rule would once again allow unethical Federal contractors to
collect billions of dollars from taxpayers while stealing from,
endangering, and discriminating against their employees.
Right outside this building, on January 20, President Trump promised
to give power back to the people and empower everyday Americans. I do
not understand how allowing Federal contractors to hide records of wage
theft, safety violations, and discrimination keeps that promise.
I am particularly concerned with what repealing this rule will mean
for our Nation's veterans. Because Federal contractors are encouraged
to employ the men and women who have served, they will be greatly
affected if we let companies off the hook for repeatedly violating
workplace laws.
In addition, President Obama's executive order helps to guarantee
that Federal contractors comply with longstanding law that protects
veterans and people with disabilities from discrimination in the
workplace. It also encourages contractors to recruit, hire, promote,
and retain these individuals.
This is why the Paralyzed Veterans of America wrote a letter to the
Speaker and minority leader asking that they oppose this resolution to
ensure fair and safe working conditions for our veterans. PVA was also
joined in a separate letter by Vietnam Veterans of America and
disability advocates, including Easterseals, the American Association
of People with Disabilities, and dozens more opposing the resolution we
are debating today.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record both letters.
Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, January 30, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: Paralyzed
Veterans of America urges you to reject a Congressional
Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the 2016 Federal
Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce employment
discrimination against people with disabilities and veterans,
including those with service-connected disabilities. PVA is
the nation's only Congressionally-chartered veterans' service
organization solely dedicated to representing veterans with
spinal cord injuries and/or diseases.
Disapproving this rule will weaken important
nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended
for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four
decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been
protected by federal laws against discrimination in
employment with employers that do business with the federal
government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance
Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take
affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain
these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment
rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA
resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies that
want to do business with the federal government disclose
whether they have been in violation of these longstanding
requirements.
Please ensure that veterans and other individuals with
disabilities are not denied fair and equal employment
opportunities by voting against the CRA resolution of
disapproval of the Federal Acquisition Regulation published
at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carl Blake,
Associate Executive Director.
____
Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities,
February 1, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The
undersigned members of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities (CCD) and our allies urge you to reject a
Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the
2016 Federal Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce
employment discrimination against people with disabilities
and veterans, including those with service-connected
disabilities.
CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations
working together to advocate for Federal public policy that
ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment,
integration and inclusion of children and adults with
disabilities in all aspects of society.
[[Page H913]]
Disapproving this rule would weaken important
nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended
for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four
decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been
protected by federal laws against discrimination in
employment with employers that do business with the federal
government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance
Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take
affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain
these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment
rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA
resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies that
want to do business with the federal government disclose
whether they have been in violation of these longstanding
requirements.
Please help ensure individuals with disabilities and
veterans have a fair shot at employment by voting against the
CRA resolution of disapproval of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
American Association of People with Disabilities, American
Foundation for the Blind, Association of University Centers
on Disabilities (AUCD), Autistic Self Advocacy Network,
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public
Representation, Disability Power & Pride, Easterseals,
Goodwill Industries International, Institute for Educational
Leadership, National Association of State Head Injury
Administrators, The National Council on Independent Living,
National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome
Congress, Special Needs Alliance, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, The Advocrat Group, The Arc of the United States,
United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association, Vietnam
Veterans of America [VVA].
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government, which spends
billions of dollars contracting with private companies every year, has
an obligation to demonstrate and promote responsible behavior. We
should not be in the business of working with contractors who
repeatedly violate our Nation's labor laws, particularly when they harm
the veterans who have served our Nation so bravely.
Repealing this rule sends the wrong message to employers, the wrong
message to veterans, and the wrong message to hardworking Americans who
deserve to be treated with respect in the workplace.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of
organizations supporting this disapproval resolution.
Letters in Support of H.J. Res. 37
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Other Stakeholders (19 signatories): Aerospace Industries
Association, American Council of Engineering Companies,
American Foundry Society, American Hotel & Lodging
Association, American Trucking Association, Associated
Builders and Contractors, Inc., Associated General
Contractors, College and University Professional Association
for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), HR Policy Association,
Independent Electrical Contractors, Information Technology
Alliance for the Public Sector, International Foodservice
Distributors Association, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Defense Industrial Association,
Professional Services Council, Society for Human Resource
Management, The Coalition for Government Procurement, U.S
Chamber of Commerce, WorldatWork.
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Scott,
for yielding.
I stand here in opposition to this resolution, which looks to undo
rules that provide safety and fairness in the workplace.
The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule speaks for itself. It ensures
that contractors entrusted with taxpayer dollars cannot exploit their
workers and that repeated lawbreakers do not get a competitive
advantage. This standard does not impose extra regulations on
contractors. It simply requires that they follow the law.
These laws make sure women are paid the same wages for the same work.
They make sure that employers are paying a fair rate for overtime work.
They protect employees with disabilities. And they protect workers who
are victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment by ensuring those
individuals have an opportunity to be heard.
A 2013 Senate report found that government contractors are often
among the worst violators of the workplace safety, wage, and hour laws.
Nearly one in three companies with the worst safety and wage violations
are Federal contractors. Americans working for Federal contractors lose
up to $2.5 billion each year to violations of minimum wage laws alone.
This is unacceptable and exactly why this order was executed--to
protect workers.
We have a duty to our constituents, and this rule rightfully asks the
Federal Government to take another look at contractors who have
violated labor laws before awarding a contract. By upholding this
order, we can continue to ensure that taxpayers get a fair deal for
their money, something my Republican colleagues certainly should be in
favor of.
Some Republicans will claim that this order creates a so-called
blacklist by preventing companies from receiving Federal contracts.
However, the opposite is true. The order, in fact, provides new tools
for contractors to come into compliance with the law. This order is in
the interest of the people and our constituents who we were sent here
to represent. Rolling back these protections would demonstrate that we
would rather side with employers who cut legal corners by not paying a
fair wage than with our constituents who work day in and day out to
provide for their families.
Not only will rescinding this rule hurt our constituents, but it
would also hurt law-abiding companies by forcing them into unfair
competition with companies that cut corners and knowingly violate the
law. As we look to invest in our country's infrastructure, I cannot
think of a more important time to ensure that employees working for
Federal contractors are treated fairly. This rule is an important
safeguard that protects employees, and its rollback will be a disgrace.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and the complete
dismantlement of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order.
Among other worker protection benefits, President Obama's Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces executive order prohibits Federal contractors from
using forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts involving
civil, sexual assault, and harassment disputes. It directs companies
with Federal contracts of $1 million or more not to require their
employees to enter into pre-dispute arbitration proceedings for
disputes arising out of title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from
sexual assault or harassment cases, except when valid contracts already
exist.
This existing order built upon existing policy that was successfully
implemented at the Department of Defense, the largest Federal
contracting agency, and it will help improve contractors' compliance
with labor laws.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive
order required Federal contractors to give employees their day in
court. By doing away with this order, the new administration is
subjecting workers to forced arbitration, which is a private and
fundamentally unfair process.
Unlike the court system, which was developed through centuries of
jurisprudence, forced arbitration does not provide important procedural
guarantees of fairness and due process that are the hallmark of our
courts. There are no requirements that witnesses testify under oath or
affirmation, rules of evidence and procedure are not relied upon, the
caselaw that has been developed over centuries is not used as
precedent, and arbitration proceedings are often secretive, sealed, and
there is no meaningful right to appeal.
Behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy, forced arbitration
enables employers to conceal wrongdoing from the public and to
undermine employee rights.
Since 2007, I have championed the Arbitration Fairness Act, which
would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and
civil
[[Page H914]]
rights cases. The executive order took us one step closer.
Americans deserve better than private, unaccountable tribunals that
adjudicate disputes, mostly in favor of the employer. Equal access to
justice for all should not be an aspiration but a guarantee for all
Americans.
I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate a couple of provisions.
One is this underlying regulation only applies to contracts in excess
of $500,000. As previously stated, this information that is to be
disclosed can already be considered in contracting. This regulation
makes it available so it can be considered.
It is not just allegations. We are talking about agency
determinations after an investigation.
Now, the regulation requires consideration of the fact of whether or
not a determination is final or whether it is on appeal. That is to be
considered. But not all violations in the fullest of time are to be
considered at all. Only those that are serious, repeated, willful, or
pervasive violations of fair pay and safe workplace violations are to
be considered.
And so for the people who are not blacklisted, the guilty are
encouraged to participate in labor compliance agreements so they can
continue to receive contracts while they improve their records.
{time} 1530
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let us recall who the winners and losers are
if this resolution of disapproval passes. The winners will be the
unscrupulous contractors who cut corners and compromise the safety of
their workers. The losers will be the workers, who are the most
susceptible to wage theft and unfair working conditions, and the law-
abiding contractors who face unfair competition.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: one from The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, another from the
American Industrial Hygiene Association, and, finally, one from a
coalition of 134 business, labor, and civil society groups which stand
in opposition to this resolution of disapproval.
The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a
coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200
national organizations to promote and protect the civil and
human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in
strong opposition to the use of the Congressional Review Act
(CRA) to repeal the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and
Safe Workplaces Executive Order.
The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-needed step
forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is
providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by
encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights
laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of
certain disputes.
Employers that have the privilege of doing business with
the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by
the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they
help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and
ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights
laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal
contracts to comply with federal civil rights laws such as
the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay
Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The Executive
Order also bans contractors from forcing employees to
arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as
well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
We urge you to oppose any attempts to roll back the
protections that stem from the Executive Order on Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces. The Order and implementing regulations
provide strong protections against the federal government
contracting with employers that routinely engage in
discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability,
violate workplace health and safety protections, withhold
wages, or commit other labor violations. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact June Zeitlin, Director
of Human Rights Policy.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson,
President & CEO.
Nancy Zirkin,
Executive Vice President.
____
AIHA Protecting Worker Health
January 31, 2017.
Expressing Concern for Worker Health & Safety Related to H.J.Res. 37
``Disapproving the Final Rule Submitted by the Department of Defense,
the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation''
Dear US Representatives: On behalf of the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), I am writing to
express our concern with H.J.Res. 37, which would overturn a
final rule that amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to
implement Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces'', and is currently scheduled for consideration
this week on the House floor under Suspension of the Rules.
While the final rule and Executive Order address many topics,
our concerns are limited to those areas dealing with worker
health and safety, as these are the subjects in which AIHA
and its members possess unique expertise and knowledge.
Instead of a blanket repeal of this rule, AIHA encourages
you to engage with occupational and environmental health and
safety professionals, and others in a constructive dialogue
that examines how best to improve worker health, safety, and
socioeconomic prosperity--all of which are closely linked. As
currently drafted, H.J.Res. 37 threatens to slow progress
towards healthier and safer workplaces; as such, we encourage
you to oppose its passage.
Founded in 1939, AIHA is the premier association of
occupational and environmental health and safety
professionals. AIHA's 8,500 members play a crucial role on
the front line of worker health and safety every day. Our
members represent a cross-section of industry, private
business, labor, government and academia.
Thank you for your consideration of AIHA's concerns and
recommendations. AIHA looks forward to working with you to
help protect worker health and safety. Please feel free to
contact Mark Ames, AIHA's Director of Government Relations.
Respectfully,
Lawrence Sloan, CAE,
Chief Executive Officer, AIHA.
____
January 31, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the undersigned organizations, we write in strong opposition
to the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal
the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces
Executive Order. We are organizations dedicated to protecting
workers, eliminating workplace discrimination and protecting
access to justice. The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-
needed step forward in ensuring that the federal contractor
community is providing safe and fair workplaces for employees
by encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights
laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of
certain disputes.
Employers that have the privilege of doing business with
the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by
the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they
help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and
ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights
laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal
contracts to comply with federal labor and employment laws
such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the
Equal Pay Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The
Executive Order also bans contractors from forcing employees
to arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
as well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
We ask you to stand with American workers and oppose any
attempts to roll back the protections that stem from the
Executive Order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. They provide
strong protections against the federal government contracting
with employers that routinely violate workplace health and
safety protections, engage in age, disability, race, and sex
discrimination, withhold wages, or commit other labor
violations. These protections should not be repealed.
Sincerely,
9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5
Wisconsin, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, A
Better Balance, A. Phillip Randolph Institute, AFL-CIO,
African American Ministers In Action, AJ Rosen & Associates
LLC, Alaska Wilderness League, Alliance to End Slavery &
Trafficking, Amalgamated Transit Union, American Association
for Access, Equity and Diversity, American Association of
People with Disabilities, American Association of University
Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American
Federation of Teachers.
[[Page H915]]
Americans for Democratic Action, Arkansans Against Abusive
Payday Lending, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Bend
the Arc Jewish Action, BlueGreen Alliance, Brazilian Worker
Center, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen--
Wyoming State Legislative Board, Business and Professional
Women/Florida (BPW/FL), Business and Professional Women/St.
Petersburg-Pinellas (BPW/SPP), California Employment Lawyers
Association, Catalyst, Center for Justice & Democracy, Center
for Law and Social Policy, Coalition of Labor Union Women,
Coalition on Human Needs, Coalition to Abolish Slavery &
Trafficking, Communications Workers of America, Demand
Progress, Demos, Economic Policy Institute Policy Center.
Equal Pay Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Equality
Council, Family Values @ Work, Farmworker Association of
Florida, Feminist Majority, Fight for $15, Food & Water
Watch, Friends of the Earth, Futures Without Violence, Gender
Justice, Good Jobs Nation, Health Justice Project, Hindu
American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, Institute for
Science and Human Values, Inc., Interfaith Worker Justice,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, IFPTE, International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craftworkers, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
Jobs With Justice, Jobs with Justice of East Tennessee, Knox
Area Workers' Memorial Day Committee, Labor Council for Latin
American Advancement, Labor Project for Working Families in
Partnership with Family Values @ Work, Lambda Legal, Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Main Street Alliance,
Make the Road New York, MassCOSH--Massachusetts Coalition for
Occupational Safety & Health, MomsRising.org, NAACP, National
Alliance for Fair Contracting, National Asian Pacific
American Women's Forum, National Association of Consumer
Advocates.
National Association of Human Rights Workers, National
Association of Social Workers, National Bar Association,
National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Law and
Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian Rights,
National Center for Transgender Equality, National Consumer
Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National
Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza,
National Disability Rights Network, National Education
Association, National Employment Law Project, National
Employment Lawyers Association, National Fair Housing
Alliance, National Guestworker Alliance, National Health Law
Program, National Immigration Law Center, National
Organization for Women, National Urban League.
National Women's Law Center, National Youth Employment
Coalition, Oxfam America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The
National Partnership for Women & Families, People's Action,
Policy Matters Ohio, PowHer New York, Pride at Work,
Progressive Congress Action Fund, Public Citizen, Public
Justice, Public Justice Center, Restaurant Opportunities
Centers United, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union,
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, Sargent Shriver
National Center on Poverty Law, Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), Sierra Club, South Florida
Interfaith Worker Justice.
Southwest Women's Law Center, Sugar Law Center for Economic
& Social Justice, The American Association for Justice, The
Consumer Voice, The Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition,
UltraViolet, Union of Concerned Scientists, Unite Here,
United Steelworkers, UWUA--Utility Workers Union of America,
The Voter Participation Center, Washington State Labor
Council, AFL-CIO, WisCOSH, Inc., Women Employed, Women's
Voices for the Earth, Workplace Fairness, Women's Voices
Women Vote Action Fund.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I thank my colleagues--Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman
Chabot, and Representative Mitchell--for joining us in this important
effort as well as to thank my colleagues who came and spoke on this
resolution.
Workers deserve strong protections. The best way to ensure fair pay
and safe workplaces is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment
system. It is also important to remind my colleagues of what the
Congressional Progressive Caucus said:
The Department of Labor has full authority under current
law to hold Federal contractors accountable.
It is clear we don't need more layers of red tape to prevent bad
actors from receiving taxpayer-funded contracts. Creating a
bureaucratic maze would only make a system less efficient that is
designed to protect workers. Furthermore, the blacklisting rule would
undermine the ability of small businesses to compete for Federal
contracts, would increase costs for taxpayers, and would jeopardize the
resources of our Armed Forces--the ones they need to keep this country
safe.
I urge my colleagues to block this harmful rule and vote ``yes'' on
H.J. Res. 37.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House
Joint Resolution 37, which annuls a poorly-written regulation put in
place by the Obama administration.
We need to clean up the regulations that the previous administration
imposed upon American business. We need to reform them, and ensure that
they serve a useful purpose. This is especially important for the
Department of Defense and NASA.
The regulation in question does not allow contractors to exercise
their right of due process. Rather than letting our legal system
provide justice, American companies could be blacklisted by contracting
agencies if ``preliminary determinations'' had been made against them.
This is not how our justice system works. Perhaps that is why this
regulation was halted by a nationwide injunction.
We should protect American workers. The regulation we strike today
was poorly crafted, and it would ultimately do America's workforce more
harm than good.
As Chairman of the Science Committee, I know that such a regulation
would impede NASA from carrying out its mission of exploration and
place an unnecessary cost on taxpayers by diminishing competition.
NASA should not be hampered by such unnecessary regulations and needs
to focus its resources on the challenges of outer space exploration.
The Federal procurement process cannot afford to be bogged down with
defective regulations. Congress must clean up how our government does
business to ensure that it is just and efficient.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we often tell young
people that if they work hard and play by the rules, their efforts will
be rewarded.
Yet this unjust resolution fails to put our federal government's
money where its mouth is.
It will ensure that our tax dollars continue to go to companies that
fail to live up to their end of this bargain.
Time and again, reports have cited the glaring frequency with which
serial labor law violators receive federal contracts.
In the mid-1990s, GAO identified dozens of companies of violating
core workplace protections, like the National Labor Relations Act and
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
And these abuses have continued. Reports in 2010 and 2013 again found
that companies with significant labor citations continued to receive
federal contracts.
The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule makes certain that our agencies
have the information about these violations they need to protect
American workers and safeguard our tax dollars.
It makes clear that companies who violate our landmark labor
protections, who deny overtime pay or family leave, and who deny
workers' rights to organize are not rewarded for repeatedly flouting
the law.
It also ensures that workers who have been discriminated against or
sexually harassed can have their day in court. They cannot be forced
into arbitration.
Our procurement laws already ask that tax dollars only go to
responsible contractors, with ``a satisfactory record of integrity''.
Serial labor law violators do not meet this test.
What's more, numerous studies have found that contractors with better
compliance records also perform better.
So let's not brush around the edges; this is not about safeguarding
tax dollars.
This vote is about allowing labor abuses to go rewarded.
I cannot stand for that. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 74, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H916]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage
of H.J. Res. 40.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 187, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 76]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Clark (MA)
Hastings
Jones
Mulvaney
Peterson
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Walker
Zinke
{time} 1556
Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CORREA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________