[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 181 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8566-H8581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SAVE LOCAL BUSINESS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 607, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3441) to clarify the treatment of two or more employers 
as joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and ask for its immediate consideration in 
the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill, shall be considered 
as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3441

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Save Local Business Act''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF JOINT EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) National Labor Relations Act.--Section 2(2) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The term `employer' '' and inserting 
     ``(A) The term `employer' ''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) A person may be considered a joint employer in 
     relation to an employee only if such person directly, 
     actually, and immediately, and not in a limited and routine 
     manner, exercises significant control over essential terms 
     and conditions of employment, such as hiring employees, 
     discharging employees, determining individual employee rates 
     of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, 
     assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks, or 
     administering employee discipline.''.
       (b) Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.--Section 3(d) of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking `` `Employer' includes'' and inserting 
     ``(1) `Employer' includes''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) A person may be considered a joint employer in 
     relation to an employee for purposes of this Act only if such 
     person meets the criteria set forth in section 2(2)(B) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)(B)).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 3441.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3441, the Save 
Local Business Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the premise of this legislation is simple. It is about 
protecting the ability of entrepreneurs in this country to start and 
run their own business, and it is about ensuring opportunities within 
reach for all Americans.
  Every day, men and women across the country work hard to earn a 
paycheck and provide for their families, and every day, local 
businessowners work hard to keep their doors open and hire employees.
  Meanwhile, bureaucrats in Washington are busy setting policies that 
have a widespread impact on every workplace in the country. As we 
learned during the Obama administration and from rulings made by the 
previous National Labor Relations Board, too often these policies do 
far more harm than good.
  When it comes to rules and policies governing our Nation's workforce, 
there has never been a greater need for Congress to clarify areas of 
the law that shouldn't be left up to boards and Federal agencies to 
decide. That is especially true regarding the joint employer issue. In 
2015, when the Obama administration's NLRB unilaterally redefined what 
it means to be a joint employer, the result was massive confusion and 
uncertainty.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce has heard from countless 
individuals on how the vague and unworkable new joint employer standard 
threatens job creation, creates new roadblocks for entrepreneurs, and 
upends successful business models and relationships.
  H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act, will deliver much-needed 
relief by providing legal clarity under the National Labor Relations 
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The legislation simply restores a 
commonsense joint employer standard, and it does so in a way that 
upholds vital worker protections and ensures all employers know their 
responsibilities to their employees.
  I want to thank my colleague, Representative Byrne, for introducing 
and tirelessly championing this proposal, along with the Democratic 
cosponsors.
  I urge all Members to vote in favor of H.R. 3441 so we can protect 
local jobs, opportunity, and entrepreneurship.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 H.R. 3441, the so-called Save 
Local Business Act. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, employers have 
increasingly moved away from direct hiring of employees to the use of 
permatemps and subcontracting to reduce labor costs

[[Page H8567]]

and liability. For many workers, the name on the door of the building 
where they work may not be the name of the company that technically 
signs their paycheck.
  In situations like these, where more than one entity controls or has 
the contractual right to control the terms and conditions of 
employment, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor 
Standards Act hold both entities responsible for violations as joint 
employers. The joint employment standard under the NLRA ensures that 
workers can negotiate with all parties that control the terms and 
conditions of employment. Similarly, the joint employment standard 
under the FLSA ensures the appropriate companies can be held 
accountable for wage theft, equal pay, overtime pay, and child labor 
violations.
  H.R. 3441 rewrites both the NLRA and the FLSA by establishing a 
narrow definition of joint employer that effectively eliminates 
accountability for some of the entities that are actually calling the 
shots. Under this bill, an entity may be a joint employer only if it 
``directly, actually, and immediately'' exercises control over nine 
essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, 
determining rates of pay, and scheduling.
  However, an entity could have control over all nine of the essential 
terms, and if it indirectly exercises control through an intermediary, 
such as a subcontractor, then the entity would not be an employer 
because its control is not direct. This loophole would allow joint 
employers to evade liability for child labor or wage theft and 
undermine workers' ability to bring all of the entities to the 
bargaining table that actually control the terms and conditions of 
employment.
  Alternatively, if an entity controls only eight of these nine 
essential terms and outsources the ninth, then it may also not be 
deemed a joint employer under this legislation. That is just a 
loophole.
  Under this legislation, an employee could have no employer liable for 
a violation. This would arise when each of the joint employers raises a 
defense that they are not liable because they are not an employer, 
because they don't control all nine of the essential terms and 
conditions of employment.
  This bill provides no guidance over how many of the essential terms 
the joint employer must control. Do they have to control two? a 
majority? all nine?
  The consequence is that a court could find an employee is owed 
overtime, but nobody owes the money because nobody qualifies as an 
employer under the definition of the bill. This bill opens the door for 
potential chaos. And one thing for sure, H.R. 3441 does not provide the 
clarity that its proponents advertise.
  Today, we are debating legislation that is based on a misplaced 
criticism of the National Labor Relations Board's 2015 decision in 
Browning-Ferris Industries, where the NLRB held that the client 
employer, BFI, and its staffing agency, Leadpoint, were joint employers 
at a recycling facility and, therefore, jointly had the duty to bargain 
with the union.
  BFI capped wages that Leadpoint could pay and set scheduling, 
reserved the right to overrule Leadpoint's hiring decisions, and, if 
the NLRB had certified the union with only the staffing agency, 
Leadpoint, as the employer, then collective bargaining would have been 
a waste of time because Leadpoint was contractually limited in its 
ability to bargain without BFI's permission.
  The BFI decision reinstated the common law definition of an employer, 
a precedent that had been in place at the NLRB for decades prior to 
1984. Critics contend that the BFI case threatens the independence of 
franchisees.

                              {time}  1645

  Well, first, the BFI decision states that it does not cover 
franchising. Second, there are no decisions where a franchisor has ever 
been held to be a joint employer with its franchisees under either law.
  Despite claims that H.R. 3441 would protect the independence of 
franchisees, legal experts point out that, under this bill, the bill 
actually insulates franchisors from liability, which leaves the 
franchisors free to exercise greater control over their franchisees' 
employee relations without liability.
  Under this bill, if a franchisor directs actions that could violate 
wage or labor laws, then the franchisee is forced to accept this shared 
control, without shared responsibility. For example, suppose the 
franchisor directs the franchisee to designate all of the employees as 
managers and refuse to pay them overtime and the court comes in and 
says overtime was owed, then the franchisee is stuck with the bill 
because the franchisor is not an employer under this bill. That is not 
fair to small businesses and it is not fair to franchisees.
  This legislation also creates perverse incentives by rewarding low-
road construction contractors who compete by outsourcing entities that 
drive down costs by stealing wages, not paying overtime, and other 
violations. A national coalition of construction contractors is warned 
that H.R. 3441 would ``further tilt the field of competition against 
honest, ethical businesses.''
  For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), the chief sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on 
this issue and for her continued leadership of our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a big day. Today is an opportunity for this 
House to stand up for our Nation's workers and to protect the small 
local businesses, which form the backbone of the American economy. 
Today is about restoring decades-old labor law. Ultimately, today is 
about giving clarity to workers and job creators all across our 
country.
  I have heard from our friends across the aisle that somehow someone 
can be an employee without there being an employer. I call that the 
immaculately conceived employee. There is no such thing under the law, 
nor has there ever been.
  This bill does not change the definition of employer. It simply takes 
the definition of joint employer back to the way it was a few years 
ago.
  It is a shame that we are even having to have this bill. But the 
activist National Labor Relations Board in 2015 issued a decision that 
fundamentally upended labor law as we knew it. This change didn't come 
through the democratically elected Congress, but, instead, from a panel 
of unelected bureaucrats.
  The NLRB's decision and the resulting regulatory agenda have caused 
deep uncertainty among job creators. For workers, they are left to 
wonder who their boss really is. That is an incredibly confusing 
situation to be in.
  Under the new joint employer standard, what does it mean to have 
``indirect'' or ``potential'' control over an employee?
  I have practiced labor and employment law for decades and I do not 
know what that means, so I can only imagine the confusion Main Street 
businesses are facing due to this standard.
  Currently, there are at least nine different legal tests nationwide 
to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
and more to come. This patchwork of standards creates regulatory 
uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple 
States.
  So, despite what some on the other side want to believe, this is not 
an abstract issue. I have visited numerous local businesses in my 
district, and they are very worried about this scheme. I have heard 
from workers who want to remain an employee of a locally owned business 
with an owner who knows them, instead of becoming just another employee 
in some large corporation.
  Clearly, I am not the only one who heard these concerns. This 
legislation is cosponsored by 123 of my colleagues, including Members 
from both sides of the aisle. This is a bipartisan issue because it 
isn't about politics. Instead, it is about saving jobs and supporting 
locally owned businesses.
  Let me make something crystal clear: this bill does not remove a 
single protection for today's workforce. Despite the scare tactics 
being used by big labor bosses and their trial lawyer friends, the same 
important protections exist under this legislation, and any 
irresponsible employer can be held accountable.

[[Page H8568]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to take the side of our 
locally owned businesses, to take the side of our small business job 
creators, and to take the side of American workers.
  Let's end the confusion and let's pass the Save Local Business Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
state that I agree with the gentleman when he says that no rights are 
reduced. The only problem is you can't have anybody that is liable to 
fulfill your benefits under whatever those rights are. If you are owed 
overtime, you are owed overtime. That is not reduced. It is just that 
nobody is there to pay it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Fudge).
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act, would 
fundamentally redefine the relationship between employers and 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, corporate profits and income inequality are at an all-
time high, yet we are debating a bill that would strip workers of their 
right to hold employers accountable, allowing corporations to further 
stifle wage growth and undermine collective bargaining. This is yet 
another Republican attempt to make the rich richer and the working 
people poorer, just like their tax bill. What we should be fighting for 
is a living wage and employee rights.
  My Republican colleagues say the law is ambiguous and we must act to 
save small businesses. The law is not ambiguous. They just don't like 
it because it holds businesses responsible and forces them to bargain 
with unions. This bill is an assault on workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Economic 
Policy Institute outlining how H.R. 3441 will ensure small businesses 
are left with sole responsibility for business practices often dictated 
by large corporations; and, in addition, a letter from the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters opposing this bill in support of 
workers protections.

                                    Economic Policy Institute,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives.
     Hon. Bobby C. Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House 
         of Representatives.
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of 
     the Economic Policy Institute Policy Center, we write to 
     express our strong opposition the H.R. 3441, the so-called 
     ``Save Local Business Act,'' which would do nothing to 
     protect small business owners or their workers. The Economic 
     Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank 
     founded in 1986, and our labor policy unit assesses actions 
     by Congress and federal agencies that impact workers and the 
     economy. We urge you to oppose this legislation.
       The so-called ``Save Local Business Act'' (H.R. 3441) would 
     roll back the joint employer standards under both the 
     National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act (FLSA). It has nothing to do with protecting 
     small businesses. In fact, the bill would ensure that small 
     businesses are left with sole responsibility for business 
     practices often mandated by large corporations like 
     franchisors. It would establish a joint employer standard 
     that lets big corporations avoid liability for labor and 
     employment violations and leaves small businesses on the 
     hook.
       Given the realities of the modern workplace, in which 
     employees often find themselves subject to more than one 
     employer, working people deserve a joint employer standard 
     that guarantees their rights and protections under basic 
     labor and employment laws. Instead, this bill would establish 
     a standard that makes it nearly impossible for workers whose 
     wages are stolen or who are fired for supporting a union to 
     get justice. By limiting employer responsibility to only 
     those firms who ``directly, actually, and immediately'' 
     exercise significant control over the essential terms and 
     conditions of employment, the bill would enable large firms 
     that contract for services to evade responsibility under both 
     the NLRA and the FLSA.
       When two or more businesses co-determine or share control 
     over a worker's pay, schedule, or job duties, then both of 
     those businesses should be considered employers. A weak joint 
     employer standard robs workers of their rights, making it 
     impossible for them to effectively collectively bargain or 
     litigate workplace disputes--and it leaves small businesses 
     holding the bag when the large corporations that control 
     their business practices and set their employees' schedules 
     violate labor law and refuse to come to the bargaining table. 
     If this committee wishes to support small businesses and the 
     workers they employ, then it should support a strong joint 
     employer standard rather than this legislation.
       Since the NLRB narrowed its joint employer standard in 
     1984, contingent and alternative workforce arrangements--
     including reliance on temporary staffing firms and 
     contractors to outsource services traditionally performed by 
     in-house workers--have grown dramatically. Recent estimates 
     find that 15.8 percent of workers were engaged in alternative 
     work arrangements in late 2015, or around 24 million workers 
     in today's labor market.
       The NLRB's 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries 
     addressed this issue, requiring all firms that control the 
     terms and conditions of employment to come to the bargaining 
     table, ensuring that workers are again able to engage in 
     their right to collective bargaining. Employers already face 
     only narrow liability under Browning-Ferris, and the Board 
     would examine the specific circumstances of each case before 
     making a determination. Nothing in the decision implies that 
     all employers in a specific industry will be found to be 
     joint employers under the NLRA.
       Similarly, the Wage & Hour Division's Administrator's 
     Interpretation on the joint employer standard under the FLSA 
     did not create any new policy; rather, it simply sought to 
     make clear for employers their responsibilities under 
     existing court law and opinion, and to provide the exact kind 
     of clarity and guidance to employers and the regulated 
     community that proponents of the H.R. 3441 purport to seek. 
     And yet, earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor 
     rescinded that Administrator's Interpretation, hiding it from 
     view.
       In spite of its title, H.R. 3441 does nothing to save local 
     businesses. Instead, it saves large corporations from any 
     responsibility for violations of the FLSA and NLRA. The 
     legislation leaves small businesses and their workers without 
     meaningful recourse. We urge you, your fellow Committee 
     members, and all Members of the House of Representatives to 
     oppose this bill.
           Sincerely,
     Celine McNicholas,
       Labor Counsel, Economic Policy Institute Policy Center.
     Heidi Shierholz,
       Senior Economist and Director of Policy, Economic Policy 
     Institute Policy Center.
                                  ____

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am writing 
     to express our vigorous opposition to H.R. 3441, the Save 
     Local Business Act. I strongly urge you to reject this 
     legislation.
       H.R. 3441 seeks to legislate around a century of consistent 
     case law and established joint employer standards in labor 
     and employment law. The bill redefines the term ``employer'' 
     so narrowly that many workers will have no remedy when their 
     employers violate wage laws or their rights to organize and 
     bargain collectively. We believe the legislation will 
     encourage ``gaming the system'' so that no one exercises 
     enough control to be liable as an employer.
       The legislation would overturn the National Labor Relations 
     Board (NLRB) Browning-Ferris decision and leave worker 
     protections weaker than they were prior to Congress adopting 
     the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935. On August 
     27, 2015, the NLRB, in its Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) 
     decision, affirmed the basic principle that two or more 
     employers are joint employers of the same employees if they 
     are both employers under common law and they ``share or co-
     determine those matters governing the essential terms and 
     conditions of employment.'' H.R. 3441 would overturn this 
     decision and allow employers to evade their responsibility to 
     engage in meaningful collective bargaining.
       The BFI case involves a labor-only, cost-plus staffing 
     contract under which BFI has subcontracted the employment 
     relationship only to a staffing agency, Leadpoint. BFI owns 
     the facility and equipment on which Leadpoint's employees 
     work; it directs the quality and quantity of work performed 
     by Leadpoint workers.
       BFI oversees operations with its own personnel and retains 
     authority to approve or reject Leadpoint's workers. Leadpoint 
     can only pay its workers amounts that comply with its 
     staffing agreement with BFI. As the NLRB noted, the Union 
     ``assert(ed) that absent a change in the joint-employer 
     standard, a putative employer, like BFI, that is a necessary 
     party to meaningful collective bargaining will continue to 
     insulate itself by the `calculated restructuring of 
     employment and insertion of a contractor to insulate itself 
     from the basic legal obligation to recognize and bargain with 
     employees' representative.''
       The NLRB joint employer decision is not a dramatic 
     departure from existing law. It does not upend business as we 
     know it, nor does it undermine the franchise business model, 
     as many have claimed. Current law balances the interests of 
     workers and employers by requiring a fact specific inquiry to 
     determine whether or not there is a joint

[[Page H8569]]

     employer relationship. The NLRB joint employer decision in 
     the BFI case is fact specific and clarifies the joint 
     employment standard.
       Workers at BFI/Leadpoint chose to exercise their right to 
     determine whether they wanted to organize and bargain 
     collectively. Workers voted and the ballots from that 
     election were impounded pending a decision in the BFI case. 
     After the NLRB issued its decision, the ballots were counted. 
     The BFI/Leadpoint workers decisively declared their desire to 
     bargain collectively by voting 4-1 in favor of Teamster 
     representation. The NLRB ruling will allow these (and other) 
     workers to negotiate with and hold accountable the employer 
     which actually controls the terms and conditions of their 
     jobs. This legislation will deny them the ability to do so.
       Not only would H.R. 3441 overturn the BFI decision, the 
     bill would also drastically change the definition of 
     employment relationships under the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (FLSA). The FLSA currently recognizes that more than one 
     business can be an employer. Thus, an employer cannot hide 
     behind labor contractors, brokers, or others. For example, 
     while there are many responsible employers in the 
     construction industry, it is well known that abusive schemes 
     are far too prevalent in this industry as well as others. 
     Contractors use subcontractors or labor brokers who 
     intentionally misclassify workers as independent contractors 
     or pay them ``off the books'' to the disadvantage of 
     responsible employers. We believe this legislation will serve 
     as an incentive for worker misclassification to defeat 
     employment and labor law, as well as facilitate tax 
     avoidance.
       Because the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers 
     Protection Act (MSAWPA) refers to the definition of 
     ``employ'' in the FLSA, H.R. 3441 will have an adverse effect 
     on the ability of workers covered by the MSAWPA to 
     effectively enforce child labor laws, and seek redress for 
     wage theft and other employment abuses.
       Again, H.R. 3441 would leave worker protections weaker than 
     when Congress adopted the FLSA in 1938.
       This legislation will fuel a race to the bottom for 
     workers' rights, wages, benefits and workings conditions. 
     Working men and women have fought long and hard for the 
     rights and protections they now have under the National Labor 
     Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. H.R. 3441 is 
     another in a series of intensifying attacks by those who want 
     to return to the era when working men and women were without 
     rights, protections, and a voice in the workplace.
       You will fail these workers if you do not reject H.R. 3441. 
     I hope I can tell our members that you stood with them and 
     other workers in their efforts to achieve and maintain 
     meaningful worker rights and protections. The Teamsters Union 
     urges you to vote no on H.R. 3441.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa.
                                                General President.

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 
3441. Let's get back to fighting for the people we were sent here to 
serve.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3441, the Save Local 
Business Act.
  For hardworking men and women in this country, one of the most 
important relationships they develop in the workplace is the 
relationship they have with their employer. This relationship is 
paramount to every worker's success. It is a relationship that impacts 
their paycheck, their schedule, their benefits, and the future of their 
career.
  Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, we repeatedly saw 
government bureaucrats pursue regulatory policies that harmed workers 
and small businesses. The National Labor Relations Board's decision in 
Browning-Ferris is a prime example.
  In that decision, the Board placed itself squarely in the middle of 
the employer-employee relationship by redefining what it means to be a 
joint employer.
  The Education and the Workforce Committee has been fighting to roll 
back this extreme joint employer scheme since it first took effect, and 
for good reason. It discarded settled labor policy and blurred the 
lines of responsibility for decisions affecting the daily operations of 
local businesses across this country. Quite simply, the scheme is a 
threat to jobs, entrepreneurship, and local employers across the 
country.
  I have heard from small businesses and franchises across my district 
about how the new joint employer scheme will upend small businesses, 
undermine their independence, and put jobs, livelihoods, and dreams at 
risk.
  It is time to settle once and for all what constitutes a joint 
employer, not through arbitrary and misguided NLRB decisions and 
rulings by activist judges, but through legislation. The Save Local 
Business Act will roll back this unworkable scheme and restore the same 
straightforward joint employer test that workers and job creators 
relied on for decades.
  The Save Local Business Act is about providing certainty for job 
creators in each and every one of our districts. It is about keeping 
the American Dream within reach.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3441.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3441, the 
so-called Save Local Business Act.
  This bill virtually eliminates joint employer liability under the 
National Labor Relations Act and under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As 
my colleagues have highlighted, there are numerous unintended 
consequences presented by this bill.
  I want to highlight the impact on an often overlooked segment of our 
workforce: our Nation's farmworkers.
  Farmworkers are among our Nation's most vulnerable workers. 
Farmworkers work long hours in poor conditions for low pay. Many 
farmworkers are undocumented and subject to severe abuse. The Migrant 
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act is the principal labor 
statute protecting agriculture workers and establishes wage, health, 
safety, and recordkeeping standards for both seasonal and temporary 
farmworkers. Joint employment standards under this law and the Fair 
Labor Standards Act are vital to protecting the rights and protections 
afforded to these workers.
  Oftentimes, farmworkers are recruited, hired, supervised, or 
transported by intermediaries, sometimes referred to as farm labor 
contractors. Farm operators utilizing farm labor contractors maintain 
control over working conditions seeking to ensure the financial success 
of their operation.
  Despite this shared responsibility, farm operators may argue that the 
farm labor contractors they engage are the farmworkers' sole employer 
responsible for compliance. Farm labor contractors are often thinly 
capitalized. This means if a farmworker seeks redress for a violation, 
he or she may not be able to collect from the farm labor contractors. 
Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 
joint employer liability helps ensure covered workers can also hold 
liability from farm operators that share responsibility.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. By amending the Fair Labor Standards Act's broad 
definition of ``employ'' and creating a new extremely narrow definition 
of ``joint employer,'' H.R. 3441 upends the Fair Labor Standards Act's 
joint employer framework upon which we rely on.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from Farmworker 
Justice in opposition to this bill.

Statememt on ``Save Local Business Act,'' House Education and Workforce 
 Committee--Bruce Goldstein, President, Farmworker Justice, October 2, 
                                  2017

       Farmworker Justice appreciates the opportunity to submit 
     this statement to the House Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy, education 
     and litigation organization for farmworkers founded in 1981 
     and based in Washington, D.C. Farmworker Justice has played a 
     leading role in advocacy, education and litigation regarding 
     the joint employer concept to remedy and prevent labor 
     abuses. I am President of Farmworker Justice and have 37 
     years of experience as an attorney, including at the National 
     Labor Relations Board, Legal Services, in private practice 
     and at this organization.
       Farmworker Justice opposes the ``Save Local Business Act,'' 
     HR 3441 because it would remove an important mechanism to 
     protect farmworkers and other low-wage workers from suffering 
     violations of the minimum wage and child labor requirements. 
     The bill would make it extremely difficult to hold two 
     businesses jointly liable as ``joint employers'' of the same 
     worker or group of workers. This bill, if enacted, would 
     result in massive violations of the minimum wage and other 
     labor abuses that would harm farmworkers and harm the 
     reputation of the entire agricultural sector.
       This bill, if enacted, would reverse more than 130 years of 
     knowledge developed in the

[[Page H8570]]

     quest to eradicate sweatshops. The Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938, which sets minimum wage, overtime, and child labor 
     standards, adopted a definition of employment relationships 
     based on 50 years of experience under state laws that evolved 
     to address employers' efforts to evade child labor and other 
     labor laws.
       During the mid- to late-1800's states adopted laws to 
     regulate and limit the hours of employment of children and 
     quickly confronted employers' efforts to evade the laws. 
     Business owners that operated a manufacturing plant would 
     claim that the children in the plant were employed solely by 
     a subcontractor within the plant or had been brought to the 
     plant by a parent or sibling and therefore should not be 
     considered to have ``employed'' the child. Even if the 
     subcontractor or parent were punished, in the absence of 
     liability on the part of the plant operator it would suffer 
     no adverse impact and would be free to find another 
     subcontractor or parent to bring children to do the work. In 
     addition, often a labor contractor lack sufficient assets to 
     pay a court judgement, leaving workers remedy-less.
       One of the responses of state legislatures was to adopt a 
     broad definition of employment relationships that imposed 
     employer status on the larger business owner even where there 
     existed a labor intermediary. Numerous states adopted 
     language defining employment relationships that later became 
     the model for the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
       The state laws and the FLSA defined employers as entities 
     that directly or indirectly employed a worker and defined the 
     word ``employ'' as including not just the restrictive common 
     law definition's ``right to control test'' but also as ``to 
     suffer or permit to work.'' 29 USC Sec. 203(g). To ``suffer'' 
     in this context means to acquiesce in, passively allow or to 
     fail to prevent the worker's work.
       This broad definition imposed liability on a company that 
     had the power to prevent the work of the worker from 
     happening and denied the business the ability to hide its 
     head in the sand about what was happening in its business, 
     including where it utilized labor contractors or other 
     intermediaries which were considered employers of those 
     workers. See Goldstein et al., ``Enforcing Fair Labor 
     Standards in the Modern American Sweatshop: Rediscovering the 
     Statutory Definition of Employment,'' 46 UCLA Law Review 983 
     (1999). The purpose of establishing joint responsibility is 
     also reflected in FLSA's definition of ``employer,'' 29 USC 
     Sec. 203(d), `` 'Employer' includes any person acting 
     directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in 
     relation to an employee.''
       The facts in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 
     Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) 
     illustrate the concept. A slaughterhouse company retained a 
     contractor to assemble a crew of workers to de-bone meat in a 
     special room within the slaughterhouse. The Department of 
     Labor sued the defendant company for recordkeeping and 
     overtime violations. The company denied that it employed the 
     meat de-boners, arguing that the contractor was their sole 
     employer. The Court found that the definition of employment 
     relationships in the FLSA imposed liability on the 
     slaughterhouse.
       The Save Local Business Act would alter the longstanding 
     meaning of employment relationships under the FLSA and the 
     National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA excludes agricultural 
     workers from its protections, so I will focus on the FLSA. 
     The FLSA's minimum wage applies to farmworkers on most (but 
     not all) larger farms; small farms generally are excluded 
     from the minimum wage. 29 USC 213(a)(6). Agricultural workers 
     are excluded from overtime pay. 29 USC Sec. 213(b)(13)-(16). 
     FLSA prohibits certain types of child labor although it 
     allows large agricultural employers, as well as small family 
     farms, to employ children at younger ages than is allowed in 
     other occupations. Id. at (c)(1)-(2).
       The bill would set criteria so onerous that it would be 
     rare for two businesses that shared responsibilities 
     regarding workers to be held to be joint employers; just one 
     business would be held to be an employer. Because the Migrant 
     and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) refers 
     to the definition of ``employ'' in the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act, the proposed law may also apply to AWPA. 29 USC 
     Sec. 1802(5). AWPA is the principal federal employment law 
     for farmworkers, regulating employment contracts and the use 
     of farm labor contractors.
       Many agricultural workers suffer violations of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and other basic labor 
     protections. Often, when such workers try to remedy illegal 
     employment practices, they run into a problem: the farm 
     operator that really determines their job terms and has the 
     capacity to prevent abuses, denies that it is their 
     ``employer'' for purposes of the minimum wage and other labor 
     protections. Instead, the farm operator claims that a ``farm 
     labor contractor'' or other intermediary is the sole 
     ``employer'' of the farmworkers on its farm. Often a labor 
     contractor competes for business by promising low labor costs 
     and when sued by victimized workers cannot afford to pay a 
     court judgment.
       In most such cases, the definition of employment 
     relationships in the FLSA enables courts and the Department 
     of Labor to ensure compliance with the law by considering the 
     farm operator and the farm labor contractor to be ``joint 
     employers'' and jointly responsible for meeting FLSA's 
     obligations. This issue has been the subject of numerous 
     lawsuits in which farm operators have been held to be joint 
     employers with their farm labor contractors.
       This Committee played a historic role in addressing abuses 
     of migrant workers at the hands of farm operators and their 
     labor contractors and recognized the importance of the joint 
     employer concept in ensuring a law-abiding, prosperous 
     agricultural sector. The Farm Labor Contractor Registration 
     Act of 1964 was passed in part in response to the powerful 
     documentary by Edward R. Murrow, ``Harvest of Shame'' that 
     aired during Thanksgiving weekend in 1960. Congress revised 
     its provisions and replaced it with the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act of 1983, 29 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1801 et seq. At the heart of this Committee's motivation 
     was ensuring joint employer responsibility.
       ``This broad scope of joint employment--and joint employer 
     liability--is one of the AWPA's most important features. The 
     AWPA's legislative history indicates that Congress considered 
     the joint employer doctrine ``a central foundation'' of this 
     new law. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 500.20(h)(5)(ii); citing House 
     Report, n.2 at 4552. It is the ``indivisible hinge'' that 
     allows workers to hold accountable all those responsible for 
     violating the AWPA's protections. Id, citing H.R. Rep. 97-
     885, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.1, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
     4547, 4552 (1982) (``House Report'').
       The economic reality is that few farm operators will risk 
     their profitability and the survival of their business by 
     delegating all responsibility to a labor contractor. Most 
     farm operators who engage labor intermediaries exercise 
     substantial decision-making regarding the impact of 
     subcontracted workers on their business. If strawberries or 
     grapes are harvested when they are over-ripe or under-ripe, 
     are subjected to pathogens transmitted on the footwear or 
     hands of farmworkers, or are not handled carefully to prevent 
     bruising, huge financial losses could result. A farm operator 
     generally makes these and other major decisions to ensure its 
     profitability, even if it uses a farm labor contractor, 
     instead of its own supervisor, to ensure that its decisions 
     are carried out. Such farm operators should not be able to 
     avoid complying with the minimum wage or child labor 
     requirements by blaming a labor contractor as the sole 
     employer. In most cases, there is shared responsibility among 
     the farm operator and the labor contractor so that the 
     workers on the farm ensure the profitability of that 
     business. That shared responsibility means shared liability 
     is appropriate.
       The joint employer concept does not deprive farms or other 
     businesses of the ability or right to engage labor 
     contractors or other intermediaries such as staffing 
     agencies. Nor does it prevent businesses from entering into 
     agreements that require labor contractors to comply with all 
     employment-law obligations, purchase liability insurance 
     against employment-law claims and hold the larger business 
     harmless for any litigation and liability that may result.
       Joint employer liability creates an incentive to ensure 
     that a business selects its labor contractors, as well as its 
     directly-hired supervisors, wisely and ensures compliance 
     with employment laws. In addition to ensuring protections for 
     workers, joint employer liability helps protect law-abiding 
     businesses from unfair competition by unscrupulous employers 
     that keep their labor costs low by using labor contractors 
     that violate employment-related obligations. The joint 
     employer concept is an important, longstanding approach to 
     minimizing sweatshops and its elimination would result in a 
     return to an era in which sweatshops are more prevalent.
       The joint employer concept also helps create consumer 
     confidence regarding their purchases. People want to feel 
     good about the food they eat. Agriculture has a reputation 
     for poor treatment of farmworkers that would be exacerbated 
     by the increases in abuses that would flow from this 
     legislation.
       Congress should reject the Save Local Business Act because 
     it contradicts 130 years of experience in preventing 
     sweatshops in factories and at least 50 years of consensus 
     regarding policies needed to remedy and prevent abuses of the 
     people who labor on our farms and ranches to produce our 
     food.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar), I want to take just a minute to express my deepest 
sympathy to him, as the representative of the people of Sutherland 
Springs, for this Sunday's tragic events. He is here today to do the 
job they sent him to do, but we all know his heart is very much in that 
community. I thank him for being here, and I hope he knows that so many 
people are praying for him and the people he represents.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her condolences 
and her prayers for Sutherland Springs.
  Mr. Speaker, I also thank Mr. Byrne and, of course, Chairman Foxx, 
for their work on this particular bill. I thank Mr. Correa, Mr. 
Peterson, and the other supporters of this legislation.
  Prior to August 2015, the joint employer standard used by the NLRB

[[Page H8571]]

made it easy to understand who is and who is not a joint employer. For 
decades, a joint employer relationship existed when one company 
exercised ``direct and immediate'' control over another company's 
workforce.
  However, as you know, under the case Browning-Ferris Industries, the 
NLRB departed from many years of legal precedent in August of 2015 by 
establishing a new, expanded joint employer standard. This standard 
could trigger employer liability by a company exercising vaguely 
defined indirect control over an employee.
  We have heard from local businesses from my district and across the 
State of Texas, and it is clear that this decision is causing them 
significant confusion.
  In my district--let's say in Laredo, Texas, there is a local 
restaurant owner who says that his restaurant currently employs close 
to 1,000 local employees.

                              {time}  1700

  This expanded joint employer standard has limited his investment in 
his business and the number of workers that he has. Reverting back to 
the former joint employer standard that we had for so many years would 
allow him to hire the employees that he needs to hire and reinvest 
money.
  This new expanded standard makes it difficult for local franchisees 
like this one in Laredo to offer the employer relationship support from 
franchisers for the fear that these benefits could be used against them 
in a joint employer lawsuit.
  Those fears are well founded. For example, the Progressive Policy 
Institute, known for its pragmatic ideas, says that the expansion of 
this joint employer doctrine ``may do more harm than good.''
  This is why I am supporting this legislation. We are asking that it 
revert back to the legal standard that we used for many years.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and 
for his continued leadership on behalf of America's workers.
  Mr. Speaker, more and more employees today are working for a company 
whose name is not on the front of their office building. Instead of 
hiring employees directly, companies are renting employees from 
staffing agencies. Let me say that again. Companies are renting 
employees from staffing agencies and then evading responsibility for 
upholding the rights of those workers, even as they profit from their 
work.
  For decades, sensible joint employment standards under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act have ensured that workers can hold employers accountable 
for violating wage and hour laws.
  Instead of refining those standards to reflect the complex 
relationship between workers and employers in today's economy, this 
legislation sets a dramatically and intentionally narrow standard so 
that no large corporation can be held accountable if their contractors 
violate workplace laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a letter of support in the Record, a letter by 
the National Employment Law Project and signed by more than 200 
organizations opposing H.R. 3441 because it opens the door to 
widespread wage theft and hurts law-abiding small businesses.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Scott,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, Chairwoman Foxx and 
     Ranking Member Scott: The undersigned organizations write in 
     opposition to H.R. 3441, the so-called Save Local Business 
     Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 
     and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to prevent 
     workers from holding more than one employer jointly 
     accountable for wage theft, child labor, equal pay 
     violations, or unfair labor practices even when the employers 
     jointly exercise and share control over working conditions.
       Under our nation's long-standing laws dating back as far as 
     the late 1800s, employers who share control with their 
     subcontractors over working conditions may also share 
     accountability as joint employers for violations of workers' 
     rights so that they will provide better oversight of working 
     conditions, and in so doing, ensure broader compliance with 
     basic labor and employment laws.
       H.R. 3441 seeks to dramatically narrow the long-standing 
     definitions of ``employer'' in the FLSA and NLRA and it is 
     neither good for workers nor for law-abiding businesses.


 H.R. 3441 opens the door to widespread wage theft and worker harms in 
   occupations across the economy, including in our nation's growth 
                               industries

       The bill would undermine protections for millions of 
     workers across the economy, especially in low-wage sectors 
     where subcontracting is common: construction, agriculture, 
     garment, janitorial, home care, delivery and logistics, 
     warehousing, retail, temp and staffing, and manufacturing, 
     just to name a few.
       Wage theft and other workplace dangers are prevalent in 
     many of these jobs, and even under current law, millions of 
     workers today are no longer sure who their boss is--and 
     indeed, have no way to navigate the intricacies of companies' 
     contracting relationships to ascertain who is responsible for 
     workplace violations. When there's no clear line of 
     accountability, work conditions are more likely to 
     deteriorate: pay declines, wage theft increases, and 
     workplace injuries rise. In addition, outsourced jobs pay 
     less--sometimes as much as 30 percent less--than in-house 
     jobs, likely due to a lack of worker and subcontractor 
     bargaining power. In today's economy, we should be looking 
     for ways to increase workers' pay and economic security, not 
     laying the groundwork for more sweatshops.
       When a subcontractor cannot pay, joint employer standards 
     ensure that workers have remedies against the contracting 
     company for the legal violations. Workers should be able to 
     recover when cheated out of wages, exposed to dangerous 
     working conditions, or otherwise treated unlawfully.
        This bill would also impede workers from bringing equal 
     pay claims to close the gender pay gap. Because the Equal Pay 
     Act is a part of the FLSA, and uses the FLSA's definition of 
     an employer, H.R. 3441 would make it harder for subcontracted 
     workers to hold their employers accountable for gender-based 
     pay discrimination.


    The bill actually hurts, not helps, law-abiding small businesses

       Although framed as a bill to help protect the independence 
     of small businesses, including those that operate as 
     franchisees, the bill would in fact insulate corporations, 
     including franchisors, from liability. Unscrupulous 
     businesses that employ abusive labor contractors to cheat 
     workers would gain a competitive advantage over law-abiding 
     businesses. In addition, franchisees whose business practices 
     are all but dictated to them by larger corporations will be 
     hung out to dry for decisions that aren't their own, without 
     any indemnification from the entity that often all but forces 
     labor and employment violations on them.
       Corporations that engage low-road contractors and then look 
     the other way gain an unfair advantage over companies that 
     play by the rules, resulting in a race to the bottom that 
     rewards cheaters. It's one reason why the job quality of what 
     were formerly middle-class jobs in America is suffering 
     today. Working people struggle enough in today's economy.
       Don't let Congress make this worse by legislatively rigging 
     the system in favor of corporations that don't care about the 
     workers who build their businesses. Oppose H.R. 3441.
           Sincerely,
         9to5 Colorado; 9to5 Wisconsin; 9to5, National Assoc of 
           Working Women; A Better Balance; Advocates for Basic 
           Legal Equality, Inc.; AFL-CIO; American Federation of 
           State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); 
           American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; Arizona 
           Employment Lawyers Association; Asian American Legal 
           Defense and Education Fund; Barkan Meizlish LLP; 
           Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local 3 MA/ME/NH/RI; 
           California Employment Lawyers Association; Center for 
           Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Popular 
           Democracy; Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa.
         Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM); Centro 
           Legal de la Raza; Change to Win; Chicago Jobs Council; 
           Cincinnati Interfaith Workers Center; Coalition for 
           Social Justice; Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
           Coalition on Human Needs; Colorado Fiscal Institute; 
           Columbia Legal Services, Washington State; 
           Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community 
           Labor United; Community Legal Services in East Palo 
           Alto; Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; 
           Community, Faith & Labor Coalition, Indianapolis; 
           Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good 
           Shepherd, US Provinces.
         Congregation of Our Lady of the Good Shepherd, US 
           Provinces; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; Council on 
           American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Democratic 
           Socialists of America; Demos; Disciples Center for 
           Public Witness (Disciples of Christ); Economic Policy 
           Institute Policy Center; Economic Progress Institute; 
           El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas; 
           Employee Rights Center; Equal Justice Center;

[[Page H8572]]

           Equal Rights Advocates; Fair Work Center; Fair World 
           Project; Faith and Justice Worker Center; Family Values 
           @ Work; Farmworker Association of Florida.
         Farmworker Justice; Florida Legal Services, Inc.; Food 
           Chain Workers Alliance; Forward Community Investments; 
           Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on 
           National Legislation; Fuerza del Valle Workers' Center; 
           Fuerza Laboral; Futures Without Violence; Genesis 
           Masonry Contracting, LLC; Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC; 
           Good Jobs First; Good Jobs Nation; Greater Boston Legal 
           Services; Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc.
         Greater Rochester Coalition for Immigration Justice; 
           Greater SE Mass Labor Council; Hardin & Hughes, LLP; 
           Head Law Firm, LLC; Hudson Valley Justice Center; 
           Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Casa DuPage Workers 
           Center; Immigrant Worker Center Collaborative (IWCC); 
           In The Public Interest; Indianapolis Worker Justice 
           Center; Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice of 
           South Central WI; Interfaith Worker Justice; 
           International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International 
           Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers 
           (IFPTE); International Union of Painters and Allied 
           Trades District Council 35; IWJSD.
         Jewish Community Relations Council, Milwaukee; Jobs With 
           Justice; Justice in Motion; Kansas City Workers' Rights 
           Board of Missouri Jobs with Justice; Kentucky Equal 
           Justice Center; Kids for College; Kids Forward; Labor 
           Justice Committee; Labor Project for Working Families; 
           Laundry Workers Center; Lebau and Neuworth; The 
           Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Legal 
           Aid at Work; The Legal Aid Society.
         Legal Services of Central New York; Legal Voice; Local 3, 
           Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen; Los Angeles Alliance 
           for a New Economy; Madison-area Urban Ministry; Main 
           Street Alliance; Maine Labor Group on Health; Maine 
           Women's Lobby; Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund; 
           Massachusetts Coalition of Domestic Workers; 
           Massachusetts Interfaith Worker Justice; Massachusetts 
           Law Reform Institute; MassCOSH (Massachusetts Coalition 
           for Occupational Safety & Health); Mechanic Law Firm, 
           Portland OR; Metrowest Worker Center; Miami Workers 
           Center.
         Michigan League for Public Policy; Missouri Jobs with 
           Justice; Moms Rising; NAACP; National Advocacy Center 
           of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Asian 
           Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF); National 
           Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center 
           for Transgender Equality; National Council for 
           Occupational Safety and Health; National Council of 
           Churches; National Domestic Worker Alliance; National 
           Education Association; National Employment Law Project; 
           National Employment Lawyers Association; National 
           Guestworker Alliance; National Immigration Law Center.
         National LGBTQ Task Force; National Partnership for Women 
           & Families; National Women's Law Center; National 
           Workrights Institute; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social 
           Justice; New Haven Legal Assistance; New Jersey Citizen 
           Action; New Jersey Policy Perspective; New Jersey Time 
           to Care Coalition; New Jersey Work Environment Council; 
           New Labor; New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty; New 
           Mexico Voices for Children; North Carolina Justice 
           Center; NWA Workers' Justice Center; Oregon Center for 
           Public Policy.
         Oxfam America; Patriotic Millionaires; Phillips Dayes Law 
           Firm PC; Pilipino Workers Center of Southern 
           California; Policy Matters Ohio; PolicyLink; Pride at 
           Work; Progressive Congress Action Fund; Project IRENE; 
           Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; Restaurant 
           Opportunities Centers United; Safe Harbor Law, LLC; 
           Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; SE Mass 
           Building Trades Council; SEIU Local 888.
         Service Employees International Union; South Central 
           Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; South Florida AFL-CIO; 
           South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice; Southern 
           Poverty Law Center; St. Louis Workers Rights Board, 
           Missouri Jobs with Justice; Stephan Zouras, LLP; 
           Teamsters Joint Council 7; Teamsters Local Union 350; 
           Teamsters Local Union 469; The Commonwealth Institute 
           for Fiscal Analysis (Virginia); The Law Offices of 
           Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC; The North Dakota Economic 
           Security and Prosperity Alliance; The Rhode Island 
           Center for Justice; The Stolarz Law Firm; The Warehouse 
           Worker Resource Center.
         UltraViolet; Union for Reform Judaism; Union of Rutgers 
           Administrators, AFT Local 1766; Unitarian Universalist 
           Association; United Auto Workers (UAW); United 
           Community Center of Westchester, Inc.; United Food and 
           Commercial Workers International Labor Union; United 
           Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1445; United 
           Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 
           Energy, Allied; Industrial and Services Workers 
           International Union (USW); Washington State Budget & 
           Policy Center; Wayne Action for Racial Equality; 
           WeCount!; Werman Salas PC; West Virginia Center on 
           Budget and Policy; Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.
         Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans; Wisconsin 
           Alliance for Women's Health; Wisconsin Coalition 
           Against Sexual Assault; Wisconsin Community Program 
           Association (WISCAP); Wisconsin Council of Churches; 
           Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice; Wisconsin Network 
           for Peace, Justice, and Sustainability; Women Employed; 
           Women's Law Project; Workers' Center of Central New 
           York; Workers Defense Project; Workers' Rights Center 
           of Madison WI; Workers' Rights Project, Main Street 
           Legal Services. Inc; Working Families Party; Working 
           Partnerships USA; Workplace Fairness; Workplace Justice 
           Project at Loyola College of Law Clinic; Worksafe; WV 
           Citizen Action Group; Yezbak Law Offices.

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, from 2001 to 2013, Wal-Mart was contracting 
with three warehouses in my community, and those warehouses contracted 
out their staffing to a company that was accused of committing 
egregious wage and hour law violations.
  Thanks to the FLSA joint employer standard, 1,700 warehouse workers 
were able to reach a $22 million settlement to collect the pay that 
they were owed from their employer. Under this bill, they would likely 
have gotten nothing.
  The questions we face today are: Will millions of workers, like the 
warehouse workers in my district, lose what little power they have left 
to fight against wage theft; will organized workers lose the basic 
right to bring all responsible parties to the table to collectively 
bargain for better wages and workplaces; will shrewd corporations be 
allowed to claim immunity from the laws that protect employees; and, 
most of all, will the people's House stand with the people or stand 
with the corporations that continue to rig the economy against the 
American worker?
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3441.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), the chair of the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3441, 
and I want to commend our colleague, Mr. Byrne, for sponsoring this 
legislation. I also want to commend Chairwoman Foxx for her leadership 
on this very important issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
myself.
  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I have had the 
opportunity to see firsthand how the National Labor Relations Board's 
new joint employer standard threatens the ability of small-business 
owners to remain independent and responsible for their own employees.
  At a Small Business Committee hearing last year, an Army combat 
veteran and small-business owner testified that: ``Local business 
owners may effectively be demoted from entrepreneur to middle manager, 
as they are gradually forced to forfeit operational control of the 
stores, clubs, inns, or restaurants that they built.''
  At the same hearing, another small-business owner testified that: ``I 
would cease to be an independent small-business owner . . . ultimately, 
I would become a de facto employee of the corporate brand.''
  These are merely two examples of the consequences real American 
small-business owners face because of the decisions of Washington 
bureaucrats and activist judges. The Obama-era joint employer scheme 
threatens small businesses, the engines of American economic growth.
  Small businesses, after all, create the majority of the new jobs in 
this Nation; they spur innovation.
  Enacting this legislation would help ensure continued freedom for 
America's best job creators.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3441. Passage of 
this legislation is necessary to restore certainty to America's small-
business owners and their employees so that they can continue to 
operate their businesses locally and independently.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of 
opposition, one from the North America's

[[Page H8573]]

Building Trades Unions, and one from the United Brotherhood of 
Carpenters and Joiners of America.

                                          North America's Building


                                                Trades Unions,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million skilled 
     craft professionals who comprise the 14 national and 
     international unions of North America's Building Trades 
     Unions (NABTU), I urge your opposition to H.R. 3441, the Save 
     Local Business Act. If enacted this piece of legislation 
     would have a devastating impact on the construction industry 
     which is dependent upon a variety of contractor and 
     subcontractor relationships.
       Unfortunately, many low road contractors in the 
     construction industry are becoming increasingly skilled in 
     shielding themselves from legal liabilities through layers of 
     subcontractors. Contractors use subcontractors or labor 
     brokers that either pay their employees off the books or 
     intentionally misclassify them as 1099 subcontractors. When 
     that is done, income taxes are not deducted, and Social 
     Security and Medicare taxes are not paid, as well as 
     unemployment contributions, workers' compensation premium and 
     overtime.
       H.R. 3441 purports to save businesses by making it 
     extremely difficult for the National Labor Relations Board 
     (NLRB) and U.S. Department of Labor to find employers jointly 
     liable for violations of the law. If enacted it would have 
     the unintended consequence of promoting a low road 
     contracting model in which those who willfully commit labor 
     violations are unaccountable, to the disadvantage of law-
     abiding employers and their employees.
       This piece of legislation would further induce bad actors 
     to perfect their efforts to undermine the labor standards in 
     our industry, making it more challenging for American workers 
     to achieve access to the middle class. It would also create a 
     competitive disadvantage to high road contractors who obey 
     the law. As such, I strongly urge your opposition to this 
     harmful legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sean McGarvey,
     President.
                                  ____

         United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2017.
     Re Opposition to HR 3441, the Save Local Business Act.

     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: I write to 
     respectfully express our opposition to HR 3441, the Save 
     Local Business Act, because it will provide a safe haven for 
     unscrupulous contractors in the construction industry who use 
     a system of subcontractors to deliberately shield themselves 
     from liability for abusing workers and stealing jobs away 
     from law-abiding businesses, even as they knowingly profit 
     from it.
       Regrettably, while most companies in the construction 
     industry are legitimate, responsible employers, we are also 
     home to many who excel in illegal employment practices. This 
     fact is well known and widely acknowledged. The trend is for 
     contractors to use subcontractors or labor brokers who either 
     intentionally misclassify employees as independent 
     contractors or, more often, pay employees off the books. They 
     find two benefits in their schemes. First, through violating 
     wage, tax, immigration, workers' compensation and other 
     employment laws, they can shave up to 30 percent off of their 
     labor costs and underbid law-abiding businesses. Second, if 
     laws are enforced, contractors use the subcontract 
     relationship as a shield against liability and replace 
     offending subcontractors or labor brokers with others that 
     will do the same.
       There is one vulnerability to their schemes. Under the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and National Labor Relations Act 
     (NLRA) these contractors are frequently joint employers with 
     their subcontractors or labor brokers. The contractors keep 
     time, supply building materials, discharge workers, provide 
     training and daily supervision.
       H.R. 3441 closes that door by making it exceedingly 
     difficult to find joint-employer liability. Under the bill, 
     businesses cannot be joint employers unless they have direct, 
     actual and immediate control over the essential terms and 
     conditions of employment--a remarkable reversal of decades of 
     law. Moreover, a contractor and labor broker need only split 
     up responsibility over essential terms, and joint employment 
     is defeated. Indeed, it is arguable that under such an 
     arrangement there may be no employer at all.
       It cannot be forgotten that construction contractors that 
     scheme to cheat workers out of overtime, wages and the right 
     to collective action also fail to comply with federal and 
     state employment tax laws. In Texas alone federal tax losses 
     from cheating contractors has been estimated to cost the 
     federal government over 81 billion.
       This is not to suggest that legitimate, law-abiding 
     contractors should not use subcontractors, or that there are 
     not thousands of legitimate, law-abiding contractors and 
     independent contractors across this country. But it must be 
     recognized that abusive subcontracting schemes as described 
     above are also prevalent in our industry and that this bill 
     would make it even harder to crack down on these illegal 
     practices.
       Despite its name, HR 3441 is a blue print to violate the 
     law and drive law-abiding employers out of business and make 
     it more difficult for working men and women to reach the 
     middle class. The law needs to protect workers and 
     responsible businesses--not put them in jeopardy.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Douglas J. McCarron,
                                                General President.

  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3441, which is 
falsely called Save Local Business Act. The new name should be ``Crush 
Local Workers Act.''
  I am happy to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
I look forward to helping small businesses and helping them raise 
wages, but this bill does neither. It empowers corporations, and it 
depresses wages.
  Employers are relying more and more on subcontractors and permanent 
temporaries. These temporary staffing agencies employ around 3 million 
people. That is about one-fifth of all the new jobs created since 2009.
  I have fought to raise wages for over two decades for workers. This 
bill lets corporations keep wages low by subcontracting out their work. 
They are subcontracting their conscience to put profits over people.
  This bill makes it nearly impossible for workers to hold temporary 
staffing agencies responsible for unfair labor practices or wage theft. 
It denies employees a voice in the workplace. It prevents workers from 
joining unions, collective bargaining, which go ultimately to help 
raise wages.
  We should be lifting workers' wages up, not trying to crush them.
  I will remind our colleagues that, from 1930 to 1984, the courts were 
the ones who were making these joint employer decisions, and it was 
Ronald Reagan's administration who first made this change. It was the 
Reagan administration who first made this change.
  The Obama administration brought it back to where it was, yet, 
apparently, people are forgetting those very important facts.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
crush local workers act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the distinguished chair of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3441, the Save Local Business Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate boils down to whether we want local 
entrepreneurship and community engagement through the franchise model 
or a one-size-fits-all, top-down model.
  When I served as chairman of the HELP Subcommittee, we heard 
testimony about the effect of this new joint employer standard from Mr. 
Ed Braddy, who owns a Burger King in inner-city Baltimore. Many of the 
men Mr. Braddy hires to work at his store have had a run-in with the 
criminal justice system, and several of the women he hires has been on 
some form of government assistance.
  He hires people to give them an opportunity at a better life, as he 
described it.
  If the new joint employer standard proceeds, the Burger King 
corporation will be liable for many of the hiring decisions that are 
made by Mr. Braddy. Why would we expect any corporation to know a 
community better than someone like Mr. Braddy, who grew up there? 
Shouldn't we expect that a corporate entity would be more risk averse 
and less likely to give people a second chance?
  Think about the incredible story Mr. Braddy has to tell. He dropped 
out of high school in the 11th grade before returning when his life was 
headed in the wrong direction, according to him. He joined the 
Baltimore Police Department, and then he began working in a Burger 
King. After the first Burger King he owned closed, he ultimately 
rejoined Burger King and purchased his current store.
  What is remarkable is when Baltimore experienced unrest several years 
ago, Mr. Braddy's store was at the epicenter, his neighbors stood 
outside to protect it from being destroyed, and his was one of the only 
restaurants open for business the next day.

[[Page H8574]]

  Mr. Speaker, if this is not the American Dream, I don't know what is. 
On a recent trip that our conference took there, including the 
chairwoman, we dined with Mr. Braddy at his restaurant in Baltimore. He 
was a wonderful host, I might add.
  Joint employer isn't just about restaurants. Hotel owners, fitness 
companies, movers, tutoring services, janitorial services, and the list 
goes on and on, anyone who franchises their business is affected by 
this ruling.
  I am pleased the Labor Department is reviewing this standard, but 
this can't be a constantly changing standard while long-term damage is 
done to local entrepreneurship.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the joint employer 
standard that protects workers and allows the franchise model to 
flourish.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise us as to how 
much time is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coffman). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 13\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record page 50 of the committee report, 
which outlines the exchange with Mr. Braddy, which suggests that the 
franchisors do not become joint employers under the present law.

       In an exchange between Representative Guthrie and Ed 
     Braddy, a Burger King franchisee testifying on behalf of the 
     International Franchise Association, Mr. Braddy was asked:
       Representative Guthrie: Do you or do [sic] the franchisor 
     hire and fire and determine the work of your employees?
       Mr. Braddy: I schedule interviews every other Wednesday. I 
     sit down with eight people every other Wednesday. Even though 
     I am not hiring, I do the interviews because I always like to 
     have a waiting list of people who want to work. So I do all 
     the hiring. I don't allow my managers or my assistants to 
     terminate anyone because I want to make sure that once I let 
     someone go it is for a good reason.
       Mr. Guthrie: But it is you as the business owner, not the--
     what role does the franchisor play in any of your--those 
     issues?
       Mr. Braddy: None at all.
       Based on this testimony, nothing in the Browning Ferris 
     decision could establish that these franchisors are 
     exercising sufficient control to be deemed a joint employer 
     with their respective fanchisees.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the 
Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
which would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's joint 
employer decision. It will make it harder for working people to hold 
employers accountable for abuses, including making it harder to bring 
Equal Pay Act claims.
  In 2015, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in their Browning-
Ferris decision that a company can be held liable for labor violations 
by other employers they contract with.
  This definition of joint employers reflects the reality that 
subcontractors in the workforce face today. In fact, according to the 
Economic Policy Institute: ``The most rigorous recent estimates find 
that the share of workers being subcontracted out was 15.8 percent in 
late 2015. In today's labor market, that translates into roughly 24 
million workers.''
  The bill we are debating today would fly in the face of the 2015 
decision, undermining employee protections.
  This bill would create a more narrow and restrictive definition of a 
joint employer; it would limit workers' ability to hold employers 
responsible for violations under the National Labor Relations Act, such 
as attempts to stop collective bargaining; or the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, such as wage theft, equal pay violations.
  Let me talk about what this would mean in just one area: pay 
discrimination. Pay discrimination in the workplace is real; it is 
happening everywhere.

                              {time}  1715

  Pay inequity does not just affect women; it affects children, 
families, and our economy as a whole. That is because women in this 
country are the sole or co-breadwinners in half of the families with 
children.
  The biggest problem facing our Nation today is that families are not 
making enough to live on. They are not being paid enough in the jobs 
that they have. Closing the wage gap would help to address that 
problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Why would we further undermine a worker's ability to 
bring pay discrimination cases against their employer? We must stand 
with workers, defend the current definition of joint employers.
  To those who claim that joint employer status is burdensome or 
confusing for companies, let me just ask you: What about the burden on 
millions of Americans who are experiencing pay disparity and pay 
discrimination?
  I urge my colleagues, reject this bill. Take a stand for equal pay, 
for equal work.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from our labor leaders 
rejecting H.R. 3441.

                                                    July 28, 2017.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned unions 
     representing millions of American workers, are writing to 
     urge you to not support H.R. 3441, the joint employer bill 
     introduced by Representatives Bradley Byrne and Chairwoman 
     Virginia Foxx of the House Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, which would eliminate the National Labor Relation 
     Board's (NLRB) decision in Browning-Ferris, and greatly 
     restrict the definition of employer under the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act. Congress should be working to strengthen the 
     rights of working people and raise wages. The legislation 
     would accomplish the opposite.
       Over the past few decades, the middle class has been 
     struggling to stay afloat. As wages have often been stagnant 
     or declining, more and more companies have used middlemen 
     from staffing agencies, labor contractors and to 
     subcontractors to maintain low wages, avoid accountability 
     and prevent a large percentage of workers from organizing. It 
     is important that when workers try to remedy illegal 
     employment practices or organize to join a union that the 
     party calling the shots is at the table and part of the 
     remedy. And indeed, the current state of the law under both 
     under the National Labor Relations Act and the FSLA balances 
     the interests of workers and employers by requiring a fact 
     specific inquiry to determine whether or not there is a joint 
     employer relationship.
       This bill seeks to legislate around a century of consistent 
     case law and established joint employer standards in labor 
     and employment law. It redefines the term 'employer' so 
     narrowly that many workers will have no remedy when their 
     employers violate their union rights or wage laws.
       The legislation would overturn the Browning Ferris NLRB 
     decision, a case which found a joint employer relationship 
     between Browning Ferris and Leadpoint their subcontractor. In 
     this case, Browning-Ferris, Inc. (BFI), the employer, 
     controlled the speed of the conveyor belt where employees of 
     contractor Leadpoint sorted materials, prohibited Leadpoint 
     from raising wages above a specified cap without BFI's 
     permission, and determined the shift times and the number of 
     people on shifts. Since Leadpoint was unable to negotiate 
     these employment terms among others without BFI approval, the 
     NLRB found BFI must be at the bargaining table along with its 
     subcontractor in order for the union to negotiate a 
     meaningful collective bargaining agreement. The decision was 
     fact specific and in keeping with the realities of today's 
     workplace.
       Further, the bill would drastically change the definition 
     of employment relationships under the FLSA which recognizes 
     that more than one business can be an employer. Currently, 
     under the FLSA employers cannot hide behind labor contractors 
     or franchisees, when they set critical conditions of 
     employment. Because the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
     Worker Protection Act refers to the definition of ``employ'' 
     in the FLSA, this bill will also impact farm workers seeking 
     to redress wage theft and other employment abuses. It is the 
     FLSA definition of employ that has allowed workers to 
     effectively enforce child labor and other laws and to 
     effectively address sweatshops for decades. Today, it is this 
     definition that offers workers hope that when they organize 
     for a union and better wages that the party that can actually 
     effectuate change is at the table.
       We urge you to weigh the interests of workers and stand 
     with them in opposing legislation that would rollback the 
     NLRB's decision and restrict workers' rights under the law.
           Sincerely,
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).
     Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
     United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America (UAW).
     United Farm Workers of

[[Page H8575]]

     America (UFW).
     United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW).
     United Steelworkers (USW).

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3441, the Save Local Business Act.
  Too often, under the previous administration, radical policy shifts 
were taken by unelected bureaucrats and activist judges, which harmed 
our society. An example of this was in 2015, when the National Labor 
Relations Board decided to unilaterally change a longstanding 
definition of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. That 
changed the definition of a joint employer from an employer that has 
``actual, direct, or immediate'' control over the terms and conditions 
of employment to someone who has ``potential'' or ``indirect'' control. 
It should be obvious to you who your employer is. It is the one who 
hired you and who signs your paycheck.
  As Chairwoman Foxx said in a recent op-ed: ``When you have a hammer, 
everything looks like a nail.'' That is so true for so many in 
Washington.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill because it defines 
joint employer in a commonsense way in order to do away with the 
current, convoluted status. This bill will also prevent future 
overreach from bureaucrats, and allows businessowners to manage their 
own businesses.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virgina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 
3441, cripples the right to bargain for better wages and conditions 
when workers have joint employers. By narrowing the definition of a 
joint employer, this bill deprives thousands of workers of their right 
to negotiate with the parties that really exercise control over their 
wages and conditions; and by undermining collective bargaining, this 
bill suppresses wages.
  One of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem in the 
economy today, has been the lack of wage growth over the last decade to 
two decades. This bill will not improve that problem. It will take an 
existing problem and make it worse.
  Today, workers are under a direct threat from reckless, misleading 
legislation like this; and that, ultimately, will do nothing to improve 
their wages, improve their benefits, or improve their working 
conditions.
  Let's reject this bill and, instead, discuss and debate and craft 
legislation that can improve workers' wages.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Francis Rooney).
  Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Foxx and 
Subcommittee Chairman Byrne for bringing forth this important 
legislation, the Save Local Business Act.
  Construction is a major employer in the U.S. economy, with over 6 
million employees, 650,000 employers, creating over $1 trillion worth 
of construction every year.
  Building a project involves a complex web of subcontractors, vendors, 
and consultants all working together in a spirit of teamwork to 
accomplish a difficult task.
  I have been in this business for 40 years. The general contractor has 
to put control terms in its subcontracts and purchase orders to make 
sure that the subcontractors and vendors execute the work safely, on 
schedule, and in coordination with the other trades on the project. 
Lastly, they have to follow all the fitness-for-duty provisions to make 
sure that they pass drug tests and deal with smoking and health safety 
issues like that.
  These requirements run right into this Browning-Ferris standard. 
There is no way that you could follow the literal words of those court 
cases and this horrible Obama rule and not have the argument made to 
you that all these subs and vendors are part of a common enterprise.
  Now employers, including myself and my employees, are left in a big 
quandary as to their status under Browning-Ferris, under the Obama 
rule. I can see a scenario where a batch plant located clear across 
town from a construction project could have a hazardous waste problem. 
Because of this ridiculous rule, my job or someone else's job using 
that batch plant to supply concrete could be linked to them. How 
perverse is that?
  So the Save Local Business Act will fix this abuse and be beneficial 
not only to the American economy, but to the safety and well-being of 
American workers. I urge my colleagues to support this practical fix to 
this egregious action, and I thank Chairman Byrne for introducing this 
legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virgina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which 
basically says companies should be protected, not workers.
  Imagine, when a firm is jointly owned and operated by the Chinese or 
the Mexicans or the El Salvadorans, where workers' rights are never 
protected.
  Worker protections in America have long accounted for the reality 
that the company who writes the check isn't always the company that 
controls workplace conditions, but if they share control over workplace 
conditions, they should be held jointly responsible for violations.
  I include in the Record a letter from the United Auto Workers talking 
about the parts industry.

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than one million 
     active and retired members of the International Union, United 
     Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of 
     America (UAW), I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 3441, the 
     ``Save Local Business Act.'' This ill-conceived bill would 
     make it more difficult for workers to join together and 
     collectively bargain to improve working conditions and raise 
     living standards. This is a bad bill for working people 
     because it would make it even easier for businesses to 
     replace full time jobs with precarious temporary employment.
       H.R. 3441 overturns long established case law and joint 
     employer standards found in labor and employment law. It does 
     this by redefining the term `employer' in a way that would 
     make it nearly impossible for workers to hold their employers 
     accountable when their rights are violated.
       Disturbingly, businesses and large corporations throughout 
     our economy have avoided responsibility to their employees by 
     hiding behind staffing agencies to claim they are not 
     technically their employer. The net result for working people 
     has been lower wages and fewer job protections. For example, 
     within the auto parts manufacturing sector, the National 
     Employment Law Project (NELP) estimates that temporary 
     workers earn, on average, 29% less than direct employees of 
     manufacturers. We have seen how, in the automotive sector, 
     multinational corporations often hire temporary workers, who 
     work side by side, doing the same job, for years, with full 
     time workers and earning significantly less.
       H.R. 3441 would also overturn the National Labor Relations 
     Board's (NLRB) in Browning-Ferris. The Browning-Ferris 
     decision was good for working families because it established 
     that workers could negotiate with their true employer under 
     fact specific circumstances. In that case, a subcontractor 
     for Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), Leadpoint, was unable 
     to negotiate several basic employment terms without 
     permission from BFI. The NLRB sensibly found that BFI must be 
     at the bargaining table along with its subcontractor 
     Leadpoint. Under the terms of this bill, that would not be 
     the case when similar disputes arise in the future.
       Economic inequality and a shortage of good paying jobs has 
     hurt working people and our economy for decades. 
     Unfortunately, H.R. 3441 would make a bad situation worse. 
     Congress should reject this bill and instead work to create 
     more jobs you can sustain a family on.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Josh Nassar,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, there couldn't be a more dangerous industry 
to work in. Do you want to put some of these foreign companies in 
charge of worker safety in those places? Not I. I have seen too many 
mangled bodies in places around the world that tell me no.
  I am for workers being protected as well as the interests of 
corporations. Today's action eliminates 80 years of safeguards, 
safeguards on joint employer responsibility.
  What does that mean? It means that a company that subcontracts or 
franchises work to save a buck can shield

[[Page H8576]]

itself when workers aren't paid fair wages or are denied basic 
employment rights.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virgina. I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Small businesses and workers suffer while large corporate 
interests escape accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we pass laws that help American workers. 
Wouldn't that be a sea change in this country?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for H.R. 3441, the 
Save Local Business Act.
  I spent my career in business, so I know how damaging uncertainty is 
for businesses. Job creators need a clear understanding of the rules; 
otherwise, businesses and employees suffer and our economy suffers.
  In yet another incident of unelected bureaucrats overreaching their 
authority, the NLRB redefined the rule defining joint employers which 
had been in place for 30 years. Unfortunately, I was not surprised.
  The NLRB created a maze of uncertainty. Basic business decisions 
managed between employers and employees are now put into turmoil by the 
NLRB redefining what an employer is.
  The Save Local Business Act would roll back a convoluted joint 
employer scheme, restore a commonsense definition of employer, and 
protect workers and local employees who are most likely to be impacted 
by yet another confusing Federal rule.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virgina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority is 
offering a bill that would harm working families. It has nothing to do 
with saving local businesses, small businesses, and has everything to 
do with limiting workers' rights and taking away workers' wages.
  Between 2005 and 2015, 94 percent of net job growth was in 
alternative work like temporary, contract, and on-call jobs. This isn't 
our parents' workplace anymore, where one employer sets the rules and 
pays the wages. Today, a corporation can set workplace rules while a 
temp agency or subcontractor pays the wages. Today's workers need to be 
able to bargain with both and to hold each accountable for labor law 
violations.
  Instead, this bill moves us backward. It would prevent working men 
and women from bargaining for better wages and benefits and safer 
working conditions with the corporations that have decisionmaking power 
over their workplace.
  It would allow corporations to rob working women and men of their 
earned wages without giving those workers the right to recover. The 
annual cost of wage theft is estimated at $50 billion this year.
  It would immunize bad corporate actors and put small and big 
businesses who respect their workers at a competitive disadvantage.
  This bill is a bad deal, and workers know it.
  I include in the Record a letter from the AFL-CIO and its 12 million 
members.
  If you support better wages and better jobs, vote ``no'' on this bad 
bill.

                                                       AFL-CIO

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.

                           Legislative Alert

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12 million working 
     women and men represented by the unions of the AFL-CIO, I am 
     writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3441, the ``Save Local 
     Business Act.''
       Proponents of the legislation claim that it is designed to 
     repeal the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) 2015 
     decision in Browning Ferris Industries, in which the NLRB 
     clarified its legal test for determining whether two 
     employers are joint employers of certain employees. In fact, 
     H.R. 3441 rolls back worker protections so they are weaker 
     than when Congress adopted the National Labor Relations Act 
     in 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. It is 
     harmful legislation that will undermine workers' pay and 
     protections on the job.
       Browning Ferris concerned a group of workers on a recycling 
     line at a facility owned and operated by Browning Ferris. The 
     workers were supplied by a staffing agency--Leadpoint. 
     Browning Ferris controlled the facility, set the hours of 
     operation, dictated the speed of the recycling line, 
     indirectly supervised the line workers, and had authority 
     over numerous other conditions of employment. In order to 
     ensure that the employees' right to form a union and bargain 
     over workplace issues was protected, the NLRB held that 
     Browning Ferris was a joint employer of the line workers 
     along with Leadpoint. This fact-intensive decision reflected 
     the realities of the arrangement at Browning Ferris and was 
     rightly decided in order for the line workers to have a 
     meaningful right to bargain over their terms and conditions 
     of employment.
       Before the ink was dry on the Browning-Ferris decision, 
     business groups and Republicans in Congress began attacking 
     the decision, claiming it dramatically changed the law and 
     undermined the franchise business model. (Browning Ferris is 
     not a franchise case, a fact specifically noted by the NLRB 
     in its decision).
       In our view, these attacks on the Browning Ferris decision 
     are overblown and misguided. In today's fragmented 
     workplaces, with perma-temps, contracted workers, agency 
     employees, and subcontracting becoming ever more prevalent, 
     it is more important than ever to make sure our laws protect 
     workers and ensure they receive the wages they are due and 
     that their right to join with their co-workers to bargain for 
     improvements on the job is protected.
       H.R. 3441 takes the law in the opposite direction, 
     radically changing both the National Labor Relations Act and 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act by instituting a new test for 
     finding employers to be joint employers that is more 
     restrictive than any agency or court has ever adopted. As a 
     practical matter, the legislation eliminates joint employment 
     from the NLRA and the Fair Labor Standards Act, meaning that 
     many workers in subcontracting or staffing agency 
     arrangements will be left without recourse for wage theft and 
     will have no meaningful bargaining rights. The bill weakens 
     worker protections and allows corporations to evade their 
     responsibilities under the law.
       We urge you to reject this harmful and misguided proposal.
           Sincerely,

                                               William Samuel,

                                                         Director,
                                    Government Affairs Department.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.
  I have heard from employers across my district in many industries--
agriculture, higher ed, staffing agencies, hospitality, and 
construction--about this issue. Under the flawed NLRB standard, not 
only employers are confused, but employees, as well, have little 
certainty as to their status with multiple employers.
  Mr. Speaker, for 25 years, I owned and operated a construction 
company in Lancaster County, and we were operated as subcontractors. 
Back then, the employer-employee relationship was clear. There was no 
question about which employer was responsible for each employee.
  The Browning-Ferris decision creates confusion about who works for 
whom, discouraging many larger contractors from giving small 
subcontractors a job for fear of increased liability. Mr. Speaker, had 
that existed when I was growing a company, it would have made it more 
difficult to expand our business and create more jobs in our community.
  The Browning-Ferris decision was politically motivated and upended a 
decades-old standard that worked very well among employers and 
employees. According to the HR Policy Association, litigation regarding 
the joint employer standard is at a record high. This decision, Mr. 
Speaker, has been a jackpot for trial lawyers.
  It is time Congress takes action to provide clarity for the thousands 
of businesses, both large and small, who are ready to expand and create 
jobs. The Save Local Business Act will provide this clarity, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virgina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, yes, there is now uncertainty about the 
definition of joint employer. This uncertainty has the potential to 
undermine the franchise model, which has given so many Americans the 
opportunity to own a business and create millions of jobs.
  But this bill goes too far in narrowing the joint employer definition 
and also applying it to the Fair Labor Standards Act. We need to ensure 
that workers are treated fairly and companies are held accountable, but 
I am afraid this bill could weaken that.

[[Page H8577]]

  While I will be voting against this bill, it is important to 
recognize that there is a real issue here. We need to find a 
compromise. So no matter how we vote today, I urge my colleagues to 
listen to the concerns of businessowners in their districts because 
their success is critical to our long-term job growth.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, before launching into specific comments on 
this bill, I would like to correct some misconceptions that we heard 
earlier today.
  We just heard a lady from Illinois mention that she felt this bill 
would put employers who respect workers at a competitive disadvantage. 
All good employers know that respecting workers puts you at a 
competitive advantage, and I think it is very wrong that anybody would 
imply that you are advantaged by not respecting your workers. So I want 
to clarify that.
  The second thing I want to clarify is, earlier we had somebody talk 
about temporary workers. Now, temporary workers make less money. It is 
true with temporary workers, you have a middleman who takes the money 
off the top, and that is unfortunate. But you have to realize that the 
reason we have more temporary workers is we make it harder and harder 
to be an employer in the first place. Whenever you make it harder and 
harder to be an employer, you force more employers to hire temporary 
employees so they don't have to be employers in the first place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, now, on with this bill. One of the 
tragedies we have had in America is the disappearance of small 
businesses in America. We had more and more big businesses, you know, 
big conglomerates. One of the ways you can still be a small business is 
being a franchisee in which you control your own destiny and are able 
to respect your workers in your own way.
  We have to pass this bill to prevent the end--or the practical end of 
the ability to be your own businessowner by controlling or setting your 
own contract terms with your own employees. And more than any other 
reason, that is why I back this bill. I like that we have so many 
small-business men out there on their own on the franchisor-franchisee 
model.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on 
behalf of the America workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3441. 
Because of the modern use of temporary staffing agencies and 
subcontractors, the National Labor Relations Board has properly defined 
the term ``joint employer'' as two or more businesses who codetermine 
or share control over a worker's terms of employment, such as rate of 
pay or work schedule.
  If enacted, H.R. 3441 would cripple workers' rights to collectively 
bargain or seek redress when workers are found to have joint employers. 
The opportunity to collectively bargain over wages and conditions of 
employment is diminished if some parties that control employment are 
given the option to refuse to bargain and avoid liability as employers.
  As a result, this bill will open the door to widespread wage theft 
and equal-pay violations, and it will harm workers across the United 
States.
  Some of my Republicans continue to argue that H.R. 3441 will provide 
stability for workers. As a former union president and as a labor 
attorney dealing with issues before the National Labor Relations Board, 
I urge my colleagues to stand with the American worker and oppose this 
disastrous bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Ferguson), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Save Local 
Business Act. I have heard from dozens of businesses and employees in 
my district that have faced uncertainty under the expanded joint 
employer definition, which threatens job creation, it increases costs, 
and discourages entrepreneurs from opening up new businesses.
  The National Labor Relations Board's decision ignored decades of 
settled labor policy by changing the joint employer definition and 
putting all businesses and their workers at risk. We should be making 
America the most competitive place in the world to do business, not 
saddling our job creators with unnecessary and confusing regulations.
  This bill would take the right step to reinstate sound, widely 
accepted standards, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining for 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Save Local 
Business Act. This administration and this Congress have already 
weakened workplace protections that keep Americans safe from 
discrimination at their jobs, and make sure that they receive fair pay 
and provide additional opportunities to save for a secure retirement.
  Joint employer provisions make sure that employers cannot escape 
liability for violating worker protection laws. This standard makes our 
laws on overtime pay, on safe workplaces, on minimum wage enforceable.
  What this bill does not do is turn franchisors into employers unless 
they act like employers. I spent years as a lawyer representing 
franchisees, and I know this won't turn franchisors into employers.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Signatory Wall 
and Ceiling Contractors Alliance. They oppose this bill because it 
would put law-abiding small businesses at a competitive disadvantage 
with unscrupulous companies that don't respect worker's rights and 
don't pay workers the wages they have earned.

                                                Signatory Wall and


                                 Ceiling Contractors Alliance,

                                  Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf 
     of the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance 
     (SWACCA) to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3441, the 
     ``Save Local Business Act.'' This legislation will not 
     benefit honest small businesses that create good jobs with 
     family-sustaining wages and benefits. It will actually place 
     such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to 
     unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the 
     expense of their workers and taxpayer-funded social safety-
     net programs.
       SWACCA is a national alliance of wall and ceiling 
     contractors committed to working in partnership with our 
     workers and our customers to provide the highest-quality, 
     most efficient construction services. Through the superior 
     training, skill, and efficiency of our workers SWACCA 
     contractors are able to provide both cost-effective 
     construction services and middle class jobs with health and 
     retirement benefits. Our organization prides itself on 
     representing companies that accept responsibility for paying 
     fair wages, abiding by health and safety standards, workers 
     compensation laws, and unemployment insurance requirements.
       Unfortunately, however, we increasingly find ourselves 
     bidding against companies that seek to compete solely on the 
     basis of labor costs. They do so by relieving themselves of 
     the traditional obligations associated with being an 
     employer. The news is littered with examples of contractors 
     who have sought to reduce costs by willfully violating the 
     laws governing minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation 
     unemployment insurance, and workplace safety protections. The 
     key to this disturbing business model is a cadre of labor 
     brokers who claim to provide a company with an entire 
     workforce that follows them to job after job. It is a 
     workforce that the actual wall or ceiling contractor controls 
     as a practical matter, but for which it takes no legal 
     responsibility. In this model workers receive no benefits, 
     are rarely covered by workers compensation or unemployment 
     insurance, and are frequently not paid

[[Page H8578]]

     in compliance with federal and state wage laws. The joint 
     employment doctrine is an important means for forcing these 
     unscrupulous contractors to compete on a level playing field 
     and to be held accountable for the unlawful treatment of the 
     workers they utilize.
       As an association representing large, medium, and small 
     businesses, we oppose H.R. 3441 because it proposes a 
     radical, unprecedented re-definition of joint employment 
     under both the FLSA and the NLRA that goes far beyond 
     reversing the standard articulated by the NLRB in Browning-
     Ferris or returning to any concept of joint employment that 
     has ever existed under the FLSA since the Act's passage. H.R. 
     3441's radical and unprecedented redefinition of joint 
     employment would proliferate the use of fly-by-night labor 
     brokers by ensuring that no contractor using a workforce 
     provided by a labor broker would ever be deemed a joint 
     employer. This is because the bill precludes a finding of 
     joint employment unless a company controls each ``of the 
     essential terms and conditions of employment (including 
     hiring employees, discharging employees, determining 
     individual employee rates of pay and benefits, day-to-day 
     supervision of employees, assigning individual work 
     schedules, positions and tasks, and administering employee 
     discipline)''. H.R. 3441 goes further by expressly 
     countenancing a company using labor brokers retaining control 
     of the essential aspects of the workers' employment in a 
     ``limited and routine manner'' without facing any risk of 
     being a joint employer.
       Simply put, H.R. 3441 would create a standard that would 
     surely accelerate a race to the bottom in the construction 
     industry and many other sectors of the economy. It would 
     further tilt the field of competition against honest, ethical 
     businesses. Any concerns about the prior administration's 
     recently-rescinded interpretative guidance on joint 
     employment under the FLSA or the NLRB's joint employment 
     doctrine enunciated in Browning-Ferris can be addressed in a 
     far more responsible manner. Make no mistake, H.R. 3441 does 
     not return the law to any prior precedents or standards. It 
     creates a radical, new standard. This standard will help 
     unethical employers get rich not by creating more value, but 
     instead by ensuring their ability to treat American workers 
     as a permanent pool of low-wage, subcontracted labor that has 
     neither benefits nor any meaningful recourse against them 
     under our nation's labor and employment laws.
       On behalf of the membership of SWACCA, thank you in advance 
     for your attention to our concerns about this legislation. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any 
     questions or require additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Timothy J. Wies,
                                                        President.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would leave workers 
behind and would give a free pass to unscrupulous companies that 
violate labor laws. Please oppose this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Brat).
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enthusiastically support H.R. 
3441, the Save Local Business Act. This bill will return clarity and 
certainty to all businesses. Small-business owners all around 
Virginia's Seventh Congressional District have been asking for tax and 
regulatory relief that will free them from the tyranny of government 
control.
  Take, for example, two employers in my district: a home care 
franchisee called BrightStar Care of Richmond, and a daycare center 
called Rainbow Station at the Boulders.
  Mark Grasser, president of BrightStar Care, had this to say to me 
about the unworkable joint employer standard: ``We have a franchisor 
who wants to work with a franchisee to provide services. Unfortunately, 
that is not possible because that would violate the current joint 
employer standard. This ends up hurting everyone in the process. This 
standard is forcing employers and employees to make decisions that are 
not best for everyone involved, but what is best to satisfy 
government.''
  John Sims, the owner of Rainbow Station at the Boulders, similarly 
said this: ``Having the proposed standard reversed allows small 
businesses like mine to thrive, knowing exactly where everyone 
stands.''
  I am happy to report that the House is taking a bold step forward on 
defending businesses and workers today. The vague and convoluted joint 
employer scheme enacted in the Browning-Ferris decision under the Obama 
administration's National Labor Relations Board has caused employers 
and employees harm.
  Decades before the radical NLRB overturned what worked, businesses 
and employees knew the rules and thrived. It is time to roll the 
government back and return to what worked. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Save Local Business Act, legislation that will protect our small 
business operations and end harmful and excessive government overreach.
  For 30 years, small businesses operated successfully under a joint 
employer policy that was fair, stable, and crystal clear. 
Unfortunately, in 2015, the National Labor Relations Board, under the 
previous administration, decided to insert itself and overcomplicate 
the important employer-employee relationship. The unelected bureaucrats 
at the NLRB stifled small businesses when they decided to step in and 
blur the lines of responsibility.
  Sadly, our working families were impacted when the NLRB decided to 
empower labor union special interests. The last thing our independent 
businessowners need is more government red tape that will prevent them 
from reaching their full potential.
  The NLRB's expanded joint employer scheme discourages large companies 
from doing business with our smaller local companies. The effects are 
incredibly far-reaching. The expanded joint employer rule harms 
countless industries across the country, particularly small 
franchisees, construction companies, and service providers.
  For example, ServiceMaster, a global company with more than 33,000 
employees, has chosen to locate its headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. 
A great deal of my constituents work for ServiceMaster Franchise 
Service Group, and the NLRB rule change has put their job security in 
jeopardy.
  We have all heard concerns from our constituents, and now we can do 
something to get government off our backs. We must look out for 
hardworking Americans and roll back these oppressive job-killing rules. 
I am pleased that the Save Local Business Act will undo this 
unreasonable regulatory burden, and I thank Congressman Byrne for his 
leadership in this effort.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Allen), another distinguished member from the committee.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Congressman Byrne's 
important legislation, the Save Local Business Act.
  As a small-business owner myself for over 40 years, I know how 
difficult it can be to wade through Federal, State, and local red tape. 
Sometimes it feels like the government is against growing your 
business. The Obama administration expanded the joint employer standard 
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, blurring the lines of 
responsibility for decisions affecting the daily operations of many 
local businesses.
  According to the American Action Forum, the joint employer scheme 
could have resulted in 1.7 million fewer jobs. Luckily, President Trump 
is a job creator, so he knows a job-killing regulation when he sees 
one. Earlier this summer, his administration rescinded this terrible 
rule.
  However, we have to make sure no bureaucrat is empowered to redefine 
a joint employer standard again. Small-business owners are already 
facing an uphill battle. We should not be threatening the freedoms of 
independent businesses, owners, and entrepreneurs, making it even 
harder for them to achieve the American Dream. That is why I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague from Virginia is 
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill will undermine employees' 
ability to secure recourse for unfair labor practices and wage theft 
when there should be a joint employer. It undermines the workers' 
freedom to negotiate for better wages in return for their work. It 
inflicts damage to prime contractors who play by the rules and are 
forced to compete against unscrupulous other employers who save money 
by failing to pay wages. And it exposes franchisees to liabilities they 
should

[[Page H8579]]

not have to shoulder alone because it allows franchisors to exercise 
more control over franchisees without incurring any liability.

  Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a no-brainer. Today, Congress has a 
chance to stand up for jobs, opportunity, and local businesses in each 
of our districts. This legislation rolls back an unworkable joint 
employer policy that is hurting both workers and employers. Contrary to 
some of the misleading rhetoric we have heard today, nothing in this 
bill undermines worker protections. In fact, the bill ensures workers 
know exactly who their employer is under Federal law.
  I urge all Members to do what is best for the workers and local job 
creators in their district by voting in favor of H.R. 3441, the Save 
Local Business Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3441.
  The right of workers to collectively bargain under the National Labor 
Relations Act is essential for them to secure fair wages and working 
conditions. For workers to be able to bargain effectively they have to 
have someone across the table to bargain with, the party or parties 
that control their hours, wages, benefits and work environment. 
Negotiation with themselves would be a futile exercise.
  H.R. 3441 would eviscerate the definition of an employer to the point 
that not only might the true employer not have to come to the table but 
it might be possible that no employer would have to come to the table.
  Current joint employer standards take into account modern hiring 
trends, where about three million people work for temporary staffing 
agencies, working for companies that do not directly pay them, and 
ensure employee protections.
  The recent NLRB General Counsel determination in Freshii--where a 
restaurant franchisor with over 100 stores was not held to be a joint 
employer because its control over its franchisees was generally limited 
to brand standards and food quality and did not exercise control of the 
terms and conditions of employment of its franchisee's employees--
illustrates the pathway available to franchisors. I am concerned that 
this legislation actually harms franchisees by making them responsible 
for decisions dictated by their franchisors.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3441.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan 
H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act, and the 1.7 million jobs it 
would save on enactment.
  This common-sense legislation, which I cosponsored, restores the 
proper relationship which served small business owners for decades--
providing stability for employers and employees.
  By enacting this legislation, small business owners in Northern 
Virginia can again exercise control over the operations of their 
business rather than dealing with additional legal complexity layered 
on by the National Labor Relations Board.
  With all members' support for this legislation to help Main Street, 
Congress can correct the misdirected regulatory policies of the past 
which were overly harmful for business operators, restrictive on 
entrepreneurs, and resulted in increased cost's for consumers.
  There are over 2,000 locally owned franchise businesses in my 
district. After hearing the concerns of many of them at Abrakadoodle 
headquarters in Sterling this past year, I am proud to stand up for 
these job creators and support this legislation today.
  I will continue to advocate for policies which promote local 
ownership and control--and permit my constituents to strive for the 
American dream.
  I urge my colleagues to do the same--support the rule and vote in 
favor of the underlying bill, H.R. 3441.
  I commend the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Byrne, and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their work on this 
great bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Russell). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1745


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BONAMICI. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Bonamici moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3441, to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 3, line 21, strike the closed quotation marks and 
     following period and after such line insert the following:
       ``(C) Subparagraph (B) shall not apply when a franchisee 
     takes an action at the direction of a franchisor, and such 
     action by the franchisee violates this Act, in which case the 
     franchisor shall be considered a joint employer for purposes 
     of such violation.''.
       Page 4, line 7, strike the closed quotation marks and 
     following period and after such line insert the following:
       ``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply when a franchisee takes 
     an action at the direction of a franchisor, and such action 
     by the franchisee violates this Act, in which case the 
     franchisor shall be considered a joint employer for purposes 
     of such violation.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. 
It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the 
bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is another assault on 
hardworking Americans who are desperately trying to put food on the 
table for their families, scrape together enough money to pay for child 
care, and have a roof over their heads.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying that they 
need this bill to save local businesses. We all support local 
businesses in our community. But my colleagues suggest that unless they 
pass this law, franchisors will become joint employers. Well, if they 
act like franchisors and control brands and standards, and they don't 
do things like hire, fire, and supervise the franchisees' employees, 
they won't be. In other words, if they act like a franchisor and not an 
employer, they won't be considered a joint employer.
  In fact, this bill could actually harm franchisees and take away 
their independence because it would allow franchisors to indirectly 
control the labor relations of its franchisees, but be insulated from 
liability for violations that might arise from that control.
  Now, my amendment would require that if a franchisor directs a 
franchisee to take an unlawful action that would violate labor laws, 
then the franchisor shall be considered a joint employer for the 
purpose of the violation.
  In other words, if a franchisor acts like an employer, then they 
should be held accountable for their actions as an employer. Workers 
must be able to get their hard-earned overtime pay and the wages they 
are owed. This is common sense.
  This motion would protect small businesses, promote the independence 
of franchisees, and, importantly, cure the defect in the bill that 
insulates franchisors from liability for exercising control over their 
franchisees' labor or employment relations.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation currently is an attack on workers' 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this motion is just another attempt to ignore 
the real damage caused by the NLRB's expanded and unworkable joint 
employer standard which continues to hurt local businessowners and 
their workers.
  Let's not get distracted by this motion. Instead, let's focus on the 
bipartisan solution which is pending: H.R. 3441, the Save Local 
Business Act, which simply restores a commonsense definition of 
employer to provide certainty and stability for workers and employers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit and ``yes'' on the Save Local Business Act, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H8580]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on:
  Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3911.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 235, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               YEAS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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

                               NAYS--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     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
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     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.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Black
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Bustos
     Ellison
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1814

  Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. POSEY, THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, BRADY of 
Texas, and Mrs. COMSTOCK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, KENNEDY, and HIGGINS of New York 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Cheney). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 614]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     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
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     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 (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     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.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)

[[Page H8581]]


     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     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.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     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

     Black
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Ellison
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Pocan
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1823

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table

                          ____________________