[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5062-5068]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1120, PREVENTING GREATER 
             UNCERTAINTY IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 146 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 146

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1120) to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from 
     taking any action that requires a quorum of the members of 
     the Board until such time as Board constituting a quorum 
     shall have been confirmed by the Senate, the Supreme Court 
     issues a decision on the constitutionality of the 
     appointments to the Board made in January 2012, or the 
     adjournment sine die of the first session of the 113th 
     Congress. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
     Print 113-6, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentlewoman 
from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 146 provides for a closed 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater 
Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. Although the Rules 
Committee solicited amendments last week, we received only two 
amendments, one Democrat and one Republican, neither of which was 
germane to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and Workforce 
Committee and I have been hard at work conducting oversight and 
challenging the National Labor Relations Board on its anti-jobs agenda. 
In January 2012, President Obama made three so-called ``recess 
appointments'' to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was 
not in recess, in violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled these appointments 
were unconstitutional. This decision calls into question every action 
the Board has taken since these so-called recess appointments were 
made.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 1120, would provide greater certainty 
for employers and unions by requiring the Board to cease all activity 
that requires a three-member quorum and prohibits the Board from 
enforcing any decision made since the appointments in question were 
made in January 2012.
  It is important to note also what this bill does not do. It does not 
prohibit the National Labor Relations Board's regional offices from 
accepting and processing charges of unfair labor practices. The bill 
also allows the Board to resume activities if one of the three 
following conditions is met:
  The U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of recess 
appointments;
  A quorum of the Board is confirmed by the Senate;
  The expiration of the recess appointees' terms at the end of this 
year.
  Finally, H.R. 1120 ensures any action approved by the so-called 
``recess appointees'' is reviewed and approved by a future Board that 
has been constitutionally appointed.
  As my colleagues across the aisle are sure to point out, the 
President has recently nominated three individuals for Senate 
confirmation, in addition to the two he nominated in February. The bill 
before us remains necessary as a commonsense pause button on the 
Board's activities while the legal uncertainty is resolved. It would 
give employers and unions the certainty they need to operate in the 
interim.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and 
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to both the rule and the 
underlying bill. The bill is inaccurately named. In fact, quite to the 
contrary, the bill should be called the Creating Greater Uncertainty in 
Labor-Management Relations Act, throwing into question actions of this 
Board, decisions on both sides, as well as agreements that have been 
reached through the process in the interest of business, as well as 
working Americans.
  Two weeks ago, Congress approved a continuing resolution on a 
bipartisan

[[Page 5063]]

basis to prevent the Federal Government from closing. There were give-
and-takes. There were things in it from both sides that weren't 
perfect. Nevertheless, the majority and minority in this House, the 
Republicans and Democrats, worked together in good faith, successfully, 
to prevent a government shutdown, consistent with what the American 
people wanted and consistent with any responsible stewardship of the 
public trust.
  After achieving that, I was initially optimistic that when the House 
reconvened this week, we might be able to build on the spirit of 
compromise, perhaps tackling the difficult issue of fixing our broken 
immigration system and replacing it with one that works, that restores 
the rule of law, perhaps dealing with some of the gun safety issues 
that are being debated across society, perhaps dealing with tax reform 
and bringing down our rates and broadening the base, perhaps dealing 
with finally battling our budget deficit.
  But, instead, here we are back in Congress, picking up where we were 
before we worked together on the continuing resolution, passing 
pointless bills for presumably political reasons--bills that have no 
sign of passage in the Senate, bills that have a direct veto threat 
from the President of the United States, which is in his Statement of 
Administration Policy which I entered into the Record last night in the 
Rules Committee, and just as importantly, a bill that has no positive 
impact on the most important issue facing our country today--job 
creation and economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attack on American workers; this bill is 
an attack on American businesses. Pure and simple, H.R. 1120 would 
effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board, invalidate 
all 569 decisions that the NLRB made between January 12 and March of 
this year.
  My colleagues claim this is a response to the D.C. Circuit Court 
decision. But when have we ever enshrined an intermediate court 
decision into statute? It makes absolutely no sense. This court 
decision found that nearly all recess appointments are invalid; but the 
reality is the decision of the D.C. Circuit conflicts entirely with 
judicial precedent and past practice.
  President Reagan made 232 recess appointments. George H.W. Bush made 
78. George W. Bush made 171. So far, President Obama has made 32--far 
fewer than his predecessors. In fact, every President since Reagan has 
appointed a member of the NLRB through a recess appointment.
  In the absence of legislative action, any responsible Chief Executive 
takes the prerogative to make our laws and system of government work. 
If this body fails to pass immigration reform, the President might 
build upon the deferred action program and try to do what he can for 
detention reform. We need to change the laws. But failing that, what 
can a President do besides try to make those laws work?

                              {time}  1250

  In the absence of taking up ESEA reauthorization, in the absence of 
replacing No Child Left Behind with a Federal education law that gets 
accountability right and expands and replicates what works in public 
education and improves what isn't working, in the absence of doing 
that, the President and Secretary Duncan have taken the prerogative to 
grant waivers for States on a statutory framework that we know is 
insufficient and doesn't work.
  So, again, it's no surprise that, in the absence of taking up 
nominees, the President used his recess appointment power to make sure 
that the important functions of government could continue.
  When have we ever, as a House, responded directly to intermediate 
circuit court decisions by instantly making them statutes? Look, the 
majority of this House of Representatives wasn't so confident in the 
D.C. Circuit when it said that ObamaCare was constitutional. We didn't 
see bills instantly to say ObamaCare is constitutional because the D.C. 
District Court said it was constitutional. What about when the D.C. 
District Court upheld the constitutionality of civil unions in 
Washington, D.C.? Was there a bill from my colleagues on the other side 
to instantly say that civil unions are constitutional?
  Look, this is in process through the judicial branch of government. 
We need to wait until the Supreme Court has decided if they will even 
rule in this case before we decide what to do on a statutory basis.
  The executive branch needs to make the mechanisms of government work 
to the best of their ability. The legislative branch makes the laws. 
The judicial branch determines if either of the other two branches 
impugn the rights of one another or of the American people. It is a 
system that has served us well since our founding, and it's one that 
this bill flies in the face of.
  Again, despite this bill's title, ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in 
Labor-Management Relationships,'' it actually achieves the exact 
opposite--creates greater uncertainty in labor-management 
relationships. It throws judicial precedent and nearly 600 NLRB rulings 
into limbo.
  American businesses would be severely harmed if this bill were to 
become law, which, of course, there is no chance of. It won't be taken 
up by the Senate. The President would veto it.
  But were it to become law, like many other political measures that 
have been pursued in this body, it would generate regulatory 
uncertainty that would hang over business, hurting their valuations, 
preventing hiring of new employees, hurting the public marketplace, 
impacting entrepreneurs, employers, and workers to the detriment of our 
economy, destroying jobs in this country. Without a forum in which to 
mediate disagreements, labor and management, alike, have no recourse to 
iron out their differences and less incentive to iron out their 
differences. Passage of this bill could cause more strikes from 
workers, damaging businesses and hurting workers.
  The underlying bill could very well be named the ``Strike Promotion 
Act.'' Instead of allowing Members and encouraging both sides of labor-
management disputes to offer improvements and find common ground, quite 
the contrary, it destroys the very incentives that they have to reach 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that the NLRB has become such a political 
punching bag, because I and many of my colleagues would certainly enjoy 
the opportunity to debate commonsense proposals to improve the 
relationship between employers and employees. If we want to have a 
debate about the NLRB, let us have that debate directly, not through 
some imposition into judicial prerogative. Let's bring in 
representatives from businesses and labor organizations. Let's hear 
from workers and businesses across America.
  Look, if there's improvements to be made to the process that can lead 
to quicker response times, that can lead to fairer adjudication, if 
there's improvements that American businesses and American workers can 
agree on to make the process work better for economic growth and 
prosperity, let's do it. This bill does none of that. It leads to more 
strikes, leads to greater economic uncertainty, leads to destruction of 
jobs, leads to an interruption in the ability of a Chief Executive of 
this country--whomever he or she may be--from implementing the law to 
the best of their ability; and it's a bill that is, frankly, a waste of 
our time to even debate here on the floor of the House since we know 
that it has no chance of passage.
  This bill is purely put before us for political intentions to perhaps 
satisfy some fringe element somewhere that likes this bill and likes to 
bash the rights of workers. But there's a lot of important work to be 
done, work that is too important for us to waste our time on this form 
of political posturing, which only stands to destroy jobs, hurt the 
economy, and create greater uncertainty, damaging American businesses 
and American workers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we need jobs in this country. There are nearly 
12 million Americans unemployed and anxious to find work.

[[Page 5064]]

  President Obama and the Senate Democrats' policies of higher taxes, 
record spending, and bigger government have failed to create jobs or 
boost economic growth. Put simply, this economy is growing too slowly 
to replace the millions of jobs lost. The failure of the President's 
runaway spending, deficits, and debt is being felt by every family 
struggling to put food on the table and pay their mortgages.
  The March 2013 labor force participation rate is the lowest since 
1979, and the 1-month increase in March 2013 of 663,000 new people not 
in the labor force is the largest increase ever recorded for the month 
of March since this data started being collected in 1975. If these 
individuals ``not in the workforce'' were counted in the official 
unemployment rate, that rate would increase to 11.2 percent.
  Additionally, there are 47.3 million Americans receiving food stamps, 
which is equivalent to 15 percent of the population and represents, by 
far, the largest number in history. This number stands in stark 
contrast to when President Obama took office and there were only 31.9 
million Americans using food stamps. Today, nearly one in seven 
Americans is on food stamps. What a sad commentary about our country.
  All these statistics ultimately say the same thing: everyday 
Americans will keep struggling until our economy turns around. 
Fortunately for the American people, House Republicans have a plan for 
helping to restore economic growth and create jobs throughout the 
country.
  The liberal elite simply cannot understand that more spending does 
not mean more jobs. Reckless deficit spending, mounting debt, growing 
red tape, higher taxes, a confusing Tax Code, higher energy prices, and 
rampant uncertainty all have job creators playing defense.
  Campaigning for another failed stimulus and more job-destroying 
taxes, President Obama has repeatedly and falsely asserted that 
``Congress isn't willing to move'' legislation to facilitate job 
growth.
  While the President plays politics, House Republicans have been 
working and approving legislation to promote economic growth and job 
creation. The Republican plan for growth tears down barriers to job 
creation because jobs are priority number one.
  As part of this plan, we are working diligently to cut job-killing 
red tape that costs small businesses $10,585 per employee each year; 
reduce gas prices; create jobs by producing more American energy, which 
is important since every penny increased per gallon of gas costs 
consumers $4 million per day; simplify the job-killing Tax Code that 
cost Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply with it; prevent 
job-killing tax hikes on small businesses; reduce uncertainty by 
tackling the debt crisis with responsible spending cuts; and the 
Republican plan will get Washington out of the way and put American job 
creators back on the offense.
  Growing jobs and eliminating the deficit go hand in hand. To balance 
the budget, we need both spending cuts and real economic growth.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, it sounds like I agree with the gentlelady on many 
of our national priorities. For goodness sake, let's reform the Tax 
Code; let's bring down rates. Gas prices, my constituents are 
complaining about them; let's take action. Preventing tax increases, 
balancing the budget, making sure that we have a business climate 
that's friendly for small businesses, why aren't we talking about any 
of that on the floor of the House today instead of enshrining a D.C. 
District Court decision into statute, to the detriment of job creation, 
to the detriment of American business, against many of those great 
concepts that my colleague, Dr. Foxx, espoused?
  So, I mean, I think there's got to be a connection here. I think the 
American people are smart enough to make it. It's great to pay lip 
service to all these wonderful things that Democrats and Republicans 
want to pursue, but what are we doing with our legislative time that 
taxpayers pay for here in the House? We're trying to prevent the 
President from implementing the law that Congress has made.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  In the summer of 2011, as the country continued to see rising 
deficits, Members of the Congress knew that they had to do something 
about that in connection with the extension of what we call the debt 
ceiling, which lets the country borrow money to pay its bills.

                              {time}  1300

  As a part of that agreement, a large number of people from both 
parties voted for something that hasn't turned out very well, and it's 
called sequestration. This is not something that's just a word that 
gets tossed around in this Chamber and has political consequences; it 
is having a real and negative impact on the country.
  I just came from a hearing of the Armed Services Committee where the 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense told 
us that nine battle groups and three bomber groups of our Air Force and 
our Navy planes have been grounded. About one-third of the Nation's air 
capacity isn't flying.
  Across the country today, people who are on Medicare who need 
chemotherapy treatments from their doctors' offices are finding that 
many doctors are declining to do chemotherapy treatments for cancer 
patients because of the cuts that take place in sequestration.
  I met earlier this week with employees of the Naval Sea Systems 
engineering command in Philadelphia, whom I represent. They are looking 
at a 20 percent pay cut because of furloughs. These are real problems 
that are affecting real people. The House is opting to do nothing about 
this--nothing.
  The economists have told us that these ill-advised sequestration cuts 
will cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year. Mr. Van Hollen, my friend 
from Maryland, has a bill, and that bill says that we should save an 
amount of money equal to what the sequestration is allegedly saving and 
not have these cuts in cancer care and not have a third of our air 
power grounded and not have Federal employees take a 20 percent pay 
cut.
  Mr. Van Hollen proposes that we cut subsidies to huge oil companies, 
that we cut subsidies to huge agribusinesses, and we have people who 
make more than $1 million a year in income pay a slightly higher tax 
rate. I understand, ladies and gentlemen of the House, that some would 
agree with that proposal and others would disagree with that proposal. 
That's democracy.
  We're not even taking a vote on that proposal because the majority 
Republican leadership has refused to put on this floor any piece of 
legislation that would stop this harm to the country. I know they'll 
say it's the President's fault or it's the Senate's fault or it's 
whoever.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be lots of back and forth about 
whose fault it was that we got into this position. It's everyone's 
fault. There are people on both sides of the aisle that made a bad 
judgment on this. I'm one of them. But now we have a responsibility to 
fix it; and if the majority has an idea as to how we could fix the 
sequester problem, bring it to the floor.
  Since the new Congress took office on January 3 of this year, there 
has not been one hearing, not one markup, not one bill, not one vote on 
fixing this problem that threatens the jobs of 750,000 Americans. 
Rather than this metaphysical legal debate we're about to have about 
the National Labor Relations Board, why don't we put on the House floor 
legislation that would create jobs in this country, postpone the 
sequester, and deal with the problems that we talked about here today. 
The House is in session, but it's missing in action when it comes to 
addressing the real problems of the American people.

[[Page 5065]]


  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this 
rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. Here we are in 2013--2013--and yet women make 77 cents for every 
dollar made by a man for equal work. Equal pay is not just a problem 
for women, but for all American families who work hard to pay their 
bills. It's high time that this body took up the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
which we will do if we defeat the previous question.
  To discuss our proposal, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question. Defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from 
Colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal 
pay in our economy.
  It has now been 50 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to 
confront the ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in 
America. President John F. Kennedy signed that bill into law to end 
``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages 
than male employees for the same job.''
  But that practice persists today. Today, even though women are now 
half of the Nation's workforce, they are still only being paid 77 cents 
on the dollar as compared to men. This holds true across occupations 
and education levels. Don't let anyone fool you or tell you that if you 
hold constant for education and other areas that, in fact, there is no 
wage gap; it is just not true. A simple piece of legislation that says: 
men and women--same job, same pay. Those of us who serve in the 
Congress, men and women, all parts of the country, different education 
skills, different skill sets in general, we get paid the same amount of 
money. It's true in the military as well.
  This week, we once again recognize Equal Pay Day, the day in 2013 
when a woman's earnings for 2012 catch up to what a man made last year. 
Unequal pay not only affects women; it affects families all across the 
country who are trying to pay their bills, trying to achieve the 
American Dream, and are getting less take-home pay than they deserve 
for their hard work.
  Everyone here agrees that women should be paid the same as men for 
the same work. That is what paycheck fairness is all about--same job, 
same pay.
  It is why President Obama called for passage of the Paycheck Fairness 
Act in the State of the Union address in January.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Because it is time for us to come together and take the 
next steps to stop pay discrimination--by putting an end to pay 
secrecy, strengthening workers' ability to challenge discrimination, 
and bringing equal pay law into line with other civil rights laws.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and end unequal pay for good. Fifty years after 
the Equal Pay Act, it is finally time to give women the tools they need 
to ensure that they are paid what they deserve for the same day's work. 
What are we waiting for in this body?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a typical liberal habit: do as I say, not as I do.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, that our colleague from Connecticut should 
direct her comments to the White House. There is absolutely nothing to 
stop the White House from correcting the egregious pay differentials 
that exist there among the most liberal group in the country.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I am going to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentlelady from Connecticut to respond.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague that, in fact, 
this body, under different leadership than this current majority, 
passed the paycheck fairness bill twice. It has to be done through the 
Congress; we have the ability to do it. I would suggest to my 
colleagues, who on the other side of the aisle would like to talk about 
pay equity for women, that they sign the discharge petition. We have 
200 Members who are aboard. Let's get this bill out of the committee, 
onto the floor, vote for it as we did in the past, and send it to the 
Senate so that it could be passed there as well.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. DELANEY. I appreciate my good friend from Colorado yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Last year, 58 percent of the college graduates in this country were 
women. Right now in this country, over 50 percent of the individuals 
that have college degrees are women, and last year in corporate 
America, 53 percent of new hires for positions that required a college 
degree were given to women. This reflects broad, gender-based parity 
with respect to universities and with respect to entry-level positions 
in corporate America.
  However, Mr. Speaker, when we look at what's going on with respect to 
advancement--in other words, women's ability to climb or ascend the 
corporate ladder--we see a very different story emerging. Even though 
50 percent of the workers with college degrees in corporate America are 
women, when it came to promotions for managers, only 37 percent of 
those went to women. When it came to promotions for vice presidents, 
only 25 percent went to women. And when it came to promotions towards 
the executive committee level or the C-suite, if you will, only 15 
percent went to women. This reflects a significant talent drain that 
occurs with respect to women as they advance in corporate America.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant problem for this country and 
for every American. It's a problem if you care about our economy. To 
have a productive and growth-oriented economy, we need diversity, 
diversity of ideas, and we cannot have that unless women are 
represented in policymaking decisions of corporations.
  This is a problem, Mr. Speaker, if we care about competitiveness 
because we cannot have a competitive economy if we make decisions based 
on gender and not based on merit.
  This is a problem, Mr. Speaker, if you care about working families. 
More than 50 percent of the breadwinners in this country are women. If 
they don't have the same access that men do, it not only affects them, 
but it affects their children.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a problem if we care about women, if we care 
about young women in particular and our daughters. And as a father of 
four daughters, I care very deeply about making sure my daughters have 
a view that they have equality of opportunity regardless of whatever 
career they choose.
  We have to change the mindset of institutions, the mindset of 
individuals, and this legislation helps do that.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reiterate again--and my colleague 
from Connecticut has left--that there is absolutely nothing that would 
prevent the White House from giving equal pay to people in jobs there. 
We don't need new legislation to do that. It's certainly possible for 
the White House to do it now. And that is one of the most egregious 
situations of differential pay that exists in the country right now.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would respond to the gentlelady that most women in this country 
don't work for the White House. Most women in this country work for 
private sector employers, public sector employers, and others.
  We care about all women. We want to ensure paycheck fairness--same 
work,

[[Page 5066]]

same pay. But somehow addressing this among a handful of women in the 
White House hardly addresses the real needs of American families, where 
women across our country in Colorado, in California, North Carolina, 
and Texas are earning 77 cents on the dollar.
  It's unfair. And as my colleague Mr. Delaney pointed out, it doesn't 
enhance American economic competitiveness. It hurts us as a country to 
have pay based on bias rather than merit. It's simply the wrong way to 
go.
  President Obama needs this body to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness 
Act for us to be able to make sure that pay discrimination cannot 
endure in this country.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and friends who 
are managing this legislation.
  We are in the Judiciary Committee passing something called the REINS 
Act because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe 
that the President is omnipotent.
  Frankly, as my good friend from Colorado said, the President doesn't 
control the bus drivers and school aides and nurses aides and doesn't 
control the secretaries and doesn't control the construction workers 
who happen to be women. They don't control those individuals. Oh, and 
let's not forget the office workers who happen to be women.
  Many of my constituents who get up every morning--I saw one young 
woman, Mr. Polis, get on a city bus, drop her child off at the school, 
really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a 
U-turn around--not a school bus, a city bus--to get on that bus to 
track all the way across to get to her job. I can assure you that she 
is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the 
dilemma that we have.
  So I support ordering the previous question and voting ``no'' so that 
we can move forward and do the right thing.
  And that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on 
the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act 
because it is, in essence, a complete opposite. I would call it 
something else, but I'm going to restrain myself. H.R. 1120 is 
ridiculous.
  In actuality, my friends, what it does is put a spear through the 
relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the 
NLRB. The President has just finished appointing Republicans and 
Democrats--three Democrats and two Republicans--to do the work that 
brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with 
working people.
  Many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with 
working conditions are done at the NLRB.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Do you know what this bill does? It puts a knife in the process that 
has been used by President Bush 140 times--recess appointments--to keep 
the work of the American people going forward. How backwards is that?
  I love my friends, but we need to put on the floor sensible gun 
legislation, we need to be talking about immigration reform. But to 
talk about blocking the NLRB from work when President Bush used the 
same process. And the fact that a court ordered something--300 other 
opinions said the recess appointments are legitimate.
  I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand 
with your working friends in America, stand with our unions, stand with 
making America great, and stand with peace and reconciliation by a 
working NLRB.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, and the underlying bill, 
H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management 
Relations Act.''
  This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking 
remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or 
NLRA, are violated.
  The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right 
to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This 
applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees 
who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare 
their paychecks. It also protects workers when they act together to 
protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the 
employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws protected 
employees who discussed their salaries with each other on facebook. You 
don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws.
  Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations 
Board, or NLRB, with these grievances.
  The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union 
representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor 
practices involving unions.
  Recently, the D.C. Circuit, one of our federal appellate courts, 
ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, cannot carry 
out its congressionally delegated duties of enforcing the NLRA because 
it deemed President Obama's appointments to the Board invalid.
  The entire decision hinged on a controversial interpretation of the 
word ``the'' in our Constitution. Article II states that ``The 
President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen 
during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court decided that this clause 
of our Constitution refers to some recesses, but not others. Many other 
federal courts have disagreed with this stretched reading of our 
Constitution, and in areas of the U.S. covered by these courts, the 
D.C. Circuit decision does not apply.
  While we eagerly await the Supreme Court's verdict on the meaning of 
the word ``the,'' the NLRB is still allowed to continue carrying out 
its statutory duties under the NLRA, and American workers still retain 
their rights under the NLRA.
  That is why I am opposing. This bill merely eliminates the rights of 
American workers in places outside the D.C. Circuit to seek a remedy 
when their employer violates our National Labor Relations Act. Without 
a remedy, rights are meaningless. Depriving employees of this remedy 
during these difficult economic times is merely a stab in the back to 
hard working Americans across the country. This Congress should not 
take actions that undermine American employees and working families.
  The argument that an active NLRB produces economic uncertainty is 
unfounded. America has prospered since the creation of the NLRB. Other 
countries that have much stronger laws protecting worker rights and are 
much more heavily unionized, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and 
the Netherlands, are doing better or at least as well as the United 
States in this economic downturn. H.R. 1120 merely seeks to add more 
uncertainty and create fewer rights for American workers during these 
tough economic times.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and the underlying bill. Congress 
should not remove the ability for employees to seek redress for 
workplace wrongs. Instead, we need to stand up for our employees and 
working families.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to respond again to my colleague from Colorado in his saying 
that we have to pass a bill on pay equity to get the President to do 
the right thing. That just seems incomprehensible to me.
  I think the President should be our leader in this country and should 
practice what he preaches, and so should our colleagues across the 
aisle. I think that the White House could show itself as a model for 
the rest of the country by paying the women in the White House the same 
as the men are being paid. I find it interesting that our colleagues 
have simply ignored what is happening in the White House and call for a 
bill to be passed to make the President do what is the right thing. In 
the past, our country and the people in our country have looked to our 
President to be a role model for us.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I would 
ask the gentleman if he is ready to close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.
  I happen to have a gentlelady currently working for the Rules 
Committee sitting next to me here and helping with our research on this 
bill, and she informs me she used to work for the White House. She's a 
female. She tells me she was paid the exact same amount as her male 
colleagues.
  With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Congressman Polis, a leader on these issues, for 
yielding me time.

[[Page 5067]]

  I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, which would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from doing 
its job.
  The NLRB is tasked with protecting employees' rights to organize by 
helping employees determine whether they want a union to represent 
their interests or not.
  Nations with bargaining rights have middle classes; those that don't 
have bargaining rights don't have middle classes.
  The NLRB also investigates charges of unfair labor practices from 
both employees and employers, facilitates settlements rather than 
expensive lengthy litigation, and enforces rules by administrative law 
judges that provide orderly procedures to prevent the disruption of the 
flow of commerce due to a labor dispute.
  This bill before us is just another partisan ploy to undermine union 
workers and continues the Republican war against the middle class.
  First we had the Ryan budget, which would put the burden of paying 
for two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of seniors and 
our middle class families. Now we have a bill that would result in 
violations of worker rights going unpunished, union elections not being 
certified, and that would end recourse for workers who are wrongfully 
terminated.
  Instead of letting the courts do their job, Republicans want to take 
a Big Government action by preempting any decision from a higher court.

                              {time}  1320

  This bill ignores the fact that Republicans in the Senate would not 
allow for a vote on any of the President's nominees, and said publicly 
that they just wanted to make the NLRB inoperative.
  It is ironic that when President Obama follows the path as President 
Reagan and President Bush did, that of appointing individuals to carry 
out the work of our government, the Republican House proposes a bill to 
completely undermine an independent Federal agency.
  Finally, studies show that the world's best performing economies and 
strongest middle classes have high union density and a high level of 
cooperation between labor and management. If Republicans care about 
creating jobs and strengthening our economy, then why are they 
considering a bill that would take away a forum for employers and 
unions to work out their differences?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman is ready to close, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I am ready to close, and I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, rather than addressing a number of issues 
that my colleagues have talked about here today, whether that issue is 
gas prices, whether it's equal pay for women, whether that's equal pay 
in the White House or equal pay for Main Street America, that's 
something that's important to American families. Whether it's balancing 
our budget, whether it's keeping taxes low and making sure that 
American businesses can go and create jobs, none of those things are 
being talked about here today. Instead, we are bringing forward a bill 
that would be a bureaucratic nightmare, all without protecting a single 
American worker and without protecting a single American business.
  This bill was reported out of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee, on which I serve, without a single Democratic vote, and it 
is being rushed to the floor for consideration at a time when we face 
record deficits, record gas prices, have a crisis for which we need to 
create jobs; yet here we are, debating a bill that will go nowhere, and 
if it did, it would destroy jobs in our country.
  I'd love to see us spending more time balancing the budget and in 
training and educating our workforce--preparing kids for the jobs of 
the future. We have limited floor time here in Washington. Every moment 
that we have is sponsored by the taxpayers of this great country. We 
owe it to those who elect us and those who pay for this body to be open 
as they pay for the very cameras which allow Americans to watch us here 
today. We owe it to them to invest the limited time we have here 
wisely, on critical issues of national importance, including making 
sure that women across our country are paid the same amount for equal 
work.
  If we are going to have a discussion of the NLRB, let's at least do 
it in a serious way rather than trying to enshrine a D.C. District 
Court decision into law. Let's bring businesses and workers together 
and have serious discussion; involve Senate Republicans, involve Senate 
Democrats, involve the administration to come up with a better 
framework for ensuring that labor and management can work together to 
promote American competitiveness, to grow jobs and to grow the middle 
class.
  That's not what today's process is about, but these are just a few of 
the ways we could improve the broken process. Unfortunately, again, it 
seems like the Republicans have chosen none of the above.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to upholding 
the Constitution and providing certainty for employers, employees, and 
unions. The rule before us today provides for the consideration of a 
bill that ensures that certainty by pressing ``pause'' on the National 
Labor Relations Board's activities until the legal uncertainty is 
resolved.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 146 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     377) To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
     more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
     payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the H.R. 377 as specified in section 2 of 
     this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.

[[Page 5068]]

       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 146, if 
ordered, and approving the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 97]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barton
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Castor (FL)
     Collins (NY)
     Costa
     Hastings (FL)
     Huelskamp
     Lynch
     Markey
     Pompeo
     Speier
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1351

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H. Res. 
146, On Ordering the Previous Question, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________