[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5116-5129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PREVENTING GREATER UNCERTAINTY IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 146, I call up 
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, 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 146, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 113-6 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1120

       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 ``Preventing Greater 
     Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act''.

     SEC. 2. ACTIVITIES BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 
                   PROHIBITED.

       Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     National Labor Relations Board shall cease all activity that 
     requires a quorum of the members of the Board, as set forth 
     in the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). 
     The Board shall not appoint any personnel nor implement, 
     administer, or enforce any decision, rule, vote, or other 
     action decided, undertaken, adopted, issued, or finalized on 
     or after January 4, 2012, that requires a quorum of the 
     members of the Board, as set forth in such Act.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION.

       The provisions of this Act shall terminate on the date on 
     which--
       (1) all members of the National Labor Relations Board are 
     confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate, in 
     accordance with clause 2 of section 2 of article II of the 
     Constitution, in a number sufficient to constitute a quorum, 
     as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     151 et seq.);
       (2) the Supreme Court issues a decision on the 
     constitutionality of the appointments to the Board made in 
     January 2012; or
       (3) the adjournment sine die of the first session of the 
     113th Congress.

     SEC. 4. EFFECT OF CERTAIN BOARD ACTIONS.

       In the event that this Act terminates pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) or (3) of section 3, no appointment, decision, 
     rule, vote, or other action decided, undertaken, adopted, 
     issued, or finalized by the Board on or after January 4, 
     2012, that requires authorization by not less than a quorum 
     of the members of the Board, as set forth in the National 
     Labor Relations Act, may be implemented, administered, or 
     enforced unless and until it is considered and acted upon by 
     a Board constituting a quorum, as set forth in the National 
     Labor Relations Act, or the Supreme Court issues a decision 
     on the constitutionality of the appointments to the Board 
     made in January 2012.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1120.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, and 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  America's workplaces are facing significant challenges. Consumer 
demand remains weak. Threats of new regulations and higher taxes 
continue. And a looming debt crisis threatens the growth and prosperity 
our Nation is working so hard to attain. Washington should not be in 
the business of making these challenges worse. That is why we are here 
today.
  Many Americans may not even know a Federal labor board exists, let 
alone the role it plays in their everyday lives. Despite its obscurity, 
the authority of the National Labor Relations Board governs virtually 
every private business across the country. Our Nation needs a labor 
board that will appropriately and responsibly administer the law, or 
else the rights of both workers and employers are diminished.
  Unfortunately, partisan politics have left the board in a state of 
dysfunction. A year ago, President Obama made three recess appointments 
to the board while Congress was not in recess.

                              {time}  1020

  The President's action was unprecedented, and a Federal appeals court 
has ruled it was also unconstitutional.
  As a result, the work of the Board is tainted. Every decision it 
issues is ripe for appeal on the basis that the Board itself is not 
legitimate. In fact, employers and unions are now citing the recent 
court ruling as a reason why Board decisions should be overturned.
  A story in The Wall Street Journal helps illustrate the real-life 
consequence of the President's recess appointment scheme. Five years 
ago, a truck driver alleged that her union failed to follow the rules 
and assign her work. The NLRB agreed and ordered the union to pay the 
driver back wages and benefits. So far, the union has refused, and the 
current chaos offers a new opportunity to toss out the Board's 
decision. According to the union's attorney:

       I'll explore every opportunity to make sure my client 
     doesn't have to pay anything.

  This is the reality we now face. Unions, employers, and workers are 
forced to spend more time and money defending themselves before the 
Board and in Federal court. Our Nation has relied upon the Board for 
more than 75 years. Never has it faced this level of confusion and 
uncertainty.
  The current crisis began with the President's power grab, and it is 
up to him to fix it. Just this week, the President announced he was 
submitting three Board nominees to the Senate for its approval. This is 
certainly welcome news and long overdue. However, it does nothing to 
mitigate the chaos surrounding the NLRB. Roughly 600 Board decisions 
are constitutionally suspect, and that number continues to grow.
  The legislation before us today simply tells the Board to stop 
exacerbating the problem that is already wreaking havoc across the 
country. H.R. 1120 prevents the Board from taking action that requires 
a quorum until one of three events occurs: the Supreme Court rules on 
the constitutionality of the appointments; a Board quorum is 
constitutionally confirmed; or the terms of the so-called 
``appointees'' expire.
  The bill does not--I repeat--does not stop the NLRB from overseeing 
union

[[Page 5117]]

elections or processing claims of wrongdoing. The narrow scope of the 
bill is directed at the Board and only the Board.
  The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act 
is an appropriate congressional response to an unprecedented situation. 
I expect we will hear a lot of false accusations today from our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, but I doubt we'll hear any denial of 
the serious challenges facing the Board.
  The question then is this: Should we do nothing, or should we advance 
responsible legislation to help prevent further harm?
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a Friday across our country, and there are 
millions of Americans who are going to work under circumstances that 
exist because of the union movement and collective bargaining in the 
history of this country.
  If they work the 41st hour, they'll get time-and-a-half for working 
overtime. Many find themselves protected by good health benefits and 
good pension benefits that will guarantee their family a good situation 
while they're working and a safe and secure retirement. The whole 
concept of the weekend--that for many American workers will begin this 
afternoon--exists because of the hard-fought gains of collective 
bargaining.
  We wouldn't have a strong America without a strong middle class, and 
we would not have a strong middle class without collective bargaining. 
This bill strikes at the heart of collective bargaining by paralyzing 
the agency that enforces the ground rules of collective bargaining, the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  This is really part 2 of a strategy by the Republican majority in the 
House and the Republican minority in the other body to paralyze the 
rights of Americans to organize and bargain collectively.
  Act 1 has occurred since President Obama took office. He has made 
nominations to the National Labor Relations Board, and not one of those 
nominees has ever received a vote on the floor of the other body. 
Understand this: the minority in the other body has not voted against 
these nominees; they just refuse to put the nominees up for a vote.
  Today, there are five nominations pending before the other body. If 
the Senate were to act on those nominations and reject them, the 
President would presumably make other nominees until he could find 
people who could clear the process. If the other body were to confirm 
those nominees, we would not be here having this discussion today 
because the Board would be functioning.
  But a functioning Board is clearly not the objective of the other 
side here. So then act 2 comes along, and this is act 2. This bill says 
that the National Labor Relations Board can do effectively nothing. My 
friend, the chairman, referenced the story of a woman who is seeking 
back pay because of alleged violations of her rights by her union, and 
she's unable to proceed with the collection of that remedy because the 
minority in the other body has refused to confirm or refused to even 
consider any nominees of the National Labor Relations Board; and should 
this legislation go through here today, we are guaranteeing that 
nothing will happen because the Board cannot go to court to enforce one 
of its orders if the Board cannot act. Under this proposed statute, the 
Board could not act.
  We are here today because a recalcitrant minority in the other body 
has steadfastly refused to even take a vote on the President's nominees 
to the National Labor Relations Board. This bill compounds that 
travesty. This bill creates chaos. It says that decisions of the Board 
cannot be taken to court to be enforced, which means as a practical 
matter those decisions will never be enforced. It says that 11 regional 
directors of the National Labor Relations Board now have their 
appointments in jeopardy since their appointments were made since 
January of 2012 when this bill--it says anything following that is 
invalid.
  Employers and employees and unions go to the regional offices of the 
NLRB to resolve disputes, to prevent strikes, to achieve justice; but 
this bill paralyzes that effort.
  There are some who believe that an America in which the bosses make 
all the decisions and the rest of us stand up, salute and say, yes, 
sir, is how the country should function. We do not believe that. We 
believe in a country where workers can freely organize, speak for 
themselves, sit at the bargaining table, and stand up for their rights.
  The agency entrusted by law to enforce those rights is being 
paralyzed by this bill, collective bargaining is being paralyzed by 
this bill, and we should oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, I would 
just note that the remarks made by my good friend and colleague, 
frankly, I believe, ignore the reality of the crisis that currently 
exists. No one, employer, worker, or union, can rely upon a Board 
decision today. A court of appeals has ruled that it's not 
constitutional, and it is that same court to which every appeal is 
made.
  Now I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Health 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management 
Relations Act.
  First, some history. The National Labor Relations Act was passed in 
the mid-thirties, and the National Labor Relations Board of five 
members--three from the majority party and two of the minority party--
are to act as a fair arbiter. Basically, the referee for disputes.
  And there was a ruling of the Supreme Court not long ago with regard 
to New Process Steel that said that two members--one Democrat and one 
Republican--both who agreed on over 600 decisions, that a quorum was 
not present and all of those decisions had to be thrown out. Therein 
calls the question.
  The President made a pro forma recess appointment. Presidents, as has 
been stated here many times, have made recess appointments to various 
boards and they had the constitutional right to do that; but no 
President has ever made a recess appointment during a pro forma 
session. Let me read here from the Senate Congressional Record of 
November 16, 2007. This is Leader Reid:

                              {time}  1030

       Mr. President, the Senate will be coming in for pro forma 
     sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess 
     appointments.

  The recent ruling of Noel Canning stated that the appointments were 
unconstitutional. The unique part of the National Labor Relations Board 
is that any other court circuit ruling in the country can be appealed 
to the D.C. circuit. So they have standing, and the standing says that 
the aggrieved party can do one of two things: they can ask for a vote 
of the entire court or they can appeal it to the Supreme Court.
  This is a very simple bill. It does several things, and it asks the 
following:
  One, that the Supreme Court rule;
  Two, that the President go ahead and make the appointments;
  Three, that the Board not issue any further rulings that may be 
overturned and create this uncertainty; and that once a board is 
approved, that it goes back and reviews all of the various rulings that 
have been made in order to get rid of this uncertainty.
  We need the certainty for both labor and management to move forward. 
It's a very confusing time, and I would ask for the support of this 
bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, President George W. Bush used the same legal authority 
to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board that 
President Obama used here. There was not a word of challenge from the 
other side ever in that process.

[[Page 5118]]

  At this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the leading champion 
of workers' rights in the House of Representatives, the senior Democrat 
on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 75 years ago, Congress empowered the American 
worker through the National Labor Relations Act to form or join a union 
and bargain for a better life. That law and the rights it guarantees 
have served this country well--it has built the middle class; it has 
brought us the 40-hour workweek; it has brought us safe workplaces. 
These rights have given to millions of families economic security and 
the prospect that their children could build even better lives, but for 
the last 2 years, these rights have been under persistent and 
unrelenting attack by this House and this Republican leadership.
  There are more unemployed workers in this country today than private 
sector union members. Instead of working to create decent jobs for the 
unemployed, the majority insists on attacking the rights of the 
employed. At a time of stagnant wages and when businesses across the 
country are explaining that their number one problem is a lack of 
customer demand, we could be doing something useful today, like raising 
the minimum wage. Instead, we are debating a bill that undermines the 
ability of workers to bargain for better wages or for decent pensions 
or for safe workplaces.
  H.R. 1120 would stop the National Labor Relations Board from 
enforcing labor law. While the bill is in effect, the agency would not 
be permitted to issue any new decisions, enforce existing decisions, or 
advance any rulemaking. That means it's open season on working people. 
The bill tells employers: if you want to retaliate against a worker for 
trying to speak out or to organize, if you want to fire her, go ahead, 
because there won't be any effective government response. By 
eliminating the authority of the government to enforce the law, this 
bill effectively takes away every labor right that Congress gave 
workers to help them better their own lives.
  It's that simple.
  Take, for instance, a single mother who works at a hospital, changing 
bedpans, lifting patients day in and day out. She works hard. She likes 
her job, but she thinks that she and her fellow employees deserve a 
raise. After her shift, a supervisor overhears her chatting with a 
coworker about organizing a union. The next day, she is called into the 
manager's office, and she is fired for talking union--something that is 
a protected right under the law.
  This firing is illegal, and she is entitled to her job back, but 
under H.R. 1120, she would be out of luck. Not only would she be out of 
luck, but over 23,000 workers a year would be out of luck because they 
simply exercised the rights that are legal under the law. The law says 
that employers don't get to retaliate, but for those thousands of 
workers now, they will have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, 
lost the ability to support their families. They will have no recourse 
because of this legislation if it becomes law.
  How fair can that possibly be?
  I would also add that, in 2010, about 17,000 unfair labor practices 
were filed against employers by employees, but over 6,000 were filed 
against the unions for unfair labor practices.
  The fact of the matter is, for this legislation, it works against 
both employers and employees, and it brings chaos to the workplace. It 
gives the right to illegal strikes. It gives the right to illegal 
firings. It gives the right to illegally take away the wages of a 
worker. That simply cannot be tolerated in this country, but that's 
what this legislation does. It's an effort that started out a number of 
years ago on this committee with the Republicans attacking the National 
Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, and we 
should not allow this to stand.
  We understand that they're upset with the recess appointments, but 
they weren't upset with some 300 other recess appointments. In fact, 
Mr. Roe just said that those were constitutional, but that's not what 
the court said. The court said that all of these recess appointments 
were unconstitutional.
  So where are we today?
  We have sitting before the Senate, offered by the President, a panel 
of appointments that they can approve, and they can cure this problem 
if this problem, in fact, really exists. We don't know that yet because 
the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it.
  While we are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule, they want to pass 
this legislation; and if they pass this legislation, the fact of the 
matter is both employers and employees are going to be hurt. It's going 
to cost them a great deal of money, and it's going to cause a great 
deal of chaos in the workplace because of what the circuit court said.
  I worry, while they complain about the recess appointments, that it's 
the very filibusters by the Republicans that demanded that the recess 
appointments take place.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
  Mr. GUTHRIE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1120.
  This bill is important for our employers, employees, and our 
Constitution. It has already been said, but I'd like to make that point 
again: the President does not have the authority to decide when the 
Senate is in session. His recess appointment of three members to the 
National Labor Relations Board was against the law and the tradition of 
separated powers inherent in the Constitution.
  Some on the other side will say that the impasse at the NLRB is the 
fault of Republicans, that our colleagues in the Senate are acting as 
obstructionists; but I will remind my colleagues that, during the Bush 
administration, Senator Reid used pro forma sessions to block recess 
appointments just the same, and he did not make recess appointments 
when the Senate was in pro forma session, which is different than the 
situation here.
  The real solution isn't to appoint board members that a 
Democratically-controlled Senate can't approve; it is to nominate 
reasonable individuals who will adjudicate our Nation's labor laws 
without bias and with an eye towards the goal we all share--a healthy 
economy with adequate worker protection. That's what this bill before 
us does.
  This bill would prohibit the NLRB from enforcing any actions that 
required a quorum, or from issuing new decisions requiring a quorum, 
until a Board quorum is confirmed with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the January 
2012 recess appointments, or the term of the 2012 recess appointments 
expires.
  Unless Congress provides relief, employers and unions will be forced 
to either comply with costly orders that may be overturned or to 
litigate them on a case-by-case basis. Both of these paths are cost 
prohibitive. I urge the passage of this important bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, what President George W. Bush did 171 times--the legal 
authority he relied on 171 times--is the legal authority relied on by 
President Obama, which is the subject of this discussion this morning.
  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to someone who understands the 
value of collective bargaining to America's middle class, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle of Anglo-
American common law that reaches back to antiquity that goes as 
follows:
  Without a remedy, there is no right. Ubi jus, ibi remedium.
  That is the common-law doctrine which was the cornerstone of the 
National Labor Relations Act, which recognized that workers' rights 
only exist when there is a place to go to enforce fair elections, 
unlawful terminations, and retaliation cases. In fact, it is that

[[Page 5119]]

legal doctrine which formed the basis of the Supreme Court's decision 
of Marbury v. Madison, which basically established the legal authority 
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  This law shamefully tramples on that decision and strips the National 
Labor Relations Act of its power, and you have to only look at line 10 
of the bill which states very clearly:

       The Board shall not implement, administer, or enforce any 
     decision, rule, or vote on or after January 4, 2012.

  This is a shameful day for this House. The rights of workers to 
collectively bargain were not only recognized by the National Labor 
Relations Act; they were recognized by the Vatican in the 1890s by Pope 
Leo XIII. They were recognized by the United Nations Human Rights 
Charter after World War II as a basic criterion of civilized society.
  Today, when this law passes, America will go on record basically 
saying that workers who are seeking to have elections to form unions, 
to have workers who try to protest unlawful terminations, to workers 
who are trying to protest unlawful retaliation, you have no place to 
go. You are living in an undeveloped country right now in terms of your 
legal rights.
  Shame on this House for bringing up a measure like this which strips 
the rights of people which common-law doctrine, reaching back beyond 
the birth of this Nation, has recognized for centuries.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), another member of the committee.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Preventing 
Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. Despite the 
rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, this important legislation 
will ensure the integrity of the National Labor Relations Board. The 
other side has talked about how this legislation would somehow throw 
this process into chaos. The truth is that it's the President's 
unconstitutional actions that have thrown this process into chaos.
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously 
ruled that the President's so-called recess appointments were 
unconstitutional, calling into question approximately 600 decisions by 
the Board. All 600 of these actions are now ripe for legal challenge. 
By operating without legal authority, the Board has created more 
uncertainty for employers, unions, and workers in an already fragile 
economic climate. The President's actions are an indefensible overreach 
of power; and, unfortunately, they are part of a broader trend.
  Time and again, this President has demonstrated a with-or-without 
Congress mentality in pursuit of his political agenda. This mentality 
shakes the foundational principles of checks and balances our Founding 
Fathers put forward in the Constitution. The Constitution is our 
ultimate law. No one is above it, not even the President.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will ensure the integrity of the 
National Labor Relations Board and will help eliminate uncertainty in 
the workforce. When the President begins to operate within the law, the 
NLRB's work will begin again. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  President Obama is relying on the same constitutional provision that 
President Reagan relied on when he appointed Alan Greenspan as head of 
the Federal Reserve, the same constitutional provision he relied upon 
when he appointed Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), someone who stood up against 
the assault on collective bargaining and the middle class.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, being a middle class American today often 
means being caught in the middle, caught in the middle of the partisan 
posturing in Washington. And the situation we are in here today is yet 
another example.
  The Senate's filibuster of appointees to the National Labor Relations 
Board left the President with two options: make recess appointments or 
stop enforcement of the laws. Because the latter was not acceptable, 
the President appointed NLRB members in a recess appointment, a process 
used by several Presidents before him. Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit 
Court invalidated those appointments, and the question is presently 
pending before the Supreme Court. Now, it's too bad we're not here 
working together to request expedited consideration by the Supreme 
Court, but instead we're considering a bill that essentially seeks to 
shut down the NLRB.
  Freight workers in my home State of Oregon will feel the 
consequences. In September of 2008, Oak Harbor Freight Lines, in 
violation of the law, announced that they would stop making payments to 
employee pension funds following a work stoppage during contract 
negotiations. In May 2012, a unanimous panel at the NLRB, a panel of 
Republicans and Democrats, found the company to be in violation of 
multiple sections of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered the 
company to reimburse the trust for missed payments. The law before us 
today, if passed, will invalidate this decision, as well as many 
others; stop the enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act; allow 
unlawful activity to continue; and exact a toll on workers across the 
country.
  The NLRB is the referee between management and labor, and it helps 
guarantee the fundamental rights of middle class workers to organize, 
to bargain for better wages, benefits, and workplace conditions. This 
bill eliminates the referee and does real harm to hardworking men and 
women in my district and across the country. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
another gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Preventing 
Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. This legislation 
provides much-needed clarity for employers, employees, and other 
stakeholders affected by the unconstitutional actions of the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  The issue here is the Constitution. You're hearing from the other 
side of the aisle that this is about policy disagreements with the NLRB 
decisions or about how previous Presidents have done recess 
appointments similar to these. They're wrong on both accounts. They're 
attempting to reframe the debate and confuse the American people about 
what this really is about.
  Previously, the Senate was not in session when previous Presidents 
made appointments, and decisions by their appointees were accepted as 
constitutional. In this case, the Senate was in a pro forma session. 
They were in session, and this has precedent that has been stated 
already here today. In 2007, Senator Reid announced that the Senate 
would be coming in for pro forma sessions during the Thanksgiving 
holiday to prevent recess appointments. I guess my friends on the other 
side of the aisle only want to follow the Constitution when there's a 
Republican in the White House. Appointments at that time in 2007 would 
have been unconstitutional, as these appointments are now.
  The American people deserve a Board that will fairly and objectively 
administer the law without bias towards management or labor. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1120, the appropriate congressional response 
to help ensure certainty and fairness in America's workplaces.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House, I'm certain, wants to follow 
the Constitution. On our side, we think that the Constitution means the 
same thing whether George W. Bush is President or Barack Obama is 
President, and that Constitution vests the President with recess power 
appointments which were never challenged by the other side in the Bush 
administration.
  At this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop), a long-time fighter on this committee for the 
rights of the middle class.

[[Page 5120]]


  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1120. What we are doing here this morning is simply more of the same. 
For the past 28 months, House Republicans have used their majority to 
engage in a relentless campaign to tear at the fabric of organized 
labor by voting to defund, abolish, or greatly curtail the powers of 
the NLRB more than 40 times. Let me repeat that: more than 40 times. 
None of the attempts to crush the authority of the NLRB have become 
law; nor will they ever become law. And yet House Republicans keep 
trying.
  At the same time, more than 22 million people remain unemployed or 
underemployed in this country, sequestration cuts continue to devastate 
middle class families, and the most severe cuts are yet to come. Total 
payroll compensation as a share of gross domestic product is at its 
lowest point since the 1950s. House Democrats seek solutions to these 
problems, and yet House Republicans continue to waste our time on a 
bill that will never see the light of day in the United States Senate. 
And if this bill were to ever pass into law, its impact would be to 
hurt workers, not help them.
  How many more times do we need to waste taxpayer dollars on political 
messaging bills like this, rather than pursue legislation that will 
actually help the middle class?

                              {time}  1050

  Ten more times, 20 more times?
  Is this all we can expect to accomplish over the next year and a 
half?
  Americans want Democrats and Republicans to work together. Let's end 
the political posturing. Let's get America back to work.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a real leader on this issue.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, our Framers were visionaries. They had the foresight to 
not only establish constitutional principles and processes that address 
the challenges of their day, but that still sustain and guide this 
country 230-plus years later.
  Now, I don't think there's any question that this particular 
government, this Federal Government, has gotten away from proven and 
time-tested processes required by our Constitution and has stretched 
constitutional authority to its limits.
  We're operating under continuing resolutions. That seems to be normal 
today. We've submitted budgets that are now over 2 months late. And we 
have taken other steps, right here in these Halls, that have served to 
usurp the rights that belong to our States.
  Doing so has left us vulnerable, Mr. Speaker, to rulings like the 
D.C. Court of Appeals ruling on February 8 that said that the 
President's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board 
were unconstitutional.
  Now, like my friends on the other side of the aisle, and like you, 
Mr. Speaker, we have all raised our hand and said that we're going to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic, and you know the rest. We've all taken 
that oath.
  The Noel Canning decision holds the President's recess appointments 
are in direct contradiction to what the Framers outlined in article II, 
section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. And, as a result of the 
ruling, each decision made by that Board since that time has been 
called into question.
  Mr. Speaker, I, personally, don't have anything against the 
individuals who have been appointed to the NLRB. And it's irrelevant 
whether I agree or disagree with the Board's rulings.
  My concerns are, and the concern of each and every Member of this 
House should be the fact that we continually push the limits of our 
Constitution, the checks and balances outlined in this sacred document.
  At its best, this Court of Appeals ruling provides uncertainty, and 
the last thing that this country, this economy needs is uncertainty.
  I recognize the weight of the decisions made on the interpretation of 
the Constitution. They are tough. It is no easy task. And that's why I 
don't think it's unreasonable to press the pause button on the 
decisions emanating from this Board until we get a final ruling. It is 
irresponsible, in my strong opinion, not to.
  That's why I appreciate my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) for 
authoring this legislation. I support it wholeheartedly and recommend 
its passage.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  With all due respect to the last speaker, this bill doesn't push the 
pause button. It pushes the erase button. It erases the rights of 
American workers to bargain collectively and organize.
  At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
neighbor from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee, and 
someone who understands that there's a direct connection between 
economic growth and collective bargaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey.
  Let's understand, the issue here is not about recess appointments or 
the Board quorum at a Federal agency or the Constitution. My Republican 
friends never raised this issue in hundreds of previous occurrences.
  Instead, what's happening now, the majority is using this misguided 
bill as a platform to continue a coordinated attack on the National 
Labor Relations Board and on American workers.
  H.R. 1120 is simply an attempt to effectively shut down the Board and 
deny all private sector employees their rights.
  The NLRB is an independent agency which serves as the only avenue for 
private sector employees to bargain collectively, to file unfair labor 
complaints, to conduct union elections if desired.
  The National Labor Relations Act stabilizes workplaces and ensures 
industrial peace. We must not continue these warrantless attacks on the 
only established avenue which brings employees to the bargaining table 
with their employers.
  What H.R. 1120 would do is roll back the clock three-quarters of a 
century, to the days of brutality and humiliation, the days before the 
institution of the Wagner Act, the days in which workers and their 
families suffered indignities, strife, even bloodshed.
  Having laws for orderly labor and management processes helps 
businesses. It helps industry. It helps citizens of all economic 
levels. It helps our economy.
  I regret that the majority is wasting time that could be used to 
address the real problems facing Americans. At every town hall citizens 
ask me: What about jobs? What about economic growth?
  But instead of helping workers raise their wages, improve workplace 
safety, ensure fair retirement, House Republicans continue their attack 
on the National Labor Relations Board and ignore the economic crisis 
facing American workers, and making the American Dream that much harder 
for Americans to achieve.
  This is not about abstract worker rights. This is about a productive 
economy where workers and their employers can work together.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chair of the Workforce Protection 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be in the battle for the middle class of 
Michigan's great Seventh District, as well as the middle class of the 
United States.
  Today, Michigan's unemployment rate is nearly 9 percent, and the 
actions of this dysfunctional Board have only hindered Michigan's 
attempts to grow and develop a healthy economy and have more people 
able to climb to the middle class.
  For our State to recover and thrive, we need Michigan to be open for 
business. What our employers need now, more than ever, is certainty. 
Unfortunately, this Board has done little to help foster their success.
  In fact, the NLRB has been a chilling factor to economic success for 
employers and employees. In January 2012, President Obama attempted to 
make

[[Page 5121]]

three unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor 
Relations Board. However, a year later, on January 25, 2013, they were 
found, indeed, to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia.
  In that year, the Board made numerous decisions, oftentimes with 
significant consequences for job creators and for employees. They made 
it more difficult for employers to investigate employee complaints or 
misconduct and undermined employee rights to not engage in partisan 
political activities of their union bosses.
  In spite of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Board has 
continued to issue rulings and decisions. I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation and help bring much-needed 
certainty and stability to America's workforce and increase in our 
needed middle class.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a Member who fought 
for these kind of rights before she got here as a litigator and has 
fought for them since.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 1120, the Republican plan to shut down the NLRB. 
This plan is just the latest in a seemingly unending series of 
Republican attacks on working people.
  Make no mistake: the real goal of this legislation is to attack 
workers' rights. This bill will make it harder for workers and 
employers to settle disputes. It will essentially end the National 
Labor Relations Board's ability to hear cases until the Senate confirms 
the President's NLRB nominees. And we all know that that deliberative 
body is often better at obstruction than getting the people's business 
done.
  Instead of trying to shut down the NLRB, shouldn't my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle be calling on the Senate to have an up-or-
down vote on the President's nominees for the NLRB?
  Allow me to separate fact from fiction. This bill is not about 
certainty. This bill is about making it harder for working people to 
have their voices and their cases heard.
  This bill is not about making the NLRB function efficiently.

                              {time}  1100

  This bill is a partisan move to gut the NLRB's implementation of the 
law. After all, if you fire all the judges, there's nobody there to 
hear your case.
  Once again, the Republican leadership has decided to waste time 
making political points at the expense of working class Americans. We 
should be working on legislation to grow jobs. The American people are 
sick of politics. They want Congress to work on creating jobs and 
economic certainty. What our Republican friends are giving the American 
people today is more of an assault on workers' rights.
  This legislation doesn't do anything to help the 23 million Americans 
looking for good-paying jobs. Vote ``no'' on this turkey of a piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Preventing Greater 
Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.
  If you're sick of government, spend a couple of years here.
  We talk about the American people. Please tell me that these debates 
have anything to do with getting people back to work. This is about a 
constitutional process that we're supposed to follow. This is about 
unconstitutional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. 
That Board, by the way, protects employers, management, and labor--it's 
not just labor--so let's make sure we understand that.
  As we come here and do this posturing, no wonder the American people 
are losing faith in the way this body works. If we're really concerned 
about getting people back to work, if we're really concerned about 
letting this Nation rise again, this is not a Republican issue or a 
Democrat issue. This is not a Board that's supposed to be made up of 
all Republicans or all Democrats, but it's supposed to be 
constitutionally appointed. My Lord, what are we talking about today? 
These are unconstitutional appointments.
  You know what the certainty of this is? Here's the certainty. And 
this is a President that always talks about if you play by the rules, 
if you follow the rules and you work really hard in this country, you 
have a chance to make it. But the footnote is: unless you don't agree 
with me, I'll go ahead and do it the way I want to do it. Even though 
I'm a professor of constitutional law, put that aside. I know an end 
run on this.
  Now, I would tell my colleagues, please, this is a process that we 
have to protect. This is not a political football to go back and forth 
with. My goodness. This is about fairness. Fairness is not a Republican 
issue or a Democrat issue. It's an American issue. It doesn't matter 
who struck John or what did past Presidents do. This has been found 
unconstitutional.
  The only certainty of what's going on here are three things regarding 
the Board's current decisions: those decisions cannot be relied upon; 
every losing party will be justified in filing an appeal; and no 
prevailing party can be assured that they will ever benefit from any 
Board-ordered remedy.
  How do you fix it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Take it to the Senate; run it through the 
process it's supposed to run through; get them appointed the right way; 
and then to go forward. Isn't that the American way? I'm not talking 
about a Republican way. I'm not talking about a Democrat way. It's 
what's best for the country.
  This political posturing is ridiculous. We know what the law is here; 
we know what the process is; we know what the Constitution says; and 
we're here today making it something else. This is not about class 
warfare. This is about denying the process.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  My friend talks about playing by the rules. President Obama followed 
the rules that President Reagan followed, President Bush followed, 
President Clinton followed, President George W. Bush followed. The 
other body has the ability to resolve this dispute by taking votes on 
the five nominees that are presently before the United States Senate.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a consistent voice for America's 
working families across the country, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend.
  I'm so glad my good friend talked about the question of fairness 
because I believe in fairness as well; and I ask my colleagues to 
enthusiastically, with great presence, to vote this legislation down 
because it is unfair because I believe in the working man and working 
woman and working families who desperately need a fair body that is in 
regular order, the NLRB, that allows companies, corporate America, to 
come to the table of reconciliation on issues like pay equity, of which 
my good friend Rosa DeLauro is a champion of and I'm joining her, on 
good issues like the quality of life in the workplace, the idea of 
income and negotiations on plants being shut down.
  What my good friends want to do is deny the process to this President 
that Ronald Reagan used some 240 times, the hundreds of recess 
appointments in the 1980s, to ensure that regular order occurred in 
this Nation on behalf of the working men and women of America. This is 
a direct stab at them. This is a direct affront to them. And I would 
ask my colleagues to vote against this and for the working men and 
women of America. This is a bad bill.
  Mr. KLINE. I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I'm struck by the mention of fairness from the gentlelady who just 
spoke.

[[Page 5122]]

What is fair is the rule of law, and that's what this country was 
founded on. That is the ultimate fairness. And that's what this bill is 
fundamentally about--the core American value about respect for the rule 
of law.
  Now, our President chose to violate the law by unconstitutionally 
appointing new members to the National Labor Relations Board in January 
of 2012. And while the President claimed he had this authority and 
while our friends are claiming he had this authority because the Senate 
was ``in recess,'' there was one problem: the Senate wasn't in recess. 
The Senate was actually in session.
  Last year, in response to this, I led in a letter to our President, 
with 26 of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, protesting these appointments 
and asking the White House to obey the law so that we wouldn't have the 
uncertainty that we do now, so that we wouldn't have to have the 
argument that we're having now, unfortunately; but by making these 
appointments, the White House and the executive branch has essentially 
claimed the authority to determine when the Senate is unavailable to 
perform its constitutional duties.
  The executive branch should not be deciding whether the Senate is 
unavailable to provide its advice and consent. Our Founding Fathers, 
who created a government marked by a separation of powers, would be 
shocked and dismayed by the utter disregard the President has shown to 
the Constitution of the United States by making these appointments.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues on the other 
side who continually make this argument as though if they said it 20 
times it actually makes it more true--it does not--the suggestion that 
President Obama's actions were similar to past Presidents is patently 
false. No President ever made recess appointments while the Senate was 
meeting regularly in pro forma session--until this current President.
  If President Obama had followed the practice set by his predecessors, 
there wouldn't be a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the NLRB today. 
And this uncertainty, to the point made by my colleagues earlier, is 
hurting jobs; because when you have Commissioners who are appointed 
unconstitutionally, their rules are now unconstitutional. Businesses 
can't follow them. Unions can't follow them. Workers can't follow them. 
And when that's the case, what job creator is going to hire more 
people? And that's the real situation we find ourselves in here today, 
unfortunately.
  Now the issue is pending before the United States Supreme Court. It's 
my hope that the Court will acknowledge that no one, including this 
President, Mr. Speaker, is above the law in this country, from the 
poorest of our citizens to himself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROKITA. We can never afford to forget that.
  For these reasons, I simply urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 
1120 and to not listen to the nonsense that we're hearing from the 
other side. We believe in the worker. We believe in workers' rights. We 
believe in the rights of businesses. We believe in the rights of 
unions. We believe the President, above everyone else in this country, 
should follow the law.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker's own words indicate the contradiction 
of his position. He said it is unconstitutional that these recess 
appointments took place. He then just said that the appeal of this 
matter is pending before the United States Supreme Court. Marbury v. 
Madison does not give the D.C. circuit the final say on 
constitutionality or the Supreme Court that authority.
  I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to someone who has made a career 
here of fighting for the rights of working Americans and collective 
bargaining, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

                              {time}  1110

  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived bill. 
It aims to effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board--
another direct attack by this House majority on workers' rights.
  As we have been debating, a D.C. court recently ruled that two of the 
Board's current appointments made during a recess within a 
congressional session are invalid, and therefore NLRB currently lacks a 
quorum. This ruling is at odds with three other court rulings on the 
same matter and, in fact, the court did not order the NLRB to stop 
performing its duties. Nevertheless, the majority is trying to use this 
one decision as a pretext to stop the Board from issuing any decisions 
or taking any other actions on behalf of workers. This is a transparent 
attempt to effectively shut down the NLRB.
  What we need to do here is have the Senate take up the five pending 
nominations and act quickly so that we can have a functioning NLRB.
  This one court decision is squarely at odds with longstanding 
practice. Presidents of both parties have routinely made recess 
appointments during intrasession recesses and without regard to when 
the vacancy first arose.
  The Congressional Research Service has identified a total of 329 
intrasession recess appointments made since 1980. All of these would 
presumably be invalid under this court's decision, and that includes 
four such NLRB recess appointments by President Reagan and four by the 
second President Bush. Tell me, were these eight appointments by 
President Reagan and President Bush also in violation of the 
Constitution? If so, then why is this one particular court decision 
considered the ``right'' one despite the fact that all other courts and 
past practices disagree with it?
  The majority simply wants to prevent the NLRB from functioning so 
that workers who want to invoke their basic right to organize have no 
recourse. What recourse, for that matter, would employers have against 
actions by unions that violate labor laws, such as secondary boycotts 
or unlawful picketing? Under the terms of the National Labor Relations 
Act, its provisions can only be enforced through the NLRB. There is no 
provision in the act for private lawsuits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Without the NLRB, we simply do not have a fair workplace 
that works for everyone.
  This is another in an endless series of Republican attacks on the 
foundations of the American middle class. It aims to undermine worker 
protections and accelerate a race to the bottom.
  Let the NLRB do its work. I urge my colleagues to stand up for 
workers and employers and oppose this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker reportedly en route 
from another committee, so I will reserve the balance of my time and 
give him a chance to get here.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
someone who has walked in the shoes of those collectively bargaining 
and organizing, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1120. This is just 
a naked attempt to neuter the National Labor Relations Board. This is 
done in concert with the United States Senate, which refuses to confirm 
any nominees by the President to the NLRB, and in concert also with the 
right-wing ideologues on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who have 
gone against 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican 
Presidents alike in appointing through the recess appointment 
constitutional process.
  Now we have the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives, with 
this H.R. 1120, Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management 
Relations

[[Page 5123]]

Act. This would straitjacket workplace fairness and hurt middle class 
workers. It would also create uncertainty, interfere with judicial 
proceedings still on appeal, and undermine the NLRB's core functions.
  This is a bill that's anti-worker, it's obstructionist, and it 
represents the machinations of a Republican Party more interested in 
impeding the NLRB and blindly attacking this administration at every 
opportunity than finding solutions to unemployment.
  This bill represents a party that has lost touch with middle class 
values, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that the speaker 
we're waiting for has not yet arrived. I'm not sure how many speakers 
are left on your side.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend and the Speaker 
that we have no more speakers at this time.
  What I would propose, with the Speaker's discretion, is I'd like to 
speak for about 1 minute. Perhaps if your other speaker arrives, we 
could accommodate that person. If not, I would then close for our side 
and then the chairman defending the bill would close.
  Mr. KLINE. I have no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The House deserves an accurate record of where this matter stands 
legally.
  After the Senate refused to cast a vote on any of the President's 
nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, the President acted 
through the recess appointments clause that his predecessors have 
relied on far more often than he has. The D.C. Circuit ruled that those 
appointments were invalid. The case is presently under consideration 
under writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which 
either will or will not hear the appeal.
  The majority is advancing a rather novel legal theory that a decision 
by one circuit court of appeals establishes with finality the 
constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of a provision. This is 
truly a novel theory. Marbury v. Madison makes it clear: only the 
United States Supreme Court has finality in these sort of matters. The 
President acted in good faith under a constitutional provision that 
others have followed before.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, our speaker has not yet arrived, so I will be 
ready to close after the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the Speaker and colleagues of both parties for the spirited 
nature of this debate. At its core, this debate and this bill is about 
the primacy and value of collective bargaining in our country.
  There really are two different points of view on collective 
bargaining: one is that it's a nuisance; the other is that it's an 
engine of economic growth.
  There are those who believe that the proper organization of our 
economy is that the bosses decide what happens, everyone else salutes, 
and that's what happens. This led us to situations where we had 
children working in sweatshops, people working 80 or 90 or 100 hours a 
week, and people being forced out and fired for all sorts of invalid 
and irrational reasons.
  In our country's history, we're fortunate that there was a great 
movement of collective bargaining among the working people of this 
country. In the 1930s, those who preceded us here enshrined the rights 
of collective bargaining in various statutes. Since then, for nearly 90 
years these statutes have worked to promote fairness, equity, and 
economic growth in our country.
  Collective bargaining works--not just for those in a union, but for 
all those in the United States of America. This bill is a direct 
assault on collective bargaining. It is an assault that has seen its 
manifestation in other parts of the country--against public workers in 
Wisconsin, against all workers in Ohio.
  Collective bargaining is one of the main engines of the development 
of America's middle class, and America's middle class is clearly the 
main reason for the development of the strongest economy on the face of 
the Earth. A vote against this bill is an affirmation of the value of 
collective bargaining. A vote for this bill is an erosion of that 
precious right that Americans have always enjoyed and should enjoy.

                              {time}  1120

  We have the opportunity to stand up for those who wash the dishes, 
patrol the streets, build our buildings, teach our children. We have 
the opportunity to stand up for the right of collective bargaining. I 
urge both my Republican and Democratic friends to stand up for 
America's middle class and vote ``no'' on this bill that paralyzes and 
assaults collective bargaining in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is important to remember why we are here today. More than 
a year ago, the President took an unprecedented step despite all of the 
discussion from the other side of the aisle. No other President made a 
recess appointment when the Senate was in session, in pro forma 
session, or any session. So despite how many times President Reagan or 
President George H.W. Bush or President George W. Bush made recess 
appointments, this was unprecedented.
  Now, it's still an open question to be decided. The D.C. Court of 
Appeals made a ruling that the President's appointees to the National 
Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. And it's going to be an 
ongoing debate, I'm sure, going forward for days and weeks, the sooner 
the better, to determine what it means under article I, section 5, 
clause 2 of the United States Constitution, where it says the Senate is 
vested with the power to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.'' 
The Senate determined that the rules of its proceeding said that the 
Senate was in session.
  We heard mention today by a number of my colleagues that Senator Reid 
had announced, when President Bush was in office, that the Senate was 
going to stay in pro forma session in order to keep the President from 
making recess appointments. That's an important debate going forward.
  The problem is, as we stand here today, with a lot of discussion from 
the other side of the aisle, unfortunately some of which was 
questioning our motives, my motives, called action shameful, that's a 
shame. Because what we've got today is a Board that has been ruled 
unconstitutional by the D.C. court, which by the way is the court that 
reviews every single challenge to an NLRB ruling. You can't get 
relieved by a court in San Diego. If you don't like the ruling of the 
Board, you're going to appeal to the court that has already ruled that 
that Board is unconstitutional.
  This is dysfunctional. This doesn't have anything to do with whether 
or not I, or anybody else, believe in collective bargaining rights. We 
have a Board that under the National Labor Relations Act is supposed to 
be an arbiter, a fair arbiter. It's the place where you go to get a 
determination; and the problem there is you can't go there to get a 
determination, or you get one that is immediately suspect and open to 
appeal to a court that has already said that they're unconstitutional.
  We already have over 600 rulings by this Board since these 
appointments were made January a year ago. Every time this Board makes 
another decision, another ruling, it pours more uncertainty into an 
economy that is, frankly, still desperately struggling to come out.
  We've heard accusations about, well, it's the Senate's fault, and I'm 
sort of inclined to always think that it's the Senate's fault when 
something doesn't happen. I just remind my colleagues that this is a 
bipartisan Senate problem.
  In 2011, a Republican Board nominee languished in the Democrat-led 
Senate for a year--no hearing, no debate, no vote. So this is not a new 
circumstance.

[[Page 5124]]

  There is an answer to this: the President of the United States can 
bring forward nominees that can be confirmed--that can be confirmed--
and then we would have a constitutionally constituted Board to go 
forward and resolve the disputes that were brought up so many times by 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's not what we have 
now. We have a dysfunctional Board that is worse than useless because 
they are making decisions which are entirely suspect.
  Congress should not allow this situation to get worse. The Preventing 
Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act is an appropriate 
response to a horrible situation. This ought not to be Republicans 
versus Democrats. This is a chance for us to say we have an intolerable 
situation. This Board needs to stop issuing decisions that are 
immediately suspect and challengeable to the very court that has ruled 
them unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1120, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 1120, the so-called Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-
Management Relations Act.
  House Republicans today are continuing their assault against workers' 
rights. The bill before us would retroactively invalidate National 
Labor Relations Board, NLRB, decisions made after January 2012 and 
prevent the board from making or enforcing new decisions until the 
Senate confirms a quorum of members.
  There is an ongoing debate in the courts about the extent of the 
President's recess appointment powers, and there is no reason for 
Congress to interject itself now. Moreover, this misguided bill would 
hurt both workers and businesses by creating chaos. The NLRB protects 
workers rights to bargain collectively, but it also works to protect 
businesses by setting orderly standards for labor disputes.
  We cannot afford to have both workers and employers face further 
uncertainty in resolving cases, which will negatively impact our 
economy. While our economy continues to recover, we should instead be 
supporting growth by providing stability to both workers and 
businesses.
  Instead of attacking workers and curtailing their rights, I would 
hope Members would be willing to work together find common sense 
solutions to help working families. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
H.R. 1120.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that House 
Resolution 1120, the so-called ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in 
Labor-Relations Act'' would actually create greater uncertainty for 
labor unions and businesses and wreak havoc on the middle class. I do 
not understand the interest in scapegoating America's unions for the 
economic problems that beset us. It was not America's grocery clerks, 
nurses, teachers, postal workers, or electricians that nearly caused 
the meltdown of the economy. America's working men and women didn't 
engineer poor loans, systematically cheat consumers, and transform 
financial institutions into giant casinos. However, there are some in 
this Chamber who seem convinced that getting rid of labor unions will 
advance their agenda.
  This bill essentially shuts down the Labor Relations Board, by 
refusing to allow them to issue decisions, enforce existing decisions, 
or move forward with rulemaking. It means that labor and business 
issues that are currently unclear will remain unclear. It increases the 
chance of a strike, because without the National Labor Relations Board 
to help mediate, workers will be more likely to strike to protest 
unfair working conditions.
  Let's remember that it's not just union members who benefit from 
America's unions. Our entire society benefits from their efforts. It 
was organized labor that spearheaded efforts for a 40 hour work week, 
brought safety to the workplace, fought for environmental protection, 
and championed pay equality for women. It is not just rhetoric that 
unions brought you the weekend. Unions are among the few strong voices 
who continue to stand up for a strong livable wage for our workers.
  It's important to be thoughtful about the best way to navigate labor-
business relations. I'm all for fine tuning the system, but I am 
adamantly opposed to gutting rights and protection of workers. We must 
start by acknowledging the debt we owe to unions and to stop this 
wholesale assault. I will vote no on H.R. 1120, and I will be 
disappointed if I am not joined by more of my colleagues.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1120, 
the ironically and unfortunately-named ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty 
in Labor-Management Relations Act.'' The National Labor Relations Board 
is a crucial federal agency, mediating disputes between workers and 
employers, upholding labor laws, and ensuring the integrity of union 
elections. This bill would undermine the NLRB's authority and lead to 
an unstable labor-management relationship for the foreseeable future.
  Under H.R. 1120, countless labor cases would go unheard, decisions 
would be unenforceable, violations of workers' rights would go 
unpunished, and union elections could not be certified. All current 
unfair labor practice proceedings in the country could be brought to a 
standstill. Instead of removing uncertainty, this bill would in fact do 
just the opposite.
  Not only would this bill hamstring the NLRB in fulfilling its duties, 
but it increases the chances of labor strikes. Without a functioning 
board, wronged workers would have nowhere to turn for the enforcement 
of their rights under the law. There would be no one to enforce 
reinstatement orders for workers who were wrongfully terminated, and 
businesses would lose a forum to address disputes. Without the 
guarantee of the NLRB's protections, workers will be more likely to 
strike to seek redress of grievances.
  We are told this bill is necessary to enforce the decision in Noel 
Canning v. NLRB, which invalidated recent recess appointments to the 
Board. This partisan decision, which runs contrary to mountains of 
legal precedent, has already been appealed to the Supreme Court. I 
recall that we opened this Congress with a reading of the Constitution. 
I hope my colleagues have taken to heart the Separation of Powers 
enshrined therein, and will allow the judicial branch to work through 
this issue. Should the ultimate decision run contrary to the will of 
the House, I have no doubt we will be able to revisit the topic then.
  If my colleagues across the aisle are truly interested in ensuring 
the integrity of the NLRB, they should urge their Senate colleagues to 
stop holding up these nominations and allow them an up or down vote.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on yet another attack on workers' protections.
  The National Labor Relations Board has provided stability between 
workers and employers for decades. And yes, it has helped ensure that 
workers have a voice. Yet, in just the past two years, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have tried numerous times to paralyze the 
operations of the board. Each time, they came up with a new angle. I 
appreciate their creativity. But the goal is the same: to put labor 
rights out of reach. This time, the majority has tried to say their 
bill will promote ``certainty''. But without a functioning Board, none 
of the labor rights in the landmark Wagner Act can be enforced. So it 
seems the only ``certainty'' we're providing is that there will be even 
more economic turmoil than we already have.
  Whether its women's rights or workers' rights, bill after bill 
advanced by the majority is aimed at taking our country backwards. I 
know that not all my friends on the other side of the aisle agree with 
this bill. I appreciate that. It is unfortunate that some of my 
colleagues are seeking a return to the past, before we had protections 
for workers. But I hope that most will focus on the present, and get on 
with building a better workforce and a brighter future.
  So I again urge my colleagues to stand with millions of middle-class 
American workers and vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this attempt to 
strip worker protections in this country by shutting down the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  The Majority argues that this bill somehow removes ``uncertainty'' in 
the economy. In reality, it does exactly the opposite. By removing all 
authority from the Board that enforces labor law, it creates unworkable 
deadlock. The NLRB orders union elections, certifies and decertifies 
unions after elections, and makes decisions on unfair labor practices 
when they are filed by employers or employees. Without a functional 
NLRB, there is no enforcement of workers' rights. And with no 
alternative means of resolving disputes, workers may resort to strikes.
  The President has nominated two Republicans to fill the vacant seats 
on the NLRB and has renominated the Board members in dispute in the DC 
Circuit case. If the Majority is really interested in a functional 
Board, they should urge their colleagues in the Senate to vote on those 
nominations without delay. Today's bill will destabilize labor 
relations and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1120, 
the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. 
This legislation is anti-worker, anti-management, and rather than 
creating certainty, it

[[Page 5125]]

would throw the world of labor relations into complete chaos by 
shutting down the final arbiter--the National Labor Relation Board. And 
it would do this all in the name of upholding a single decision that 
overturns decades of court precedent and executive practice upholding 
intra-session recess appointments as constitutional.
  If H.R. 1120 becomes law, it would put us in a situation where 
employees and employers would be denied recourse in the courts--a 
fundamental guarantee in our society. Final review of decisions would 
be all but impossible to obtain, effectively nullifying the 
consequences for unfair labor practices. The National Labor Relations 
Act, overseen and enforced by the National Labor Relations Board, 
protects working Americans' rights to form unions, bargain collectively 
for fair wages, and ensure they work in a safe environment. The 
National Labor Relations Board also protects employers, who have 
recourse before the Board in the same way employees do. Eliminating the 
Board helps only those who wish to violate labor laws without 
consequence. That is not a constituency this Congress should be 
representing.
  H.R. 1120 does two things. First, it prevents the NLRB from 
operating, which is in and of itself a reason to oppose it--America's 
workers depend on a functioning Board. Second, H.R. 1120 legitimizes 
the obstructionism of the minority in the Senate, which led President 
Obama to make these recess appointments in the first place. It is 
responding to hostage taking by giving the hostage-takers everything 
they want and more. This creates a no-win situation where neither side 
has any incentive to compromise for the good of our country.
  The Framers of the United States Constitution included the recess 
appointment clause in Article II of the Constitution to ensure that our 
government could function even if the Senate is unavailable to confirm 
the President's appointments. It is time that we honor their wisdom. 
That means that here in the House of Representatives, we vote down this 
wrongheaded bill; in the Senate, that means getting to work and voting 
on whether the Presidents' appointees are qualified or not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation and uphold 
over a half-a-century of precedent and practice, and ensure our working 
men and women are not denied justice by way of delay.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose 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.
  The NLRA 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 have been applied to 
protect 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 (``NLRB'') with their workplace grievances.
  The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union 
representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor 
practices involving unions.
  On January 25, 2013, in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 678 F.3d. ___, No. 12-
1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013), a case challenging the constitutionality of 
certain appointments made to the NLRB by President Obama pursuant to 
his authority under Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, the United States 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling 
invalidating President Obama's appointments on the alleged ground that 
they violated the Recess Appointments Clause.
  The D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning rests upon its novel and 
controversial interpretation of the word ``the'' in Recess Appointments 
Clause, which states that ``The President shall have Power to fill up 
all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.''
  The court held that the Recess Appointments Clause applies only to 
``intersessional'' recesses, that is, only to the recess occurring 
between the first and second session of a Congress but not to 
``intrasessional'' recesses, which are those occurring during either 
the first or second session.
  The decision in Noel Canning is squarely at odds with that of every 
other circuit court that has considered this issue going back as far as 
1880. Indeed, until the D.C. Circuit issued its bizarre ruling, this 
was thought to be a long settled issue, most recently affirmed by the 
Eleventh Circuit in 2004 in Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220, 1226-27 
(11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1640 (2005).
  In Evans, the court upheld the intrasessional recess appointment of 
Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit made by President George W. 
Bush. The court rejected the same argument that was advanced by the 
petitioner in Noel Canning, stating:

       ``interpreting the phrase to prohibit the President from 
     filling a vacancy that comes into being on the last day of a 
     Session but to empower the President to fill a vacancy that 
     arises immediately thereafter (on the first day of a recess) 
     contradicts what we understand to be the purpose of the 
     Recess Appointments Clause: to keep important offices filled 
     and the government functioning.''

  387 F.3d at 1226-27.
  The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will review the Noel 
Canning decision, and I expect the Court to reverse the judgment of the 
D.C. Circuit.
  Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has 
estimated that had the decision in Noel Canning been the controlling 
precedent over the last the 30 years, it would have invalidated more 
than 325 appointments made by Presidents of both parties, including the 
following conservative icons: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Alan Greenspan, and 
John Bolton.
  In fact, of the 326 total intrasession recess appointments made over 
the past three decades, 76.7 percent, or 250, were made by Republican 
presidents: 72 from President Reagan; 37 from President George H. W. 
Bush; and 141 from President George W. Bush. In contrast, less than 1 
in 4 appointments (79) were made by Democratic presidents: 53 from 
President Clinton; a mere 26 from President Obama.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1120, the bill before us, is a solution in search 
of a problem. Until and unless the Supreme Court affirms the Noel 
Canning decision, the NLRB remains empowered to administer the National 
Labors Relations Act and protect the rights of workers and management 
as it has since its inception in 1935.
  The proponents of H.R. 1120 simply dislike the NLRB and are using 
this bill as an excuse to try to neuter the agency. Rather than 
preventing greater uncertainty, this ill-considered and unwise 
legislation would inject uncertainty in labor-management relations.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fooled. They understand this 
bill is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the 
ability of organized labor to protect the interest of working families. 
And I am proud to stand with the President and the following 
organizations in unyielding opposition to this legislation:
  1. AFL-CIO
  2. AFSCME
  3. SEIU 3
  4. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
  5. International Association of Machinists
  6. Airline Pilots Association International
  7. Transportation Trades Department
  8. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
  9. Building and Construction Trades Department
  10. United Steelworkers
  Mr. Speaker, I stand for fairness. I stand for justice. I stand with 
working families. I stand for certainty in labor-management relations. 
And that is why I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 1120, the misnamed 
``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote me in voting against this assault on 
working families.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1120, 
the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.
  This bill's very title is fundamentally misleading. H.R. 1120 will, 
in fact, lead to more uncertainty in labor-management relations. The 
bill is part and parcel to the Republicans' ongoing war against working 
American men, women, and their families. Its purpose is nothing less 
than the wholesale abrogation of the right of workers to protect 
themselves from unfair labor practices.
  H.R. 1120 will neuter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and 
give employers greater rein to intimidate workers who have the temerity 
to try to organize or protest unjust workplace practices. The bill will 
prevent the NLRB from certifying union elections, enforcing orders to 
comply with existing labor laws, and taking to trial employers accused 
of unfair labor practices.
  Mr. Speaker, my father nearly lost his life because of his union 
activities. All he sought to do was make a better life for himself and 
his family. He lost his job and was sent west

[[Page 5126]]

to die of tuberculosis, which very well could have happened if not for 
the Union Printers Home and the union of which he was a founding 
member. I will not stand idly by as my Republican colleagues seek to 
destroy his productive legacy. H.R. 1120 is another legislative 
expression of the contempt in which my Republican colleagues hold 
American working men and women and the unions they founded for their 
protection. I am grateful that this bill will never be taken up by the 
Senate, much less signed by the President. It saddens me, however, that 
Republicans continue their march at every opportunity to demolish the 
capacity of the federal government to protect the health and well-being 
of Americans not fortunate enough to have been born with silver spoons 
in their mouths.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this shameless excuse for a bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as our economy continues to recover, Congress 
should avoid any action that would destabilize employer-employee 
relationships--something that we can all agree is essential for our 
Nation's economic success. In my home state of Michigan, we have seen 
the resurgence of the domestic auto industry in large part due to 
cooperation between labor and management and their shared desire to 
succeed.
  With that example in mind, I cannot understand why House Republicans 
are supporting H.R. 1120, the so-called Preventing Greater Uncertainty 
in the Labor Management Relations Act, which would effectively shut 
down the National Labor Relations Board. Instead of assuring productive 
employer-worker relations, a vital part of which is giving workers a 
voice in the workplace, this bill would actually create more 
uncertainty by rendering inoperable the very agency that protects 
workers and businesses from unfair and illegal activity.
  This country has labor laws for a reason--to protect workers from 
exploitation and ensure a working environment that benefits both labor 
and management. And we should not forget that these labor laws helped 
create the middle class, providing generations of Americans with good 
pay and quality benefits, safe workplaces, and job security.
  If Congress wishes to take action regarding the National Labor 
Relations Board, I would recommend that action to be the swift Senate 
confirmation of President Obama's three candidates for the Board. As 
for H.R. 1120, I will oppose this partisan effort to shut down the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act 
(H.R. 1120).
  H.R. 1120 requires the NLRB to cease all activity that requires a 
quorum of Board members. This prohibits the Board from implementing, 
administering, or enforcing any decision finalized on or after January 
4, 2012, that requires a quorum. This would essentially shut down the 
NLRB.
  I understand the concerns regarding the Constitutionality of the 
appointments, but on February 13, 2013, President Obama asked the 
Senate to confirm the two recess appointments to the NLRB. Both sides 
have agreed the President is doing what is required of him by the 
Constitution.
  The NLRB is an essential component of worker protections available to 
working men and women. The NLRB prevents and remedies unfair labor 
practices by employers and labor organizations. Elimination of the NLRB 
would leave millions of Americans without adequate protections.
  I urge my colleagues to join my opposition to H.R. 1120 to protect 
the hardworking men and women in the United States.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
strong opposition to H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in 
Labor Management Relations Act. The 112th Congress was laden with 
baseless attacks against labor unions and middle class workers. Sadly, 
it appears that my Republican colleagues in Congress are working once 
again to make the 113th Congress just as partisan and divisive as the 
last.
  H.R. 1120 is simply another attack on the rights of workers and their 
ability to form unions and bargain collectively. H.R. 1120 seeks to 
prevent the NLRB from carrying out its core responsibilities and will 
undermine the critical ability to protect Americans from abuse and 
exploitation by employers.
  If enacted, H.R. 1120 would have devastating consequences for the 
millions of workers belonging to unions. The NLRB issues legally-
binding decisions that protect workers who have been illegally fired, 
denied the right to collectively bargain with their employer, or have 
experienced any other violation of their legal rights. With the NLRB 
effectively disarmed, these workers will have no recourse if any labor 
law violations are committed against them.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly resorted to 
deceitful tactics to carry out their agenda. H.R. 1120 is no different, 
and is just one small part of a larger effort to dismantle the NLRB and 
weaken protections for workers to the benefit of businesses. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1120, and any other partisan pieces 
of legislation that also seek to undermine the rights of workers all 
across America.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, research released this week from the 
National Federation of Independent Business indicates that more small 
businesses are decreasing their number of employees than increasing. On 
top of that, the net percent of owners planning to hire new employees 
fell last month to zero percent.
  Some of this unfortunate news can be attributed to the legal chaos 
created by the Administration's recess appointments to the National 
Labor Relations Board, NLRB--appointments that a U.S. Court of Appeals 
rendered unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, the NLRB continues to 
issue job-crushing edicts.
  Unfortunately, this confusion is only creating more costly 
litigation--not jobs.
  The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, 
H.R. 1120, will resolve this confusion by preventing the NLRB from 
implementing, administering, or enforcing any new decisions, until a 
duly appointed and confirmed board can be organized.
  I am proud to support this legislation on behalf of businesses 
through Southwest Ohio, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on it in 
order to provide some certainty for employees and employers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 146, 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.


                           motion to recommit

  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. BUSTOS. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Bustos moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 1120) to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. PROTECTING THE EMPLOYMENT AND ELECTION RIGHTS OF 
                   VETERANS AND THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE AGAINST 
                   OUTSOURCING, ABUSE BY FOREIGN FIRMS, UNSAFE 
                   WORKING CONDITIONS, AND DISCRIMINATION.

       This Act shall not apply to any case or matter before the 
     National Labor Relations Board involving any of the 
     following:
       (1) Any former members of the Armed Forces fired from a job 
     in violation of the National Labor Relations Act or the 
     processing of an election for representation for collective 
     bargaining sought by any former member of the Armed Forces.
       (2) Any attempt by a U.S. employer to outsource jobs or 
     work overseas in violation of such Act.
       (3) Any violation by an employer that is a foreign-owned 
     firm against the rights of American workers under such Act.
       (4) Workers seeking good faith bargaining under such Act to 
     address issues related to health and safety, including 
     hazardous working conditions involving underground mines, 
     exposure to toxic chemicals, or explosions.
       (5) Workers seeking good faith bargaining under such Act to 
     address discrimination based on age, sex, disability, race, 
     religion, or other personal characteristics.
       (6) Any employer found to have violated child labor laws 
     during the five-year period before the case or matter 
     involving such employer comes before the Board.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It 
will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended.
  This past November, Illinoisans and people across our country sent a 
strong, but simple, message to Congress, that the middle class needs to 
be a priority, not an afterthought.
  The people I talk with back home are worn out by Washington putting 
politics before people. I was honored to take my oath of office in 
January with

[[Page 5127]]

a mission to be part of the solution here in Congress.
  Like so many other Members of the freshman class of this session of 
Congress, I ran for office to fight for the American worker and for a 
stronger middle class. I believed I could make a difference, and I 
still do.
  The hardworking middle class people from my district in Illinois are 
counting on us to remember them as we deliberate in this Chamber. That 
begins with standing up against attempts to cut the legs out from 
beneath American workers, which is exactly what this bill does that's 
being presented today.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, without the support of organized labor, my family 
wouldn't be where we are today. My father-in-law, Joe, was born in a 
boxcar to immigrant parents from Mexico. With just an eighth grade 
education, he worked the line at John Deere Harvester Works in East 
Moline, Illinois. And because of organized labor, he earned an honest 
wage and benefits for his hard work. He was able to provide for his 
family and make sure his four children had a better life and more 
opportunities than he did.
  Joe's youngest son is Gerry, my husband, who, with the help of 
organized labor, has helped lift our own family to success. I'm proud 
of my husband's nearly 30-year law enforcement career, and he is now 
the undersheriff of Rock Island County, where I live, and the commander 
of the Quad-City Bomb Squad.
  I know my family story is not unique about how organized labor helped 
lift us and that so many American families share this same type of 
experience. Far too many people across this great Nation of ours are 
still struggling but are still hopeful that, if they work hard and play 
by the rules, they too can live the American Dream.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today tells American workers 
they're on their own. Instead of adding certainty and stability to our 
communities, this bill creates chaos and undermines decades of 
progress.
  My amendment pleads for just a morsel of common sense. It provides a 
few simple but critical exceptions to the chaos that the bill otherwise 
promises. It protects workers who have risked their lives for our 
country on the battlefields abroad. These are heroes like Clarence 
Adams, who was among the first American marines to set foot in Iraq 10 
years ago.
  After Clarence returned home, he tried to exercise his right to 
organize at his workplace. The election was held, the union won, and 
then the union busting began. Clarence and 21 of his fellow workers 
were even fired at one point. He had one place to go, and that was to 
turn to the National Labor Relations Board.
  Voting for this bill means stripping away those rights for Clarence 
and countless other brave veterans. My amendment would protect the 
rights of veterans to organize in the workplace.
  As far too many hardworking families across our Nation feel each day, 
our economy is still healing.
  I pledged to fight for the American worker, and that's a pledge I'm 
committed to keeping. The middle class is stronger because of organized 
labor.
  If a company takes American jobs and outsources them overseas simply 
to avoid the formation of a union, that must not be allowed. My 
amendment would protect these jobs.
  If a foreign company abuses our American workers' rights, we need a 
strong NLRB to stand up for them. My amendment does this.
  If American workers face dangerous working conditions that could cost 
them their lives and they seek the right to organize for their own 
protection, we need the NLRB to function on their behalf.
  If a person faces sexual harassment at the workplace or a worker 
faces racial discrimination, they should be allowed to join with their 
coworkers so they can address these issues. My amendment gives these 
workers a voice.
  The NLRB was created to decide cases on a fair and an independent 
basis and has traditionally been made up of both Republican and 
Democrat Board members. It is there to fight for the rights of workers 
and the middle class against the worst abuses. They are depending on 
us.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to 
put aside partisanship and begin focusing on the middle class and to 
remember all those people getting up early, working hard, and playing 
by the rules who deserve the same chance that my family has had to 
realize the American Dream.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting political stunt.
  My friends on the other side had ample opportunity, both in committee 
markup and before the Rules Committee, to offer an amendment of this 
nature. They did not.
  It does nothing to fix the problem that we're faced with today. 
Making an exception in statute that says a Board that has been ruled 
unconstitutional can act any way for some people and not for others, 
frankly, makes no sense.
  I'll stand behind no one in my desire to protect our men and women in 
uniform, those who are serving and those who have served, but that's 
not what this motion to recommit is really about.
  Our bill brings certainty and an impetus to our friends at the other 
side of the Capitol to move the President to fix a dysfunctional 
National Labor Relations Board that can address the very issues that my 
colleagues have brought up.
  I urge defeat of the motion to recommit and support the underlying 
bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. 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 approval of the 
Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 229, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 100]

                               YEAS--197

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     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
     Costa
     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
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     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
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond

[[Page 5128]]


     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)
     Speier
     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

                               NAYS--229

     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)
     Collins (NY)
     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
     Huelskamp
     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)
     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
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barton
     Castor (FL)
     Garamendi
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McCaul
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1200

  Messrs. GOSAR, BRADY of Texas, and CHAFFETZ changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FATTAH, DeFAZIO, Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. LEE of California, and 
Messrs. RAHALL and HUFFMAN 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. 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. ANDREWS. Mr. 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 219, 
noes 209, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 101]

                               AYES--219

     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)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--209

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     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
     Reed
     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)
     Speier
     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
     Young (AK)

[[Page 5129]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Barton
     Castor (FL)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Ros-Lehtinen


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1210

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

                          ____________________