[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FEDERAL CONTRACTORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Hardy) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to express my deep 
concern and disapproval of how the Obama administration has continued 
their assault on Federal and private contractors.
  Since taking office, the President has signed a total of 13 executive 
orders that directly focus on Federal contracting, all of which 
establish new labor requirements and impose additional financial 
burdens on contractors. When you also include the 16 new regulations 
that have been created from these orders, a large portion of 
contractors who were once able to compete for Federal contracts are now 
being forced out due to these new hurdles.
  In fact, the number of small contractors who submit bids for Federal 
contracts have declined by more than 100,000 since 2013. This is 
unacceptable. While these mandates range from forcing contractors to 
provide additional employee benefits to being required to report 
additional information during the bidding process, the one thing that 
each of these new directives has in common is that it will make it more 
difficult for small contractors to compete for Federal contracts. A 
prime example is the executive order known as the Fair Pay and Safe 
Workplaces, which the President signed in July 2014. While intended to 
award Federal contracts only to responsible contractors who have not 
committed recent labor violations, the actual outcome will lead to 
additional reporting requirements, increased administrative costs, and 
the potential for a contractor to be blacklisted from bidding on 
Federal contracts while they prove that they are innocent from the 
accused infraction.
  Mr. Speaker, by using executive orders to bypass congressional 
authority, this is nothing more than an attempt by this administration 
to implement their agenda without regard for the negative impact it 
will have on businesses and industries. But, unfortunately, this agenda 
extends beyond Federal contractors. The recent National Labor Relations 
Board ruling in the Browning-Ferris Industries case, which is more 
widely known as the joint employer decision, will have a massive impact 
on the business relationships between contractors and their 
subcontractors, franchisors and franchisees, and other contract labor 
relations.
  In one politically motivated decision, the NLRB completely redefined 
the definition of ``joint employer'' when they determined that a 
company could be held liable for a labor violation committed by a 
subcontractor or a staffing agency that they hired, even if this 
company doesn't have direct supervision over those workers.
  This sharing of responsibility is nothing more than an attempt to 
force both parties into collective bargaining, but the result will be 
much worse. Franchisors may decide that it is in their best interest to 
assert more authority over their franchisees to make sure that labor 
violations are less likely to occur, but then other franchisors may 
decide it is more cost effective to end their relationship as a way to 
avoid potential issues. Essentially, the same results could occur with 
companies who hire staffing agencies or independent contractors to 
provide them with temporary employees or contractors who hire 
subcontractors to perform skilled labor.
  As a small business contractor for more than two decades, I 
understand the unique relationship between a contractor and a 
subcontractor. In the end, the joint employer decision will disrupt 
this relationship and potentially discourage future contract 
arrangements.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues to join with me in demanding 
this administration to stop continually adding burdens to our Federal 
and private contractors.

                          ____________________