[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1723-1732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE GENERAL 
    SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                             ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by 
the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 74, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, 
     the General Services Administration, and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562 
     (August 25, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or 
     effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 37.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution.
  During the past 8 years, the number of newly issued regulations and 
the costs of those regulations have surged. By the prior 
administration's own estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over 
the last 10 years alone have imposed a cost of more than $100 billion 
annually on American taxpayers.
  H.J. Res. 37, which we are considering today under the Congressional 
Review Act procedures, represents an important step toward rolling back 
this tsunami of rules. Once a CRA resolution of disapproval for a rule 
is enacted, agencies cannot reissue the rule or any substantially 
similar rules in the future.
  H.J. Res. 37 revokes the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, otherwise 
known as the blacklisting rule.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx for her leadership on this resolution 
of disapproval. I also want to recognize my fellow original cosponsors, 
Mr. Chabot and Mr. Mitchell, for their leadership on this issue as 
well.
  I want to highlight the impact of this rule on the Federal 
acquisition system as well as contractors. This rule requires Federal 
contractors to report violations and alleged violations of 14

[[Page 1724]]

Federal labor laws and undefined equivalent State labor laws for the 
previous 3 years. Contractors must collect and report this information 
every time they submit a proposal for a contract and then every 6 
months during the contract performance. Then Federal contract officers 
consult with their agency's newly created agency labor compliance 
adviser before determining if a contractor is eligible for a contract 
award.
  There are a number of reasons this rule should be revoked. The 
Federal acquisition system is already a very complex, inefficient 
system. This contractor blacklisting rule is exactly the type of 
requirement an already complex Federal acquisition system does not 
need. The rule adds another contractor clause to an increasingly long 
list of clauses in every Federal contract. It slows down a process that 
already has trouble delivering goods and services in a timely manner. 
It increases the burden on Federal contract officers who have to review 
and assess the significant volume of information and take on the role 
of labor law experts.
  The rule imposes significant costs on contractors, which means the 
government, which ultimately means the taxpayers. The rule itself is 
estimated to cost contractors and subcontractors more than $458 million 
in the first year and $413 million in the second year of its 
implementation. Some experts believe the government underestimated 
these costs.
  The cost to establish a new information collection, reporting, and 
assessment system to comply with the rule would be prohibitively 
expensive for most contractors, especially the small contractors. Mr. 
Speaker, this is where the rubber meets the road. It is these small 
contractors.
  In fiscal year 2016, the Federal Government spent more than $470 
billion contracting for goods and services. We need to be looking for 
ways to reduce, not increase, spending in this area.
  The rule discourages competition and reduces access to innovation. 
The last thing we need to do for the Federal acquisition system is to 
discourage competition and innovation, particularly for first time 
participants who want to join the Federal marketplace. There are 
already so many barriers to entry, particularly for these small 
businesses. So think about the small business at home. They want to 
compete for these Federal contractors. They may be a very small 
organization.
  Even after we pass the resolution of disapproval, there are still 
rules, there are still laws, and there are still a lot of burdens that 
they have to deal with. But I want to cite some Bloomberg data about 
the number of first time Federal vendors. We have fallen to a 10-year 
low--down 24 percent in 2007 to only 13 percent in 2016.
  What that means is the big are probably getting bigger, but the small 
guy, the mom, the pop, and the woman who is starting a new business and 
wants to compete for these Federal contracts don't have a fighting 
chance. For the Federal Government to put more burdens on there, 
especially things that haven't been substantiated, is just not fair, 
and it is just not right.

                              {time}  1445

  The rule duplicates existing labor enforcement mechanisms to hold 
contractors accountable and, therefore, I believe, is not necessary.
  Revoking this rule will not leave Federal contractors free to violate 
labor laws. To the contrary, the Department of Labor has significant 
oversight and investigation resources to enforce the Federal labor law.
  Further, if there is a bad-apple contractor not complying with the 
law, contract officers already have the authority to refer contractors 
for suspension and disbarment.
  This rule raises due process and First Amendment concerns. One of the 
most disturbing parts of the rule is that contractors would be required 
to report alleged violations--not confirmed--just the alleged 
violations of the 14 Federal labor laws, and the undefined equivalent 
of State labor laws.
  It deprives contractors of their legal rights to challenge such 
allegations. The reporting requirement covers non-final administrative 
merits determinations without regard to the severity of the alleged 
violation.
  Contractors would have to disclose National Labor Relations Board 
complaints, OSHA citations, EEOC non-final letters of determination, 
even though these cases have not been adjudicated and the record is 
incomplete.
  Contractors challenged this rule in Federal Court, and the judge, in 
granting a preliminary injunction for the rule, found this reporting 
requirement could also impact contractors' First Amendment rights. The 
judge said that the rule could result in compelled speech by requiring 
contractors to report allegations that would cause a reputational harm, 
particularly if after adjudication the allegation is found to be 
without merit.
  This rule increases costs, complexity, and reduces competition in the 
Federal acquisition system. We are having trouble getting new entrants 
in to compete as contractors, and, therefore, I urge the support of the 
passage of H.J. Res. 37.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution which 
would disapprove of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule that was 
finalized in August of 2016.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires Federal contractors to be 
``responsible,'' to have a satisfactory record of integrity, and 
business ethics.
  The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would require Federal 
contractors to self-report on violations of 14 fundamental Federal 
labor and nondiscrimination laws.
  This includes laws like the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or 
OSHA; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; 
and the Civil Rights Act.
  These Federal laws apply to all businesses in the United States, and 
a vast majority of Federal contractors comply with them as well. 
Unfortunately, studies by the GAO, the Center for American Progress, 
and others show that there are a few bad apples that consistently 
violate these fundamental Federal labor laws, yet continue to be 
awarded Federal contracts.
  That is just plain wrong. Americans' tax dollars should not go to 
contractors who persistently and willfully violate such laws.
  It also puts contractors who do obey the law at an unfair 
disadvantage because they willingly bear the cost of compliance to 
provide safe and fair workplaces.
  The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would also improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal acquisition process by 
promoting healthy and productive workplaces.
  As the final rule notes, ``Contractors that consistently adhere to 
labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance 
productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable, and 
satisfactory delivery of goods and services.''
  This rule should be a win-win. It helps the Federal Government ensure 
compliance with fundamental labor and nondiscrimination laws and, at 
the same time, improve the efficiency of the Federal contracting 
process.
  I urge our Members to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived disapproval 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bobby Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, be allowed to control the time on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the lead sponsor of the 
joint resolution and the chair of the committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee for yielding time.

[[Page 1725]]

  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to stand up for workers, taxpayers, 
and small businesses.
  We all agree employers who do business with the Federal Government 
should be held to high standards, and their employees deserve strong 
protections. That is why for decades the Federal Government has had a 
system in place to deny contracts to employers who violate Federal 
labor laws.
  Time and again, Republicans in Congress urged the Obama 
administration to enforce the current system to ensure workers receive 
fair pay and safe workplaces.
  Instead, the previous administration did the exact opposite. It went 
in search of a problem that doesn't exist. It took its eye off the 
ball, and we are here today to demand better.
  The Obama blacklisting rule empowers government agencies to deny 
employers Federal contracts for alleged violations of various Federal 
labor laws and similar State laws. That is right. Under this rule, 
bureaucrats can determine employers are guilty until proven innocent, 
and then deny them the ability to do business with the Federal 
Government.
  This is one important reason why a Federal district judge recently 
blocked implementation of the rule because it would have a chilling 
effect on the due process rights of American citizens. But that is not 
the only reason why we are here today. Rather than streamline the 
procurement process to better protect taxpayers and workers, the Obama 
administration added new layers of red tape on to a system plagued by 
delays and inefficiencies. Simply put, this rule is a bureaucratic 
nightmare. It turns our already complex Federal procurement process 
into a convoluted regulatory maze.
  Despite what our Democrat colleagues will claim, this rule will 
actually hurt workers by making a system designed for their protection 
less efficient. Law-abiding small-business owners, the backbone of our 
Nation's economy, will be less inclined to bid on Federal contracts.
  As a result, we will see less competition in the Federal contracting 
process. With less competition, hardworking taxpayers will be forced to 
pay more for goods and services provided to the U.S. Government.
  Perhaps most concerning is the threat this rule poses to our national 
security. Higher costs and a delayed contracting process will 
jeopardize the resources our Armed Services depend on to keep our 
Nation safe. With men and women currently stationed in harm's way, this 
is simply unacceptable.
  If workers, taxpayers, and small businesses stand to lose, then who 
stands to gain?
  The answer is Big Labor. Union leaders often file frivolous legal 
complaints to gain leverage against employers. This is just one more 
partisan rule that stacks the deck in favor of union leaders.
  The facts are clear: this rule is fatally flawed. It is not in the 
best interest of workers, small-business owners, our military or 
hardworking taxpayers. It is also unnecessary, but you don't have to 
take my word for it.
  Last October, our colleagues in the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus--Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva said: ``The 
Department of Labor has full authority under current law to hold 
Federal contractors accountable.''
  I could not agree more. In fact, that is what Republicans have been 
saying all along.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers, small-business owners, 
taxpayers, and our national security by supporting this commonsense 
resolution. Then let's work together to ensure existing policies are 
enforced and workers have the protections they deserve.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) be permitted to control the 
remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I address the disapproval resolution, I just want to 
acknowledge the important role Federal contractors have in meeting the 
needs of the Federal Government. Employment and critical services in 
many districts, including my own, are heavily reliant on Federal 
contractors, including those who serve a critical role for our Nation, 
supporting the needs of the military, the Coast Guard, Homeland 
Security, and many others.
  That said, it is imperative that contractors are bidding on a level 
playing field when they compete for contracts. Unfortunately, this 
resolution would effectively reward contractors who cut corners, 
endanger the rights of their workers, and, studies show, compromise 
quality.
  Although most Federal contractors obey labor laws, studies by the 
GAO, the Senate HELP Committee, and others document that Federal 
contractors with histories of serious, willful, and repeated violations 
of labor employment and nondiscrimination laws continue to be rewarded 
with Federal contracts.
  For context, it is important to know that contracting rules already 
require agencies to determine whether or not a prospective contractor 
is responsible before awarding a contract. Amongst the criteria 
considered is whether or not the contractor has ``a satisfactory record 
of integrity and business ethics,'' and ``a satisfactory performance 
record.''
  As previous speakers have noted, violations can already be 
considered. However, contracting officers don't have access to a list 
of those violations until this rule is issued, nor are contracting 
officers required to review a bidder's labor violations history.
  The rule implementing the executive order on Fair Pay and Safe 
Workplaces does not add any extra layers of review. Rather, it would 
fill that data gap by requiring contractors to disclose whether they 
have violations of 14 longstanding labor laws, including the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, OSHA, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, 
and nondiscrimination laws.
  It only applies to contracts over $500,000, so we are not talking 
about mom-and-pop operations. But if listing those violations of fair 
pay and safe workplace laws constitutes an administrative burden, more 
the reason to make them be listed.
  They are to be disclosed. And although we have heard about 
allegations, and although some violations may not be final, the only 
thing that has to be disclosed are those violations for which there has 
been an agency determination. That is, an allegation is made, it is 
investigated, and the company has been found to be in violation. It may 
be on appeal or whatnot, but there has at least been an agency 
determination of guilt.
  The rule requires contracting officers to focus on whether such 
violations are serious, repeated, willful or pervasive. The rule helps 
bring those contractors with a history of violations into compliance by 
way of labor compliance agreements so they can continue to be 
considered for contracting opportunities while they improve their 
records.
  Some have mislabeled this rule as the ``blacklisting rule,'' but this 
suggestion and characterization ignores the rules' meaningful 
compliance provision. The reality is that this rule would, according to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, encourage agency 
contract officials to push bidders with serious labor law violations 
``to enter into labor compliance agreements'' rather than to disbar or 
suspend them.
  I want to point out that a coalition of 20,000 construction 
contractors submitted testimony to the Small Business Committee where 
they wrote: ``Employers--primes and subs have more rights, remedies and 
redress for non-responsibility determinations based on lack of 
integrity or business ethics under the executive order than the current 
Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures specifically provide.''

[[Page 1726]]

  Now, this testimony suggests that the rules are far more contractor-
friendly than the detractors have characterized.
  It would be premature to dismantle this rule because it hasn't even 
been put into effect because it has been under a court injunction. 
Further, repealing the rule under the CRA would bar future 
consideration of substantially similar rules unless Congress enacts 
subsequent enabling legislation.
  So the bottom line is that there are winners and there are losers if 
this legislation passes. The winners, if this legislation passes, would 
be companies who willfully, and repeatedly, and pervasively violate 
labor laws. The winners would be the contractors who cut corners and 
gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding contractors.

                              {time}  1500

  The losers will be workers who are employed by Federal contractors. 
They will be more susceptible to wage theft, unfair working conditions, 
and unsafe workplaces run by unscrupulous contractors. Losers will be 
the law-abiding contractors who lose contracts because they abide by 
the laws protecting their workers.
  This is why the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule enjoys support from 
a widespread number of businesses, veterans, civil rights, and labor 
organizations from the Easterseals to Paralyzed Veterans of America, to 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. That is why I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chair of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 
37. I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 
her leadership in sponsoring this measure. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor.
  The blacklisting rule is a textbook example of executive overreach 
that became standard operating procedure during the previous 
administration. Instead of using the existing suspension and debarment 
system to deal with bad actors, the Obama administration imposed an 
unnecessary regulation that placed significant burdens on all Federal 
contractors, even though they admitted that ``the vast majority of 
Federal contractors play by the rules.''
  This kind of action--failing to enforce existing rules and then 
imposing a burdensome, redundant regulatory scheme--is exactly what 
frustrates the American people about Washington. We all want bad actors 
to be held accountable, but this rule is unnecessary red tape that 
punishes everyone for the actions of a few.
  As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am concerned that 
we already have 100,000 fewer small businesses doing business with the 
Federal Government than we did back in 2012. So in the second term of 
the Obama administration, we lost 100,000 small businesses doing 
business with the Federal Government across the country. That means we 
have less competition, and that is bad for job creators and it is bad 
for taxpayers alike because, when there is less competition, we pay 
more, so the tax dollars that we send here to Washington are not used 
as efficiently as they ought to be.
  The Committee on Small Business held several hearings and roundtables 
on this rule over the last 2 years, heard directly from small 
businesses, and examined the Obama administration's rule very closely. 
What we found was quite alarming.
  The blacklisting rule would force innocent small businesses to settle 
unproven claims, disclose commercially sensitive information to their 
competitors, and report information the Federal Government already has. 
So we are going through this whole process, and the Federal Government 
has already got it; but they are not competent enough to use what they 
have already got, so they want to put it on the contractor to do even 
more. It makes no sense.
  Ultimately, this rule will result in small businesses being 
blacklisted from participating in Federal contracting based on 
accusations--just accusations--where they may ultimately be found 
innocent. They didn't do anything wrong, yet they are barred from doing 
business with the government. Again, it makes no sense.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 37. Passage of this joint 
resolution will undo a duplicative and unnecessary regulation that 
harms small business, hurts competition, and prevents taxpayers from 
getting the best bang for their buck.
  I again want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership in pushing 
this forward. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
congressional Republicans' attempt to repeal Fair Pay and Safe 
Workplaces protections for Federal contract workers.
  We all know President Trump is no fan of transparency. He has 
steadfastly refused to disclose his own tax returns, so it is no 
surprise that he and the Republicans would oppose disclosure of labor, 
employment, civil rights, and nondiscrimination law violations by 
bidders for Federal contracts.
  What I really don't understand is why Members of Congress would ask 
American taxpayers to subsidize companies that routinely violate our 
labor laws. Voting for this resolution actually rewards companies that 
discriminate, stiff their employees on pay, or cut corners on safety, 
and it puts responsible businesses that play by the rules at a 
disadvantage.
  This resolution harms women. Women make up the majority of low-wage 
workers. Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections ensure that our tax 
dollars do not support sexual harassment and sex discrimination on the 
job, regular occurrences especially for low-wage working women.
  This resolution harms veterans, including disabled veterans. Repeal 
means that we won't know whether a contract bidder routinely violates 
section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, Disabled American Veterans, and Vets First say is ``necessary 
to prevent discrimination in the workplace and during the hiring 
process.''
  This resolution also harms older workers. To quote AARP: `` . . . age 
discrimination in the workplace persists as a serious and pervasive 
problem. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is the first 
executive order since 1964 addressing the obligation of those who 
receive federal contracts not to discriminate on the basis of age.''
  If you don't want your taxpayer dollars to be used to undermine Fair 
Pay and Safe Workplaces protections, then all Members should oppose 
this resolution.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37. I 
am proud to join Chairwoman Foxx and Chairmen Chaffetz and Chabot as an 
original cosponsor.
  H.J. Res. 37 would void the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, 
commonly known as the blacklisting rule. The blacklisting rule is an 
additional layer of Federal bureaucracy that crushes the ability of 
small and midsize companies to compete for Federal contracts and 
adversely impacts timing and efficient procurement while massively 
increasing costs.
  The blacklisting rule requires Federal contractors to report 
violations, including alleged violations of 14 Federal labor laws and 
equivalent State laws, over the previous 3 years. Contractors have to 
collect that information from all of their subcontractors, and they are 
liable for that information, placing a huge administrative burden on 
those contractors. Also, not only when they bid for the contract, but 
every 6 months, they must renew that information.
  Federal contract officers--by the way, there are over 37,000 of them, 
an

[[Page 1727]]

amazing number--would then be required to consult with newly created 
labor compliance advisers. Yes, it creates more bureaucrats.
  The final rule, itself, estimates costs for contractors and 
subcontractors of more than $458 million in the first year--a half a 
billion dollars--and more than $413 million in the second year. Amazing 
costs. This compliance cost is catastrophic for small and midsize 
businesses.
  Those who deny workers basic protections are already protected by the 
suspension and debarment process. The blacklisting rule is simply 
another bureaucratic hoop. In 2015, nearly 1,000 suspensions and 2,000 
debarments were undertaken. Put simply, the suspension and debarment 
system has worked to protect workers and government.
  Moreover, the rule requires contractors and subcontractors to report 
on alleged labor law violations and violations that have not been fully 
adjudicated. A business could be deemed ineligible for a Federal 
contract, or blacklisted, because the contractor reported alleged labor 
law violations while still exercising their legal right to pursue 
adjudication. That is antithetical to our Constitution.
  H.J. Res. 37 will remove a regulation that raises serious due process 
concerns, duplicates existing enforcement mechanisms, increases the 
cost of Federal contracting, and expands the Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 
37.
  President Obama's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule reinforces 
employment protections and laws that help veterans, individuals with 
disabilities, older Americans, minorities, and LGBTQ workers. It 
protects workers in our country so they receive a fair day's pay for a 
fair day's work.
  This rule was passed in response to discovering that billions of 
taxpayer dollars went to companies that violated Federal workplace 
laws. A contractor who cheats workers out of their pay, endangers their 
safety at work, or engages in discriminatory practices should be 
required at least to disclose this information when bidding for Federal 
contracts. Taxpayer dollars should not support the exploitation of 
workers. That is just common sense.
  The resolution before us would also remove critical protections for 
workers that allow them to access our judicial system. The Fair Pay and 
Safe Workplaces rule bans forced arbitration in workplace 
discrimination and sexual assault cases for contracts of $1 million or 
greater, a policy already in place at the Department of Defense that 
was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 2010. Workers deserve the 
opportunity to have their day in court to seek justice for their sexual 
assault and discrimination claims.
  I oppose this resolution to disapprove of these protections because 
it gives serial law violators a free pass at the cost of workers' 
safety, and it disadvantages the law-abiding contractors in Oregon and 
across the country who follow our Nation's laws.
  H.J. Res. 37 before us today would reward unlawful and discriminatory 
conduct. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, 
Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for introducing this legislation and sponsoring it. I rise today in 
support of H.J. Res. 37.
  We all agree that bad actors who deny workers basic protections and 
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act should not be rewarded with 
government contracts funded by taxpayer dollars. However, the 
Department of Labor's rule effectively blacklists Federal contractors 
for alleged violations and would require contractors to defend 
themselves against these allegations without being entitled to a formal 
hearing.
  The Federal District Court has already ruled that the Department of 
Labor rule violates contractors' due process rights. Additionally, this 
rule is unnecessary because the Department of Labor already has 
significant oversight and investigation capabilities to assess 
contractor compliance with Federal labor laws.
  This rule supersedes agencies' existing authority to hold contractors 
accountable under the current suspension and disbarment system. My 
question is why don't they use it?
  Misguided regulatory policies, like the blacklisting rule, don't stop 
bad actors, but they do end up adding new layers of redundant 
bureaucratic red tape, harming employers and older workers, disabled 
workers, female workers, minority workers, and workers, in general, 
alike.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and 
roll back this duplicative and unnecessary rule.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, can you advise both sides how 
much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from 
organizations that have long led the fight for workers' rights: the 
AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                                 February 1, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the 
     Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval of the 
     regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
     Executive Order.
       The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulations implement the 
     common-sense proposition that companies wanting to receive 
     lucrative taxpayer-funded government contracts should comply 
     with the law and respect workers' rights. The Executive Order 
     and implementing regulations establish a process for 
     reviewing the records of companies bidding for federal 
     business and ensuring that companies that receive this 
     business comply with the law and respect workers' rights. The 
     regulations improve the contracting process and establish 
     more fairness, so that companies that respect workers' rights 
     do not have a competitive disadvantage when competing against 
     companies that cheat by misclassifying their workers as 
     independent contractors, ignoring health and safety hazards, 
     or engaging in wage theft. Repealing these regulations will 
     remove an important incentive for companies to pay their 
     workers what they are due, protect their health and safety, 
     and comply with the law.
       The regulations are needed because the current procurement 
     system does an inadequate job screening prospective 
     contractors and their compliance (or non-compliance) with the 
     law. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 
     federal contracts have been awarded to companies with 
     significant records of violating wage and hour, health and 
     safety, and other worker protection laws. A report by the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions similarly 
     found that the government regularly awards federal contracts 
     to companies with significant violations of worker protection 
     laws.
       Wiping out these regulations using the Congressional Review 
     Act is a draconian and unnecessary act. If Congress adopts 
     this resolution, agencies will be forever barred from 
     adopting similar regulations in the future. This is overkill. 
     If Congress has concerns about aspects of the regulations, it 
     can work with the Trump Administration to modify those 
     provisions through the regular rulemaking process. Congress 
     should not use the blunt instrument of the CRA to wipe out 
     the rules and prevent their adoption in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                         William Samuel, Director.
     Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____


    [From the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Feb. 2, 2017]

 Roll Back of `Fair and Safe Workplaces' Will Hurt Workers, Reward Bad 
                                 Actors


   hoffa statement of legislation aimed at rescinding executive order

       Washington.--The following is a statement from Teamsters 
     General President James P. Hoffa on the House of 
     Representative's consideration of legislation later today 
     that would roll back the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
     executive order issued by President Obama in 2014 and 
     instituted last year.
       ``Federal government contractors receive taxpayer dollars 
     to provide a service or product. And as part of that 
     agreement, they

[[Page 1728]]

     should be expected to follow the law when it comes to the 
     workplace and their employees. When they don't, they hurt 
     working families, they gain unfair advantage over companies 
     that play by the rules, and they should be held accountable 
     for their actions.
       ``That's what the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive 
     order that took effect last August ensures. There is nothing 
     controversial about it. Lawmakers should want workers to 
     receive the paychecks they earn, be safe on the job and not 
     be discriminated against.
       ``Taxpayer money should not be handed to companies that 
     blatantly violate labor and workplace laws. If elected 
     representatives are as truly interested in standing up for 
     workers as they claim, they will stop efforts to overturn 
     rules that protect employee pay and ensure workers can 
     provide for their families.''
       Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout 
     the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, before entering public office, I was an 
electrician. I used to work on top of bridges doing very dangerous 
work. Imagine climbing 150 feet up over water. But over the course of 
that career, three times, there were gentlemen I worked with who never 
went home, never clocked out, never went home to see their wife or 
their children.
  Every day, 13 Americans are killed on the job; they didn't go home to 
see their wife, their children, their husband. Sometimes accidents are 
unavoidable, but many, many times they aren't, and that is what we are 
talking about here.

                              {time}  1515

  The rule doesn't talk about hurting companies. We are talking about 
basic information, the same information that everybody in this room 
would ask if they were building an addition on their house. You would 
want to know, if you were spending $10,000, whether or not that 
contractor had any violations, did he finish the job, were people 
killed on the job. But when we are spending $81 billion of the American 
taxpayer, somehow we don't want to know that. If you go for a loan, 
they want to know what your background is, even if you had given it ten 
times before. If you are going to college, they certainly want to know 
your background.
  So what we are talking about here is simple transparency. It is not 
just about workplace safety. It is about giving a free pass for 
something that they did wrong. Let me repeat that. Something that 
contractors did wrong. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to 
fear. That is why I stand in opposition to this rule.
  When I vote against this legislation, I want everybody in this room 
to think about 13 men and women who aren't going home tonight, who 
wouldn't have to tell anybody that they were killed on their jobs.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairwoman for yielding, and 
for her leadership on our committee.
  I rise today to offer my strong support for H.J. Res. 37. This 
legislation is about protecting our Nation's workers, small businesses, 
and taxpayers.
  As a former labor and employment attorney, I have seen the maze that 
businesses must jump through in order to become a Federal contractor. 
Well, this rule would only make things that much harder for them.
  This regulation, due to the price of compliance, could force small- 
and medium-sized businesses, who can't afford to hire a massive legal 
team, out of being able to get contracts with the Federal Government.
  This rule will add subjectivity to the Federal procurement process 
and deprive contractors of due process rights. As an attorney, I take 
that threat very seriously.
  We should be in the business of supporting policies to make it easier 
for these kinds of businesses to get new work, not harder.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side say this is 
just about punishing bad actors. But this rule would require Federal 
contractors to disclose even alleged violations of wrongdoing, 
regardless of whether or not there is any credibility to the claims. 
Right now, there are effective policies in place to prevent bad actors 
and contractors that break the law from receiving government contracts.
  This could be especially damaging for employers who are the target of 
union organizing campaigns, or in a situation where a competitor files 
a claim in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. It elevates the 
risk of frivolous complaints and the loss of business.
  Instead of muddying the water and making it harder for our Nation's 
small- and medium-sized businesses, let's use the current framework, 
not a new burdensome regulation, to enforce the law and hold any bad 
actors accountable.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution to 
block an overreaching and counterproductive rule.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overturning the Fair Pay 
and Safe Workplaces rule under the Congressional Review Act. Undoing 
this rule would once again allow unethical Federal contractors to 
collect billions of dollars from taxpayers while stealing from, 
endangering, and discriminating against their employees.
  Right outside this building, on January 20, President Trump promised 
to give power back to the people and empower everyday Americans. I do 
not understand how allowing Federal contractors to hide records of wage 
theft, safety violations, and discrimination keeps that promise.
  I am particularly concerned with what repealing this rule will mean 
for our Nation's veterans. Because Federal contractors are encouraged 
to employ the men and women who have served, they will be greatly 
affected if we let companies off the hook for repeatedly violating 
workplace laws.
  In addition, President Obama's executive order helps to guarantee 
that Federal contractors comply with longstanding law that protects 
veterans and people with disabilities from discrimination in the 
workplace. It also encourages contractors to recruit, hire, promote, 
and retain these individuals.
  This is why the Paralyzed Veterans of America wrote a letter to the 
Speaker and minority leader asking that they oppose this resolution to 
ensure fair and safe working conditions for our veterans. PVA was also 
joined in a separate letter by Vietnam Veterans of America and 
disability advocates, including Easterseals, the American Association 
of People with Disabilities, and dozens more opposing the resolution we 
are debating today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record both letters.


                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America urges you to reject a Congressional 
     Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the 2016 Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce employment 
     discrimination against people with disabilities and veterans, 
     including those with service-connected disabilities. PVA is 
     the nation's only Congressionally-chartered veterans' service 
     organization solely dedicated to representing veterans with 
     spinal cord injuries and/or diseases.
       Disapproving this rule will weaken important 
     nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended 
     for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four 
     decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been 
     protected by federal laws against discrimination in 
     employment with employers that do business with the federal 
     government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance 
     Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take 
     affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain 
     these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment 
     rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     (81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA 
     resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies

[[Page 1729]]

     that want to do business with the federal government disclose 
     whether they have been in violation of these longstanding 
     requirements.
       Please ensure that veterans and other individuals with 
     disabilities are not denied fair and equal employment 
     opportunities by voting against the CRA resolution of 
     disapproval of the Federal Acquisition Regulation published 
     at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Blake,
     Associate Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      Consortium for Citizens with


                                                 Disabilities,

                                                 February 1, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The 
     undersigned members of the Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities (CCD) and our allies urge you to reject a 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the 
     2016 Federal Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce 
     employment discrimination against people with disabilities 
     and veterans, including those with service-connected 
     disabilities.
       CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations 
     working together to advocate for Federal public policy that 
     ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society.
       Disapproving this rule would weaken important 
     nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended 
     for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four 
     decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been 
     protected by federal laws against discrimination in 
     employment with employers that do business with the federal 
     government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance 
     Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take 
     affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain 
     these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment 
     rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     (81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA 
     resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies that 
     want to do business with the federal government disclose 
     whether they have been in violation of these longstanding 
     requirements.
       Please help ensure individuals with disabilities and 
     veterans have a fair shot at employment by voting against the 
     CRA resolution of disapproval of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of People with Disabilities, American 
     Foundation for the Blind, Association of University Centers 
     on Disabilities (AUCD), Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public 
     Representation, Disability Power & Pride, Easterseals, 
     Goodwill Industries International, Institute for Educational 
     Leadership, National Association of State Head Injury 
     Administrators, The National Council on Independent Living, 
     National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome 
     Congress, Special Needs Alliance, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America, The Advocrat Group, The Arc of the United States, 
     United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association, Vietnam 
     Veterans of America [VVA].

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government, which spends 
billions of dollars contracting with private companies every year, has 
an obligation to demonstrate and promote responsible behavior. We 
should not be in the business of working with contractors who 
repeatedly violate our Nation's labor laws, particularly when they harm 
the veterans who have served our Nation so bravely.
  Repealing this rule sends the wrong message to employers, the wrong 
message to veterans, and the wrong message to hardworking Americans who 
deserve to be treated with respect in the workplace.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 
organizations supporting this disapproval resolution.

                   Letters in Support of H.J. Res. 37

       Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
       Other Stakeholders (19 signatories): Aerospace Industries 
     Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, 
     American Foundry Society, American Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, American Trucking Association, Associated 
     Builders and Contractors, Inc., Associated General 
     Contractors, College and University Professional Association 
     for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), HR Policy Association, 
     Independent Electrical Contractors, Information Technology 
     Alliance for the Public Sector, International Foodservice 
     Distributors Association, National Association of 
     Manufacturers, National Defense Industrial Association, 
     Professional Services Council, Society for Human Resource 
     Management, The Coalition for Government Procurement, U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, WorldatWork.

  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Scott, 
for yielding.
  I stand here in opposition to this resolution, which looks to undo 
rules that provide safety and fairness in the workplace.
  The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule speaks for itself. It ensures 
that contractors entrusted with taxpayer dollars cannot exploit their 
workers and that repeated lawbreakers do not get a competitive 
advantage. This standard does not impose extra regulations on 
contractors. It simply requires that they follow the law.
  These laws make sure women are paid the same wages for the same work. 
They make sure that employers are paying a fair rate for overtime work. 
They protect employees with disabilities. And they protect workers who 
are victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment by ensuring those 
individuals have an opportunity to be heard.
  A 2013 Senate report found that government contractors are often 
among the worst violators of the workplace safety, wage, and hour laws. 
Nearly one in three companies with the worst safety and wage violations 
are Federal contractors. Americans working for Federal contractors lose 
up to $2.5 billion each year to violations of minimum wage laws alone. 
This is unacceptable and exactly why this order was executed--to 
protect workers.
  We have a duty to our constituents, and this rule rightfully asks the 
Federal Government to take another look at contractors who have 
violated labor laws before awarding a contract. By upholding this 
order, we can continue to ensure that taxpayers get a fair deal for 
their money, something my Republican colleagues certainly should be in 
favor of.
  Some Republicans will claim that this order creates a so-called 
blacklist by preventing companies from receiving Federal contracts. 
However, the opposite is true. The order, in fact, provides new tools 
for contractors to come into compliance with the law. This order is in 
the interest of the people and our constituents who we were sent here 
to represent. Rolling back these protections would demonstrate that we 
would rather side with employers who cut legal corners by not paying a 
fair wage than with our constituents who work day in and day out to 
provide for their families.
  Not only will rescinding this rule hurt our constituents, but it 
would also hurt law-abiding companies by forcing them into unfair 
competition with companies that cut corners and knowingly violate the 
law. As we look to invest in our country's infrastructure, I cannot 
think of a more important time to ensure that employees working for 
Federal contractors are treated fairly. This rule is an important 
safeguard that protects employees, and its rollback will be a disgrace.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and the complete 
dismantlement of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order.
  Among other worker protection benefits, President Obama's Fair Pay 
and Safe Workplaces executive order prohibits Federal contractors from 
using forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts involving 
civil, sexual

[[Page 1730]]

assault, and harassment disputes. It directs companies with Federal 
contracts of $1 million or more not to require their employees to enter 
into pre-dispute arbitration proceedings for disputes arising out of 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from sexual assault or harassment 
cases, except when valid contracts already exist.
  This existing order built upon existing policy that was successfully 
implemented at the Department of Defense, the largest Federal 
contracting agency, and it will help improve contractors' compliance 
with labor laws.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive 
order required Federal contractors to give employees their day in 
court. By doing away with this order, the new administration is 
subjecting workers to forced arbitration, which is a private and 
fundamentally unfair process.
  Unlike the court system, which was developed through centuries of 
jurisprudence, forced arbitration does not provide important procedural 
guarantees of fairness and due process that are the hallmark of our 
courts. There are no requirements that witnesses testify under oath or 
affirmation, rules of evidence and procedure are not relied upon, the 
caselaw that has been developed over centuries is not used as 
precedent, and arbitration proceedings are often secretive, sealed, and 
there is no meaningful right to appeal.
  Behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy, forced arbitration 
enables employers to conceal wrongdoing from the public and to 
undermine employee rights.
  Since 2007, I have championed the Arbitration Fairness Act, which 
would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and 
civil rights cases. The executive order took us one step closer.
  Americans deserve better than private, unaccountable tribunals that 
adjudicate disputes, mostly in favor of the employer. Equal access to 
justice for all should not be an aspiration but a guarantee for all 
Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate a couple of provisions.
  One is this underlying regulation only applies to contracts in excess 
of $500,000. As previously stated, this information that is to be 
disclosed can already be considered in contracting. This regulation 
makes it available so it can be considered.
  It is not just allegations. We are talking about agency 
determinations after an investigation.
  Now, the regulation requires consideration of the fact of whether or 
not a determination is final or whether it is on appeal. That is to be 
considered. But not all violations in the fullest of time are to be 
considered at all. Only those that are serious, repeated, willful, or 
pervasive violations of fair pay and safe workplace violations are to 
be considered.
  And so for the people who are not blacklisted, the guilty are 
encouraged to participate in labor compliance agreements so they can 
continue to receive contracts while they improve their records.

                              {time}  1530

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let us recall who the winners and losers are 
if this resolution of disapproval passes. The winners will be the 
unscrupulous contractors who cut corners and compromise the safety of 
their workers. The losers will be the workers, who are the most 
susceptible to wage theft and unfair working conditions, and the law-
abiding contractors who face unfair competition.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: one from The 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, another from the 
American Industrial Hygiene Association, and, finally, one from a 
coalition of 134 business, labor, and civil society groups which stand 
in opposition to this resolution of disapproval.
                                      The Leadership Conference on


                                       Civil and Human Rights,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a 
     coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 
     national organizations to promote and protect the civil and 
     human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in 
     strong opposition to the use of the Congressional Review Act 
     (CRA) to repeal the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and 
     Safe Workplaces Executive Order.
       The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-needed step 
     forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is 
     providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by 
     encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights 
     laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of 
     certain disputes.
       Employers that have the privilege of doing business with 
     the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by 
     the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they 
     help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and 
     ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights 
     laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal 
     contracts to comply with federal civil rights laws such as 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay 
     Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The Executive 
     Order also bans contractors from forcing employees to 
     arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as 
     well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
       We urge you to oppose any attempts to roll back the 
     protections that stem from the Executive Order on Fair Pay 
     and Safe Workplaces. The Order and implementing regulations 
     provide strong protections against the federal government 
     contracting with employers that routinely engage in 
     discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability, 
     violate workplace health and safety protections, withhold 
     wages, or commit other labor violations. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact June Zeitlin, Director 
     of Human Rights Policy.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       President & CEO.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                AIHA Protecting Worker Health,

                                                 January 31, 2017.

 Expressing Concern for Worker Health & Safety Related to H.J. Res. 37 
 ``Disapproving the Final Rule Submitted by the Department of Defense, 
 the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and 
 Space Administration Relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation''

       Dear U.S. Representatives: On behalf of the American 
     Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), I am writing to 
     express our concern with H.J. Res. 37, which would overturn a 
     final rule that amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to 
     implement Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and Safe 
     Workplaces'', and is currently scheduled for consideration 
     this week on the House floor under Suspension of the Rules. 
     While the final rule and Executive Order address many topics, 
     our concerns are limited to those areas dealing with worker 
     health and safety, as these are the subjects in which AIHA 
     and its members possess unique expertise and knowledge.
       Instead of a blanket repeal of this rule, AIHA encourages 
     you to engage with occupational and environmental health and 
     safety professionals, and others in a constructive dialogue 
     that examines how best to improve worker health, safety, and 
     socioeconomic prosperity--all of which are closely linked. As 
     currently drafted, H.J. Res. 37 threatens to slow progress 
     towards healthier and safer workplaces; as such, we encourage 
     you to oppose its passage.
       Founded in 1939, AIHA is the premier association of 
     occupational and environmental health and safety 
     professionals. AIHA's 8,500 members play a crucial role on 
     the front line of worker health and safety every day. Our 
     members represent a cross-section of industry, private 
     business, labor, government and academia.
       Thank you for your consideration of AIHA's concerns and 
     recommendations. AIHA looks forward to working with you to 
     help protect worker health and safety. Please feel free to 
     contact Mark Ames, AIHA's Director of Government Relations.
           Respectfully,

                                          Lawrence Sloan, CAE,

                                    Chief Executive Officer, AIHA.

[[Page 1731]]

     
                                  ____
                                                 January 31, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the undersigned organizations, we write in strong opposition 
     to the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal 
     the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
     Executive Order. We are organizations dedicated to protecting 
     workers, eliminating workplace discrimination and protecting 
     access to justice. The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-
     needed step forward in ensuring that the federal contractor 
     community is providing safe and fair workplaces for employees 
     by encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights 
     laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of 
     certain disputes.
       Employers that have the privilege of doing business with 
     the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by 
     the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they 
     help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and 
     ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights 
     laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal 
     contracts to comply with federal labor and employment laws 
     such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the 
     Equal Pay Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The 
     Executive Order also bans contractors from forcing employees 
     to arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     as well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
       We ask you to stand with American workers and oppose any 
     attempts to roll back the protections that stem from the 
     Executive Order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. They provide 
     strong protections against the federal government contracting 
     with employers that routinely violate workplace health and 
     safety protections, engage in age, disability, race, and sex 
     discrimination, withhold wages, or commit other labor 
     violations. These protections should not be repealed.
           Sincerely,
       9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5 
     Wisconsin, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, A 
     Better Balance, A. Phillip Randolph Institute, AFL-CIO, 
     African American Ministers In Action, AJ Rosen & Associates 
     LLC, Alaska Wilderness League, Alliance to End Slavery & 
     Trafficking, Amalgamated Transit Union, American Association 
     for Access, Equity and Diversity, American Association of 
     People with Disabilities, American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union, American 
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American 
     Federation of Teachers.
       Americans for Democratic Action, Arkansans Against Abusive 
     Payday Lending, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Bend 
     the Arc Jewish Action, BlueGreen Alliance, Brazilian Worker 
     Center, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen--
     Wyoming State Legislative Board, Business and Professional 
     Women/Florida (BPW/FL), Business and Professional Women/St. 
     Petersburg-Pinellas (BPW/SPP), California Employment Lawyers 
     Association, Catalyst, Center for Justice & Democracy, Center 
     for Law and Social Policy, Coalition of Labor Union Women, 
     Coalition on Human Needs, Coalition to Abolish Slavery & 
     Trafficking, Communications Workers of America, Demand 
     Progress, Demos, Economic Policy Institute Policy Center.
       Equal Pay Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Equality 
     Council, Family Values @ Work, Farmworker Association of 
     Florida, Feminist Majority, Fight for $15, Food & Water 
     Watch, Friends of the Earth, Futures Without Violence, Gender 
     Justice, Good Jobs Nation, Health Justice Project, Hindu 
     American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, Institute for 
     Science and Human Values, Inc., Interfaith Worker Justice, 
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
       International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers, IFPTE, International Union of Bricklayers and 
     Allied Craftworkers, International Union, United Automobile, 
     Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), 
     Jobs With Justice, Jobs with Justice of East Tennessee, Knox 
     Area Workers' Memorial Day Committee, Labor Council for Latin 
     American Advancement, Labor Project for Working Families in 
     Partnership with Family Values @ Work, Lambda Legal, Lawyers 
     Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership 
     Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Main Street Alliance, 
     Make the Road New York, MassCOSH--Massachusetts Coalition for 
     Occupational Safety & Health, MomsRising.org, NAACP, National 
     Alliance for Fair Contracting, National Asian Pacific 
     American Women's Forum, National Association of Consumer 
     Advocates.
       National Association of Human Rights Workers, National 
     Association of Social Workers, National Bar Association, 
     National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Law and 
     Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian Rights, 
     National Center for Transgender Equality, National Consumer 
     Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National 
     Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza, 
     National Disability Rights Network, National Education 
     Association, National Employment Law Project, National 
     Employment Lawyers Association, National Fair Housing 
     Alliance, National Guestworker Alliance, National Health Law 
     Program, National Immigration Law Center, National 
     Organization for Women, National Urban League.
       National Women's Law Center, National Youth Employment 
     Coalition, Oxfam America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The 
     National Partnership for Women & Families, People's Action, 
     Policy Matters Ohio, PowHer New York, Pride at Work, 
     Progressive Congress Action Fund, Public Citizen, Public 
     Justice, Public Justice Center, Restaurant Opportunities 
     Centers United, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, 
     Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, Sargent Shriver 
     National Center on Poverty Law, Service Employees 
     International Union (SEIU), Sierra Club, South Florida 
     Interfaith Worker Justice.
       Southwest Women's Law Center, Sugar Law Center for Economic 
     & Social Justice, The American Association for Justice, The 
     Consumer Voice, The Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, 
     UltraViolet, Union of Concerned Scientists, Unite Here, 
     United Steelworkers, UWUA--Utility Workers Union of America, 
     The Voter Participation Center, Washington State Labor 
     Council, AFL-CIO, WisCOSH, Inc., Women Employed, Women's 
     Voices for the Earth, Workplace Fairness, Women's Voices 
     Women Vote Action Fund.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I thank my colleagues--Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman 
Chabot, and Representative Mitchell--for joining us in this important 
effort as well as to thank my colleagues who came and spoke on this 
resolution.
  Workers deserve strong protections. The best way to ensure fair pay 
and safe workplaces is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment 
system. It is also important to remind my colleagues of what the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus said:

       The Department of Labor has full authority under current 
     law to hold Federal contractors accountable.

  It is clear we don't need more layers of red tape to prevent bad 
actors from receiving taxpayer-funded contracts. Creating a 
bureaucratic maze would only make a system less efficient that is 
designed to protect workers. Furthermore, the blacklisting rule would 
undermine the ability of small businesses to compete for Federal 
contracts, would increase costs for taxpayers, and would jeopardize the 
resources of our Armed Forces--the ones they need to keep this country 
safe.
  I urge my colleagues to block this harmful rule and vote ``yes'' on 
H.J. Res. 37.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Joint Resolution 37, which annuls a poorly-written regulation put in 
place by the Obama administration.
  We need to clean up the regulations that the previous administration 
imposed upon American business. We need to reform them, and ensure that 
they serve a useful purpose. This is especially important for the 
Department of Defense and NASA.
  The regulation in question does not allow contractors to exercise 
their right of due process. Rather than letting our legal system 
provide justice, American companies could be blacklisted by contracting 
agencies if ``preliminary determinations'' had been made against them.
  This is not how our justice system works. Perhaps that is why this 
regulation was halted by a nationwide injunction.
  We should protect American workers. The regulation we strike today 
was poorly crafted, and it would ultimately do America's workforce more 
harm than good.
  As Chairman of the Science Committee, I know that such a regulation 
would impede NASA from carrying out its mission of exploration and 
place an unnecessary cost on taxpayers by diminishing competition.
  NASA should not be hampered by such unnecessary regulations and needs 
to focus its resources on the challenges of outer space exploration.

[[Page 1732]]

  The Federal procurement process cannot afford to be bogged down with 
defective regulations. Congress must clean up how our government does 
business to ensure that it is just and efficient.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we often tell young 
people that if they work hard and play by the rules, their efforts will 
be rewarded.
  Yet this unjust resolution fails to put our federal government's 
money where its mouth is.
  It will ensure that our tax dollars continue to go to companies that 
fail to live up to their end of this bargain.
  Time and again, reports have cited the glaring frequency with which 
serial labor law violators receive federal contracts.
  In the mid-1990s, GAO identified dozens of companies of violating 
core workplace protections, like the National Labor Relations Act and 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  And these abuses have continued. Reports in 2010 and 2013 again found 
that companies with significant labor citations continued to receive 
federal contracts.
  The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule makes certain that our agencies 
have the information about these violations they need to protect 
American workers and safeguard our tax dollars.
  It makes clear that companies who violate our landmark labor 
protections, who deny overtime pay or family leave, and who deny 
workers' rights to organize are not rewarded for repeatedly flouting 
the law.
  It also ensures that workers who have been discriminated against or 
sexually harassed can have their day in court. They cannot be forced 
into arbitration.
  Our procurement laws already ask that tax dollars only go to 
responsible contractors, with ``a satisfactory record of integrity''.
  Serial labor law violators do not meet this test.
  What's more, numerous studies have found that contractors with better 
compliance records also perform better.
  So let's not brush around the edges; this is not about safeguarding 
tax dollars.
  This vote is about allowing labor abuses to go rewarded.
  I cannot stand for that. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 74, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage 
of H.J. Res. 40.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 187, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clark (MA)
     Hastings
     Jones
     Mulvaney
     Peterson
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Walker
     Zinke

                              {time}  1556

  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CORREA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________