Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act

I thank the gentlelady for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to both the rule and the underlying bill. The bill is inaccurately named. In fact, quite to the contrary, the bill should be called the Creating Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, throwing into question actions of this Board, decisions on both sides, as well as agreements that have been reached through the process in the interest of business, as well as working Americans.

Two weeks ago, Congress approved a continuing resolution on a bipartisan basis to prevent the Federal Government from closing. There were give-and-takes. There were things in it from both sides that weren't perfect. Nevertheless, the majority and minority in this House, the Republicans and Democrats, worked together in good faith, successfully, to prevent a government shutdown, consistent with what the American people wanted and consistent with any responsible stewardship of the public trust.

After achieving that, I was initially optimistic that when the House reconvened this week, we might be able to build on the spirit of compromise, perhaps tackling the difficult issue of fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works, that restores the rule of law, perhaps dealing with some of the gun safety issues that are being debated across society, perhaps dealing with tax reform and bringing down our rates and broadening the base, perhaps dealing with finally battling our budget deficit.

But, instead, here we are back in Congress, picking up where we were before we worked together on the continuing resolution, passing pointless bills for presumably political reasons--bills that have no sign of passage in the Senate, bills that have a direct veto threat from the President of the United States, which is in his Statement of Administration Policy which I entered into the Record last night in the Rules Committee, and just as importantly, a bill that has no positive impact on the

most important issue facing our country today--job creation and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attack on American workers; this bill is an attack on American businesses. Pure and simple, H.R. 1120 would effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board, invalidate all 569 decisions that the NLRB made between January 12 and March of this year.

My colleagues claim this is a response to the D.C. Circuit Court decision. But when have we ever enshrined an intermediate court decision into statute? It makes absolutely no sense. This court decision found that nearly all recess appointments are invalid; but the reality is the decision of the D.C. Circuit conflicts entirely with judicial precedent and past practice.

President Reagan made 232 recess appointments. George H.W. Bush made 78. George W. Bush made 171. So far, President Obama has made 32--far fewer than his predecessors. In fact, every President since Reagan has appointed a member of the NLRB through a recess appointment.

In the absence of legislative action, any responsible Chief Executive takes the prerogative to make our laws and system of government work. If this body fails to pass immigration reform, the President might build upon the deferred action program and try to do what he can for detention reform. We need to change the laws. But failing that, what can a President do besides try to make those laws work?

In the absence of taking up ESEA reauthorization, in the absence of replacing No Child Left Behind with a Federal education law that gets accountability right and expands and replicates what works in public education and improves what isn't working, in the absence of doing that, the President and Secretary Duncan have taken the prerogative to grant waivers for States on a statutory framework that we know is insufficient and doesn't work.

So, again, it's no surprise that, in the absence of taking up nominees, the President used his recess appointment power to make sure that the important functions of government could continue.

When have we ever, as a House, responded directly to intermediate circuit court decisions by instantly making them statutes? Look, the majority of this House of Representatives wasn't so confident in the D.C. Circuit when it said that ObamaCare was constitutional. We didn't see bills instantly to say ObamaCare is constitutional because the D.C. District Court said it was constitutional. What about when the D.C. District Court upheld the constitutionality of civil unions in Washington, D.C.? Was there a bill from my colleagues on the other side to instantly say that civil unions are constitutional?

Look, this is in process through the judicial branch of government. We need to wait until the Supreme Court has decided if they will even rule in this case before we decide what to do on a statutory basis.

The executive branch needs to make the mechanisms of government work to the best of their ability. The legislative branch makes the laws. The judicial branch determines if either of the other two branches impugn the rights of one another or of the American people. It is a system that has served us well since our founding, and it's one that this bill flies in the face of.

Again, despite this bill's title, ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relationships,'' it actually achieves the exact opposite--creates greater uncertainty in labor-management relationships. It throws judicial precedent and nearly 600 NLRB rulings into limbo.

American businesses would be severely harmed if this bill were to become law, which, of course, there is no chance of. It won't be taken up by the Senate. The President would veto it.

But were it to become law, like many other political measures that have been pursued in this body, it would generate regulatory uncertainty that would hang over business, hurting their valuations, preventing hiring of new employees, hurting the public marketplace, impacting entrepreneurs, employers, and workers to the detriment of our economy, destroying jobs in this country. Without a forum in which to mediate disagreements, labor and management, alike, have no recourse to iron out their differences and less incentive to iron out their differences. Passage of this bill could cause more strikes from workers, damaging businesses and hurting workers.

The underlying bill could very well be named the ``Strike Promotion Act.'' Instead of allowing Members and encouraging both sides of labor- management disputes to offer improvements and find common ground, quite the contrary, it destroys the very incentives that they have to reach agreement.

Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that the NLRB has become such a political punching bag, because I and many of my colleagues would certainly enjoy the opportunity to debate commonsense proposals to improve the relationship between employers and employees. If we want to have a debate about the NLRB, let us have that debate directly, not through some imposition into judicial prerogative. Let's bring in representatives from businesses and labor organizations. Let's hear from workers and businesses across America.

Look, if there's improvements to be made to the process that can lead to quicker response times, that can lead to fairer adjudication, if there's improvements that American businesses and American workers can agree on to make the process work better for economic growth and prosperity, let's do it. This bill does none of that. It leads to more strikes, leads to greater economic uncertainty, leads to destruction of jobs, leads to an interruption in the ability of a Chief Executive of this country--whomever he or she may be--from implementing the law to the best of their ability; and it's a bill that is, frankly, a waste of our time to even debate here on the floor of the House since we know that it has no chance of passage.

This bill is purely put before us for political intentions to perhaps satisfy some fringe element somewhere that likes this bill and likes to bash the rights of workers. But there's a lot of important work to be done, work that is too important for us to waste our time on this form of political posturing, which only stands to destroy jobs, hurt the economy, and create greater uncertainty, damaging American businesses and American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, it sounds like I agree with the gentlelady on many of our national priorities. For goodness sake, let's reform the Tax Code; let's bring down rates. Gas prices, my constituents are complaining about them; let's take action. Preventing tax increases, balancing the budget, making sure that we have a business climate that's friendly for small businesses, why aren't we talking about any of that on the floor of the House today instead of enshrining a D.C. District Court decision into statute, to the detriment of job creation, to the detriment of American business, against many of those great concepts that my colleague, Dr. Foxx, espoused?

So, I mean, I think there's got to be a connection here. I think the American people are smart enough to make it. It's great to pay lip service to all these wonderful things that Democrats and Republicans want to pursue, but what are we doing with our legislative time that taxpayers pay for here in the House? We're trying to prevent the President from implementing the law that Congress has made.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Here we are in 2013--2013--and yet women make 77 cents for every dollar made by a man for equal work. Equal pay is not just a problem for women, but for all American families who work hard to pay their bills. It's high time that this body took up the Paycheck Fairness Act, which we will do if we defeat the previous question.

To discuss our proposal, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Before further yielding, I am going to yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Connecticut to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would respond to the gentlelady that most women in this country don't work for the White House. Most women in this country work for private sector employers, public sector employers, and others.

We care about all women. We want to ensure paycheck fairness--same work, same pay. But somehow addressing this among a handful of women in the White House hardly addresses the real needs of American families, where women across our country in Colorado, in California, North Carolina, and Texas are earning 77 cents on the dollar.

It's unfair. And as my colleague Mr. Delaney pointed out, it doesn't enhance American economic competitiveness. It hurts us as a country to have pay based on bias rather than merit. It's simply the wrong way to go.

President Obama needs this body to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act for us to be able to make sure that pay discrimination cannot endure in this country.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.

I happen to have a gentlelady currently working for the Rules Committee sitting next to me here and helping with our research on this bill, and she informs me she used to work for the White House. She's a female. She tells me she was paid the exact same amount as her male colleagues.

With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I am ready to close, and I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, rather than addressing a number of issues that my colleagues have talked about here today, whether that issue is gas prices, whether it's equal pay for women, whether that's equal pay in the White House or equal pay for Main Street America, that's something that's important to American families. Whether it's balancing our budget, whether it's keeping taxes low and making sure that American businesses can go and create jobs, none of those things are being talked about here today. Instead, we are bringing forward a bill that would be a bureaucratic nightmare, all without protecting a single American worker and without protecting a single American business.

This bill was reported out of the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I serve, without a single Democratic vote, and it is being rushed to the floor for consideration at a time when we face record deficits, record gas prices, have a crisis for which we need to create jobs; yet here we are, debating a bill that will go nowhere, and if it did, it would destroy jobs in our country.

I'd love to see us spending more time balancing the budget and in training and educating our workforce--preparing kids for the jobs of the future. We have limited floor time here in Washington. Every moment that we have is sponsored by the taxpayers of this great country. We owe it to those who elect us and those who pay for this body to be open as they pay for the very cameras which allow Americans to watch us here today. We owe it to them to invest the limited time we have here wisely, on critical issues of national importance, including making sure that women across our country are paid the same amount for equal work.

If we are going to have a discussion of the NLRB, let's at least do it in a serious way rather than trying to enshrine a D.C. District Court decision into law. Let's bring businesses and workers together and have serious discussion; involve Senate Republicans, involve Senate Democrats, involve the administration to come up with a better framework for ensuring that labor and management can work together to promote American competitiveness, to grow jobs and to grow the middle class.

That's not what today's process is about, but these are just a few of the ways we could improve the broken process. Unfortunately, again, it seems like the Republicans have chosen none of the above.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to myself.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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. 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.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), another member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a real leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining?

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. 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.

I have no objection.

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. 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.

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 146 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 146 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. Although the Rules Committee solicited amendments last week, we received only two amendments, one Democrat and one Republican, neither of which was germane to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and Workforce Committee and I have been hard at work conducting oversight and challenging the National Labor Relations Board on its anti-jobs agenda. In January 2012, President Obama made three so-called ``recess appointments'' to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was not in recess, in violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled these appointments were unconstitutional. This decision calls into question every action the Board has taken since these so-called recess appointments were made.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1120, would provide greater certainty for employers and unions by requiring the Board to cease all activity that requires a three-member quorum and prohibits the Board from enforcing any decision made since the appointments in question were made in January 2012.

It is important to note also what this bill does not do. It does not prohibit the National Labor Relations Board's regional offices from accepting and processing charges of unfair labor practices. The bill also allows the Board to resume activities if one of the three following conditions is met:

The U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of recess appointments;

A quorum of the Board is confirmed by the Senate;

The expiration of the recess appointees' terms at the end of this year.

Finally, H.R. 1120 ensures any action approved by the so-called ``recess appointees'' is reviewed and approved by a future Board that has been constitutionally appointed.

As my colleagues across the aisle are sure to point out, the President has recently nominated three individuals for Senate confirmation, in addition to the two he nominated in February. The bill before us remains necessary as a commonsense pause button on the Board's activities while the legal uncertainty is resolved. It would give employers and unions the certainty they need to operate in the interim.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we need jobs in this country. There are nearly 12 million Americans unemployed and anxious to find work.

President Obama and the Senate Democrats' policies of higher taxes, record spending, and bigger government have failed to create jobs or boost economic growth. Put simply, this economy is growing too slowly to replace the millions of jobs lost. The failure of the President's runaway spending, deficits, and debt is being felt by every family struggling to put food on the table and pay their mortgages.

The March 2013 labor force participation rate is the lowest since 1979, and the 1-month increase in March 2013 of 663,000 new people not in the labor force is the largest increase ever recorded for the month of March since this data started being collected in 1975. If these individuals ``not in the workforce'' were counted in the official unemployment rate, that rate would increase to 11.2 percent.

Additionally, there are 47.3 million Americans receiving food stamps, which is equivalent to 15 percent of the population and represents, by far, the largest number in history. This number stands in stark contrast to when President Obama took office and there were only 31.9 million Americans using food stamps. Today, nearly one in seven Americans is on food stamps. What a sad commentary about our country.

All these statistics ultimately say the same thing: everyday Americans will keep struggling until our economy turns around. Fortunately for the American people, House Republicans have a plan for helping to restore economic growth and create jobs throughout the country.

The liberal elite simply cannot understand that more spending does not mean more jobs. Reckless deficit spending, mounting debt, growing red tape, higher taxes, a confusing Tax Code, higher energy prices, and rampant uncertainty all have job creators playing defense.

Campaigning for another failed stimulus and more job-destroying taxes, President Obama has repeatedly and falsely asserted that ``Congress isn't willing to move'' legislation to facilitate job growth.

While the President plays politics, House Republicans have been working and approving legislation to promote economic growth and job creation. The Republican plan for growth tears down barriers to job creation because jobs are priority number one.

As part of this plan, we are working diligently to cut job-killing red tape that costs small businesses $10,585 per employee each year; reduce gas prices; create jobs by producing more American energy, which is important since every penny increased per gallon of gas costs consumers $4 million per day; simplify the job-killing Tax Code that cost Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply with it; prevent job-killing tax hikes on small businesses; reduce uncertainty by tackling the debt crisis with responsible spending cuts; and the Republican plan will get Washington out of the way and put American job creators back on the offense.

Growing jobs and eliminating the deficit go hand in hand. To balance the budget, we need both spending cuts and real economic growth.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a typical liberal habit: do as I say, not as I do.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that our colleague from Connecticut should direct her comments to the White House. There is absolutely nothing to stop the White House from correcting the egregious pay differentials that exist there among the most liberal group in the country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reiterate again--and my colleague from Connecticut has left--that there is absolutely nothing that would prevent the White House from giving equal pay to people in jobs there. We don't need new legislation to do that. It's certainly possible for the White House to do it now. And that is one of the most egregious situations of differential pay that exists in the country right now.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to respond again to my colleague from Colorado in his saying that we have to pass a bill on pay equity to get the President to do the right thing. That just seems incomprehensible to me.

I think the President should be our leader in this country and should practice what he preaches, and so should our colleagues across the aisle. I think that the White House could show itself as a model for the rest of the country by paying the women in the White House the same as the men are being paid. I find it interesting that our colleagues have simply ignored what is happening in the White House and call for a bill to be passed to make the President do what is the right thing. In the past, our country and the people in our country have looked to our President to be a role model for us.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I would ask the gentleman if he is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman is ready to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to upholding the Constitution and providing certainty for employers, employees, and unions. The rule before us today provides for the consideration of a bill that ensures that certainty by pressing ``pause'' on the National Labor Relations Board's activities until the legal uncertainty is resolved.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and friends who are managing this legislation.

We are in the Judiciary Committee passing something called the REINS Act because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that the President is omnipotent.

Frankly, as my good friend from Colorado said, the President doesn't control the bus drivers and school aides and nurses aides and doesn't control the secretaries and doesn't control the construction workers who happen to be women. They don't control those individuals. Oh, and let's not forget the office workers who happen to be women.

Many of my constituents who get up every morning--I saw one young woman, Mr. Polis, get on a city bus, drop her child off at the school, really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a U-turn around--not a school bus, a city bus--to get on that bus to track all the way across to get to her job. I can assure you that she is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the dilemma that we have.

So I support ordering the previous question and voting ``no'' so that we can move forward and do the right thing.

And that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act because it is, in essence, a complete opposite. I would call it something else, but

I'm going to restrain myself. H.R. 1120 is ridiculous.

In actuality, my friends, what it does is put a spear through the relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the NLRB. The President has just finished appointing Republicans and Democrats--three Democrats and two Republicans--to do the work that brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with working people.

Many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with working conditions are done at the NLRB.

I thank the gentleman.

Do you know what this bill does? It puts a knife in the process that has been used by President Bush 140 times--recess appointments--to keep the work of the American people going forward. How backwards is that?

I love my friends, but we need to put on the floor sensible gun legislation, we need to be talking about immigration reform. But to talk about blocking the NLRB from work when President Bush used the same process. And the fact that a court ordered something--300 other opinions said the recess appointments are legitimate.

I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand with your working friends in America, stand with our unions, stand with making America great, and stand with peace and reconciliation by a working NLRB.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, and the underlying bill, H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.''

This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, are violated.

The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare their paychecks. It also protects workers when they act together to protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws protected employees who discussed their salaries with each other on facebook. You don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws.

Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, with these grievances.

The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices involving unions.

Recently, the D.C. Circuit, one of our federal appellate courts, ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, cannot carry out its congressionally delegated duties of enforcing the NLRA because it deemed President Obama's appointments to the Board invalid.

The entire decision hinged on a controversial interpretation of the word ``the'' in our Constitution. Article II states that ``The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court decided that this clause of our Constitution refers to some recesses, but not others. Many other federal courts have disagreed with this stretched reading of our Constitution, and in areas of the U.S. covered by these courts, the D.C. Circuit decision does not apply.

While we eagerly await the Supreme Court's verdict on the meaning of the word ``the,'' the NLRB is still allowed to continue carrying out its statutory duties under the NLRA, and American workers still retain their rights under the NLRA.

That is why I am opposing. This bill merely eliminates the rights of American workers in places outside the D.C. Circuit to seek a remedy when their employer violates our National Labor Relations Act. Without a remedy, rights are meaningless. Depriving employees of this remedy during these difficult economic times is merely a stab in the back to hard working Americans across the country. This Congress should not take actions that undermine American employees and working families.

The argument that an active NLRB produces economic uncertainty is unfounded. America has prospered since the creation of the NLRB. Other countries that have much stronger laws protecting worker rights and are much more heavily unionized, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, are doing better or at least as well as the United States in this economic downturn. H.R. 1120 merely seeks to add more uncertainty and create fewer rights for American workers during these tough economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and the underlying bill. Congress should not remove the ability for employees to seek redress for workplace wrongs. Instead, we need to stand up for our employees and working families.