Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to "Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status".

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer rule, which the Board finalized last October.

Through their unions, workers should be able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces. However, that is not the case for millions of Americans, including janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others who are employed through subcontracts or temporary agencies.

The rise of what is called ``fissured workplace,'' where firms increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting, subcontracting, and temping, has weakened workers' bargaining power and allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and liabilities.

For example, if employees of a subcontractor were to unionize, the subcontractor could refuse to bargain over pay, hours, workplace safety, or other issues because its contract with the prime contractor essentially sets the wages for the employees. Whoever is setting the wages ought to be the one at the bargaining table.

If the workplace employer is essentially setting the wages, but you have to negotiate with the temp agency, and they say, ``That is all we can pay, so talk to somebody else,'' we need the somebody else at the table to be bargaining.

Likewise, a temp agency may be restrained on what it can pay because of the contract with the owner of the workplace.

Additionally, by evading bargaining obligations, the prime contractor who is actually setting the wages can shift liability for an unfair labor practice onto the subcontractor or the temp agency.

The NLRB rule fixes this problem by ensuring workers can negotiate with all entities controlling their working conditions. This protects small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are the result of other employers' actions.

By repealing the NLRB's rule, H.J. Res. 98 would undermine workers' ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient Trump-era rule that narrowed the joint employer standard. Under the Trump-era standard, employers who control the working conditions could easily evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees.

We should not go backward. The Biden-Harris administration's joint

employer rule empowers workers and protects small businesses.

My colleagues have just claimed that there is a problem with franchisees and the franchising model. These claims are unfounded, as there is no credible evidence showing that the rule would adversely affect the franchise model.

In fact, if a problem arises, a strong joint employer standard will protect franchisees by ensuring the franchisors don't control the franchisees' labor relations and then leave the franchisees on the hook for the liabilities.

I want to highlight that the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers wrote in support of both the Protecting the Right to Organize Act--that is, the PRO Act--joint employer standard and the Biden-Harris joint employer rule that we are talking about today.

It is also important to point out that the NLRB has never found a franchisor to be a joint employer of a franchisee's employees.

The joint employer rule reflects the best interests of the American people and our economy.

Madam Speaker, I hoped that we would be standing with the workers and small business owners and not repeal a rule that protects them. I oppose the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is a senior member of our committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a senior of our committee, and the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three letters in opposition to H.J. Res. 98. The first is signed by the AFL- CIO, SEIU, and Teamsters. The second is signed by the United Steelworkers. The third is signed by a diverse group of organizations, including the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and many more.

November 2, 2023.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers

represented by the AFL-CIO, the 2 million workers represented

by SEIU, and the 1.2 million workers represented by the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters. we write to urge you

to support the National Labor Relations Board's (``NLRB'' or

``the Board'') recent final rule addressing joint-employer

status under the National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or

``the Act''). This important rule will ensure that workers

have a real voice at the bargaining table when multiple

companies control their working conditions. Accordingly, the

undersigned unions strongly oppose any effort to nullify or

weaken the rule, whether by legislation or resolution under

the Congressional Review Act.

The rule, published on October 27, 2023, rescinds the Trump

NLRB's 2020 joint-employer rule and replaces it with an

updated standard that is based on well-established common-law

principles and consistent with recent D.C. Circuit decisions

identifying critical flaws in the Trump NLRB's approach to

this issue. The Board's updated rule is welcome and necessary

because the Trump rule was harmful to workers' organizing

efforts, inconsistent with the governing legal principles,

and against the policies of the Act.

The crux of this issue is simple--when workers seek to

bargain collectively over their wages, hours and working

conditions, every entity with control over those issues must

be at the bargaining table. The Act protects and encourages

collective bargaining as a means of resolving labor disputes.

Collective bargaining cannot serve that purpose if companies

with control over the issues in dispute are absent from the

bargaining table. The Trump rule offered companies a roadmap

to retain ultimate control over key aspects of workers'

lives--like wages and working conditions--while avoiding

their duty to bargain. This standard left workers stranded at

the bargaining table and unable to negotiate with the people

who could actually implement proposed improvements.

Companies are adopting business structures specifically

designed to maintain control over the workers who keep their

businesses running while simultaneously disclaiming any

responsibility for those workers under labor and employment

laws. Such businesses often insert second and third-level

intermediaries between themselves and their workers. These

companies seek to have it both ways--to control the workplace

like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of an

employer. This phenomenon is often called workplace

``fissuring.''

Fissured workplaces, sometimes involving staffing firms,

temp agencies, or subcontractors, often leave workers unable

to raise concerns, or collectively bargain with, the entity

that actually controls their workplace. In such arrangements,

multiple entities may share control over a worker's terms of

employment. For example, if employees of a subcontractor were

to unionize and bargain only with the subcontractor, it might

simply refuse to bargain over certain issues because its

contract with the prime contractor governs those aspects of

the work (e.g., pay, hours, safety, etc.). This harms workers

because the entity that effectively determines workplace

policy is not at the bargaining table, placing workers'

desired improvements out of reach.

The way to ensure that workers can actually bargain with

each entity that controls their work is to readily identify

such entities as ``joint employers.'' The Act requires joint

employers to collectively bargain with employees over working

conditions that they control. But the Trump NLRB's joint

employer rule was designed to help companies with such

control escape bargaining. The rule's standard for finding a

joint employment relationship was unrealistic and overly

narrow. It conditioned a company's joint employer status on

proof that it actually exercised substantial direct and

immediate control, discounting its reserved or indirect power

to control a small list of working conditions. This conflicts

with the governing common law principles, which make clear

that a company's power to control working conditions must

bear on its employer status (and thus its bargaining

responsibilities under the Act) regardless of whether it has

formally exercised that power. The new final rule correctly

rescinded the Trump rule.

Critics of the new rule claim that its joint employer

standard will outright destroy certain business models or

dramatically change operations. Opponents claim, for example,

that companies will be required to bargain over issues they

have no control over, or will be automatically liable for

another entity's unfair labor practices. This is simply

untrue and a further attempt to leave workers with no

opportunity to bargain with controlling entities. The final

rule makes it clear that a joint employer's bargaining

obligations extend only to those terms and conditions within

its control. And current Board law--unchanged by the rule--

only extends unfair labor practice liability to a joint

employer if it knew or should have known of another

employer's illegal action, had the power to stop it, and

chose not to.

Similarly, critics claim that the new standard imposes

blanket joint employer status on parties to certain business

models like franchises, temp agencies, subcontractors, or

staffing firms. This is also untrue. The rule does not

proclaim that all franchisors are now joint employers with

their franchisees, or that any company using workers from a

temp agency is automatically their employer. The particular

business model used by parties in any case is not

determinative. Instead, the Board looks at every case

individually, and grants companies a full and fair

opportunity to explain the underlying business relationship

and dispute whether they control the relevant workers'

essential terms and conditions of employment. The Board

conducts a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis that

considers whether the putative joint employer controls

essential terms and conditions of employment.

Make no mistake, the Board's rule may well result in the

employees of a staffing firm, for example, being treated also

as employees of the firm's client, but only if the client

controls the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

That is the only way workers can meaningfully bargain at

work. But even in that situation, the workers are deemed

employees only for purposes of the NLRA and collective

bargaining, and the client would be obligated to bargain only

about the terms it controls. It would still be up to workers

to choose whether they want to organize a union and

collectively bargain with their employer or employers.

Nothing in the NLRB's rule alters employers' responsibilities

under any other state or federal law (e.g., tax laws, wage

and hour laws, or workplace safety laws) or requires any

changes to business structures. But it does make clear their

responsibility under the NLRA to show up at the bargaining

table.

The new rule is clear and commonsense: there is no

bargaining obligation for an entity that cannot control

workplace policies or working conditions. And for good

reason--their presence at the bargaining table would be

pointless. Workers have no interest in bargaining with a

company that lacks the power to implement the workplace

improvements they seek.

This rule simply invokes a more realistic joint employer

standard on par with the standard enforced during the Obama

administration, allowing a company's indirect or reserved

control over working conditions to be sufficient for finding

joint employer status. Workers' right to collectively bargain

cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change

terms and conditions of employment is absent from the

bargaining table.

For the reasons explained above, the undersigned unions

oppose any effort to nullify the Board's rule. In particular,

we urge Congress to oppose efforts to nullify the rule under

the Congressional Review Act (``CRA''). Here, a successful

CRA disapproval resolution would be particularly harmful: it

would revert the NLRB's joint employer standard to the Trump

Board's 2020 rule, which stymies workers at the bargaining

table. And further, as explained above, at least one federal

appeals court has strongly suggested that provisions of the

2020 rule are inconsistent with the NLRA, so litigation would

likely invalidate that rule as well. This would create

confusion for the workers, unions, and employers regulated by

the NLRB. Not only could the two standards be nullified,

leaving the Board's joint employer analysis in limbo, but the

NLRB's ability to address that limbo would be unclear due to

CRA limitations.

The CRA provides that once a disapproval resolution is

passed, the underlying agency cannot issue a subsequent rule

in ``substantially the same form'' as the disapproved rule

unless it is specifically authorized by a subsequent law.

Thus, if the Board's new rule is nullified under the CRA, and

the prior Trump rule is invalidated by federal courts, the

NLRB would be limited in issuing a clarifying rule. To avoid

confusion and ensure stability for workers, unions, and

employers, Congress must steer clear of using the CRA to

address the joint employer standard.

For these reasons, we ask that you support the NLRB's joint

employer rule and oppose any effort to weaken or nullify the

clarified standard.

Sincerely,

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, the joint employer rule would only weaken the critical protections for workers that congressional Democrats and President Biden have fought so hard to enact. This rule only requires that those who can control the conditions of work actually be at the bargaining table when the conditions of work are being negotiated. Without this kind of rule, employees would be stuck trying to negotiate wages with a temp agency that has no control over the wages.

We have heard a lot about the franchisee situation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a comment letter from the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers that points out that franchisors should be at the bargaining table if they are, in fact, controlling the conditions, as this rule provides and as the resolution would overturn.

American Association of

Franchisees & Dealers,

Palm Desert, CA, December 7, 2022.

Re AAFD Comments on Proposed Joint Employer Rule (87 Fed.

Reg. 54641).

Lauren McFerran,

Chairman, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, DC.

Roxanne L. Rothschild,

Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McFerran and Ms. Rothschild: On behalf of the

American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (``AAFD'')

and its franchisee members, we respectfully offer our views

and perspective on the September 7, 2022 National Labor

Relations Board proposed rule that would expand the joint

employer definition under the National Labor Relations Act.

The joint employer debate is critical to the long-term equity

ownership question of the franchised businesses.

AAFD is the oldest and largest national not for profit

trade association advocating the rights and interests of

franchisees and independent dealer networks. The AAFD

supports more than 60 independent franchisee associations and

trademark specific chapters, representing thousands of

franchisee operated business outlets. Since our establishment

in 1992, the AAFD has focused on its mission to define,

identify and promote collaborative franchise cultures that

respect the legitimate interests of both

franchisers and franchisees, cultures we describe as

embracing our vision of Total Quality Franchising. The AAFD

came into existence in response to a franchising community

that has been evolving towards increasingly one-sided and

controlling franchise agreements and cultures whereby

franchisee equity and business ownership has been continually

eroding such that many modern franchise systems have lost all

vestiges of business ownership. Interestingly, instructively

and importantly, we make special note that the very issues

that inspired the formation of the AAFD have also given rise

to the Joint Employer doctrine.

For the reasons set forth below, AAFD urges the NLRB to

adopt a joint employer standard that respects NRLB's decision

in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a BFI

Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), and

reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, yet

takes into account the unique relationships between the

franchisees and franchisor needed to protect the brand.

Franchisor Community Misdirection Regarding the Definition and

Foundation of Joint Employment Status

Franchisees respect a franchisor's ownership and control of

its brand and a legitimate right to enforce system standards

to protect the brand, and franchisees depend and rely on the

list of benefits and support services from their franchisor.

We do not believe that the many services franchisors

historically provide to franchisees, and which have been

disingenuously withdrawn under the `guise' of the joint

employer threat are, or should be, the focus of the joint

employment standard.

Rather, the `test' of joint employer status should be

determined based upon the amount of economic control a

franchisor directly or indirectly exerts by use of the

franchise agreement, operations manual, or other means, over

its franchisees and which negatively impact and eviscerate a

franchisee's equity ownership in the franchised business.

We have specifically been asked to comment on the added

economic burden placed on franchisees when their franchisor

backs away from services in order to avoid Joint Employer

attribution. It should be no surprise from our firm

contention that franchisors unduly focus their arguments on

matters of control on their legitimate interests (and we

contend duties) to control and protect brand standards. As

part of the franchisor's playbook to insulate itself from

joint employer classification is to withdraw franchisee

support of human resource services, placing an added economic

burden on its franchisees. The AAFD contends that a

franchisor's withdrawal of such services is a canard, indeed

an integral part of the strategy to misdirect attention from

the real issues and is intended to secure franchisee

opposition to the joint employer doctrine. Stated simply, in

the franchising context, a franchisor's provision of human

resources to its franchisees should play a negligible role in

determining whether the joint employer doctrine should apply

to a franchisor's undue control over its franchisee's equity.

We contend that the human resources services traditionally

provided by a franchisor are appropriate for the protection

of any brand's important standards of service, products and

reputation that are properly a part of brand standards. That

said, we recognize that the joint employer doctrine is built

upon the traditional evaluation of master/servant and

employer/employee characteristics that we believe distract

from the real issues of control to subvert and diminish

franchisee equity interests. We believe that much of the

franchisor community is engaging in the art of misdirection

in its arguments, tending to avert attention from the real

economic basis for its opposition to the Browning-Ferris

joint employer standard which is a bedrock of the traditional

common law standard which incorporates both reserved and

exercised control. The real concerns are the right to assert

economic control, not the enforcement of legitimate brand

standards, and include:

1. The claim that all the goodwill of the franchised

business belongs to the franchisor, without any recognition

of equity ownership by the franchisee whose capital and sweat

equity are a major component of a franchise unit's existence

and success.

2. Control over the ownership of the franchise location

whereby the franchisor owns or controls the real estate which

is leased or sublet to the franchisee impacting the

franchisee's ownership of the business.

3. Abusive control or ownership of the assets of the

business, such that a franchisee is little more than a

sharecropper running the business for the benefit of the

franchisor. Indeed, regarding McDonalds, it should be noted

that McDonalds no longer refers to `franchisees' in its

agreements. In full claim of ownership, a McDonald's licensee

is referred to legally as an `operator' of a business that

McDonald's fully owns.

4. The exercise of abusive control over the suppliers and

supply chain of the of the operation. Far and beyond the

enforcement of necessary system standards, many franchisors

dictate sole sources of supply for the purpose of marking up

the goods and services being purchased by franchisees, and

regardless of the connection to the brand or brand standards.

Franchisors now dictate where to buy insurance, process and

control customer payments, and even business supplies, as

well as dictating the source of brand related commodities--

all of which could be potentially purchased at lower cost

from competitive sources.

5. Control over the cost of labor by setting hours of

operation that are not realistic for a particular franchise

unit.

The Solution to the Joint Employer Dilemma

We join the industry in urging the NLRB to recognize the

legitimacy of protecting brand standards, and to place its

definition of joint employment on the real matter of `who

owns the franchised business equity.' The debate around joint

employer is critical because it includes the broader debate

beyond the impact of labor practices and also includes the

question on who has control over the day-to-day business

practices and who owns the equity in the business. We

recognize that to refocus the inquiry of joint employer

attribution in franchising may require some legislative

revisions to the definition of `control' to the control of

equity (which is not a question in the typical master servant

discussion). However, we believe that our solution to provide

a franchisor exemption is completely consistent with the

premise of the NLRA, and within the authority of the NLRB.

In establishing its test for Joint Employment, and

advocating for the Browning-Ferris joint employer standard,

we urge the NLRB to focus on minimum equity concerns:

1. The right to grow the business and manage its costs of

operations, including the management and control of labor,

goods, products and services purchased for operations.

2. The right to stay in business, to sell the business, or

to transfer the business to heirs.

3. The right to manage the business finances, especially

the right of the franchisor to pull funds from the

franchisee's bank accounts, or whether the franchisee has the

power over its own checkbook.

4. The very important, albeit sensitive, right to control

the cost of supplies and suppliers. A significant promise of

franchising is the power of volume purchasing, but the

ability of a franchisor to dictate suppliers is fraught with

the potential for abuse. A key inquiry to determine whether a

franchisor has crossed the line of control over the business

is whether the franchisee's interests are respected and

protected where a franchisor reserves significant control

over the franchisee's source of supplies.

5. Similarly, the control over the marketing budget is

critical to a successful franchise system. A franchisor may

control most of the marketing fund, but a line is crossed

when a franchisee retains no ability to influence and direct

its marketing dollars.

Quite simply, the solution to the joint employer `threat'

for franchise systems is to recognize franchisee equity

ownership to franchisees in a sufficient amount that the

franchisee is deemed to be the `owner' rather than a mere

`operator' of the franchised business.

The AAFD's Franchisee Bill of Rights Provides the Appropriate Tests for

Excessive Control

We submit the Franchisee Bill of Rights (attached), as

appropriate criteria to measure and test whether a franchisor

has crossed the line of excessive control. The Franchisee

Bill of Rights provide fourteen indicia of a franchise system

that respects the equity interests of franchisees.

It is instructive to note that the Franchisee Bill of

Rights actually recognize, even require, a franchisor to

provide and support brand standards. Providing the expected

`control' over brand standards should not be the

determinative criteria for joint employer. We urge the focus

on relative equity: the determination of whether the

agreement and relationship fairly recognize that the

franchisee has a significant equity right in the franchised

business.

Proposal to Create a Franchisor Exemption from Joint Employer

attribution for Franchise Systems that Recognize an independent

franchisee association and offer a collectively bargained franchise

agreement

The comparison of franchisee associations to labor unions

is inevitable and appropriate. Owners of franchised small

businesses organize for reasons that are similar to the

reasons that employees form unions: to collectively bargain

the rights and benefits of agreements of their engagement to

provide services to their franchisor or employer. At its

core, the National Labor Relations Act that established the

NLRB was enacted to establish the right of employee groups to

organize, and the NLRA recognizes important exemptions for

companies that recognize unions and have a collectively

bargained employment agreement that is ratified by a majority

of union members and employees.

AAFD urges that a franchisor that has recognized an

independent owners association and has embraced a

collectively bargained franchise agreement that has been

ratified by a majority of franchisees should also be exempt

from the consequences and penalties arising from being

determined to be the `joint employer' of a franchisee's

employees. In this regard, it should be noted that the AAFD

has established an accreditation for franchisors that meet

these tests which we label as our ``Fair Franchising Seal.''

To date, 19 brands have been accredited by the AAFD, all of

which have franchise agreements that recognize franchisee

rights and equity interests while reaffirming the

franchisor's essential interest in protecting

its brand standards. In essence, just as recognized in the

NLRA, where the agreement defining rights and obligations has

been collectively bargained, the reasons behind the purpose

of the law have been met by the marketplace effectively doing

its job!

Cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission

We also urge the NLRB to work closely with the Federal

Trade Commission on defining aspects of the relationship that

exceed normal control in a brand. The franchise industry has

many unique attributes, and the FTC is the federal agency

most engaged with oversight of the industry. Many items, such

as uniforms and training, which are critical to the existence

of the brand, are immaterial to the employment relationship,

and should not create joint employer status.

Conclusion

The AAFD appreciates the concerns of the NLRB, with respect

to creating an appropriate `test' for when a franchise system

has crossed a line and become the `joint employer' of a

franchisee's putative employees. We believe that many

franchisors exercise so much control over the franchised

business that the franchisee retains limited if any equity

ownership, or control over, in the franchised business. In

such circumstances it is appropriate to deem the franchisor

as the joint (and sometimes even the sole) employer of the

franchised business employees. But we also believe that the

establishment, support and enforcement of brand standards are

not the appropriate target of any control test. Rather, the

inquiry should be focused on the economic rights of business

ownership that is promised and expected in a franchise

relationship. Fair and balanced franchise agreements and

relationships that respect the Franchisee Bill of Rights will

provide and meet an appropriate test for determining joint

employer status.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert L. Purvin, Jr,

Chair, Board of Trustees.

Richard E. Stroiney,

Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director.

Keith R. Miller,

Director of Public Policy and Engagement.

Mr. Speaker, instead of advancing H.J. Res. 98, the House should prioritize legislation such as H.R. 20, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, that strengthens workers' abilities to organize and collectively bargain.

This resolution goes in the exact opposite direction. For those reasons, I oppose the resolution and encourage all Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise once again in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98, the Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer rule, which the board finalized last October.

Workers should be able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces through their unions. Regrettably, this is not the case for millions of Americans, including janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others who are employed through subcontractors or temp agencies.

The rise of what is called the fissured workplace, where firms increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting, subcontracting, and temping, has weakened workers' bargaining power and allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and liabilities.

For example, if an employee of a subcontractor unionized, the subcontractor would be unable to actually bargain over pay, hours, workplace safety, or other issues. That is because the actual contract is with the prime contractor who essentially sets the terms and conditions of employment for the employee, and the subcontractor is just administering the terms of that contract. Bargaining with the subcontractor becomes essentially useless because the subcontractor is paid based on assumed wages, and they don't have the ability to change those wages. The prime contractor needs to be at the table if someone is thinking of negotiating wages at all.

Additionally, by evading bargaining obligations, the prime contractor, who is actually setting some or all of the terms of conditions of the work, can actually shift liability for an unfair labor practice onto the subcontractor or the temp agency.

Mr. Speaker, the NLRB's new rule fixed the problem by ensuring workers can negotiate with all entities who actually control their working conditions. This also protects small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are a result of the larger firms' actions.

This isn't about franchising. No franchiser has ever been found to be a joint employer under any of the various joint employer rules, including this one.

H.J. Res. 98 would undermine workers' ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient Trump-era rule that narrowed the joint employer standard. Under the Trump-era standard, employers who control the working conditions could easily evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees. That would have the effect of reducing the earnings of workers.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Trump-era rule would reduce workers' hard-earned paychecks by about $1.3 billion. Conversely, the Biden joint employer rule is estimated to raise workers' earnings.

So we should not go backwards. The Biden-Harris administration's joint employer rule empowers workers and protects small businesses, so I applaud President Biden for his veto of H.J. Res. 98.

So let's be clear. This is not about the joint employer rule. We have already had that debate back in January.

This is a debate about the Republican majority's inability to do basic arithmetic. Overriding the President's veto requires two-thirds, or 290 Members, of the House. That is not going to happen. This measure only passed with 206 votes, nearly all of them from Republicans, so anybody who can count knows the Republican majority does not have the votes to override the veto.

So why are we taking this up?

It is because we are just a metaphor for the Republicans' failed agenda. Instead of taking time to do something constructive, we are taking precious floor time on this doomed override vote when we could be doing something better like raising the minimum wage, or making workplaces safer and healthier, or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work, or combating child labor, or establishing paid sick leave, or strengthening workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain.

However, that is not what we are doing. All that is happening now is what has happened during the whole 118th Congress: the House majority insists on spending floor time on votes like this that have no chance of succeeding.

So House Democrats believe we can do better. We remain focused on the priorities and others that lower costs and grow the middle class. That is what we ought to be focused on.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to get some job numbers rather than just adjectives and everything on the table.

The fact is that President Trump during his 4 years lost over 6 million jobs, but President Biden so far has created over 15 million, the longest period of time with unemployment under 4 percent since the 1960s.

Before you start excusing President Trump because of a pandemic, he had a pandemic for about 10 months, President Biden had a pandemic for 2 years.

So this legislation the President has vetoed, I think it is helpful just to read the President's message of why he vetoed the resolution.

He said: ``I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. Res. 98, a resolution that would disapprove of the National Labor Relations Board's rule entitled `Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.'

``Since day one, my administration has fought to strengthen workers' right to organize and bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The NLRB's rule would prevent companies from evading their bargaining obligations or liability when they control a worker's working condition--even if they reserve such control or exercise it indirectly through a subcontractor or other intermediary. If multiple companies control the terms and conditions of employment, then the right to organize is rendered futile whenever the workers cannot bargain collectively with each of those employers.

``Without the NLRB's rule, companies could more easily avoid liability simply by manipulating their corporate structure, like hiding behind subcontractors or staffing agencies. By hampering the NLRB's efforts to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, Republicans are siding with union-busting corporations over the needs of workers and their unions. I am proud to be the most pro-union, pro- worker President in American history. I make no apologies for my administration protecting the right to organize and bargain collectively.

``Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution.

``Joseph R. Biden, Jr.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this resolution in support of the President's veto from SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters.

November 2, 2023.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers

represented by the AFL-CIO, the 2 million workers represented

by SEIU, and the 1.2 million workers represented by the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, we write to urge you

to support the National Labor Relations Board's (``NLRB'' or

``the Board'') recent final rule addressing joint-employer

status under the National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or

``the Act''). This important rule will ensure that workers

have a real voice at the bargaining table when multiple

companies control their working conditions. Accordingly, the

undersigned unions strongly oppose any effort to nullify or

weaken the rule, whether by legislation or resolution under

the Congressional Review Act.

The rule, published on October 27, 2023, rescinds the Trump

NLRB's 2020 joint-employer rule and replaces it with an

updated standard that is based on well-established common-law

principles and consistent with recent D.C. Circuit decisions

identifying critical flaws in the Trump NLRB's approach to

this issue. The Board's updated rule is welcome and necessary

because the Trump rule was harmful to workers' organizing

efforts, inconsistent with the governing legal principles,

and against the policies of the Act.

The crux of this issue is simple--when workers seek to

bargain collectively over their wages, hours and working

conditions, every entity with control over those issues must

be at the bargaining table. The Act protects and encourages

collective bargaining as a means of resolving labor disputes.

Collective bargaining cannot serve that purpose if companies

with control over the issues in dispute are absent from the

bargaining table. The Trump rule offered companies a roadmap

to retain ultimate control

over key aspects of workers' lives--like wages and working

conditions--while avoiding their duty to bargain. This

standard left workers stranded at the bargaining table and

unable to negotiate with the people who could actually

implement proposed improvements.

Companies are adopting business structures specifically

designed to maintain control over the workers who keep their

businesses running while simultaneously disclaiming any

responsibility for those workers under labor and employment

laws. Such businesses often insert second and third-level

intermediaries between themselves and their workers. These

companies seek to have it both ways--to control the workplace

like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of an

employer. This phenomenon is often called workplace

``fissuring.''

Fissured workplaces, sometimes involving staffing firms,

temp agencies, or subcontractors, often leave workers unable

to raise concerns, or collectively bargain with, the entity

that actually controls their workplace. In such arrangements,

multiple entities may share control over a worker's terms of

employment. For example, if employees of a subcontractor were

to unionize and bargain only with the subcontractor, it might

simply refuse to bargain over certain issues because its

contract with the prime contractor governs those aspects of

the work (e.g., pay, hours, safety, etc.). This harms workers

because the entity that effectively determines workplace

policy is not at the bargaining table, placing workers'

desired improvements out of reach.

The way to ensure that workers can actually bargain with

each entity that controls their work is to readily identify

such entities as ``joint employers.'' The Act requires joint

employers to collectively bargain with employees over working

conditions that they control. But the Trump NLRB's joint

employer rule was designed to help companies with such

control escape bargaining. The rule's standard for finding a

joint employment relationship was unrealistic and overly

narrow. It conditioned a company's joint employer status on

proof that it actually exercised substantial direct and

immediate control, discounting its reserved or indirect power

to control a small list of working conditions. This conflicts

with the governing common law principles, which make clear

that a company's power to control working conditions must

bear on its employer status (and thus its bargaining

responsibilities under the Act) regardless of whether it has

formally exercised that power. The new final rule correctly

rescinded the Trump rule.

Critics of the new rule claim that its joint employer

standard will outright destroy certain business models or

dramatically change operations. Opponents claim, for example,

that companies will be required to bargain over issues they

have no control over, or will be automatically liable for

another entity's unfair labor practices. This is simply

untrue and a further attempt to leave workers with no

opportunity to bargain with controlling entities. The final

rule makes it clear that a joint employer's bargaining

obligations extend only to those terms and conditions within

its control. And current Board law--unchanged by the rule--

only extends unfair labor practice liability to a joint

employer if it knew or should have known of another

employer's illegal action, had the power to stop it, and

chose not to.

Similarly, critics claim that the new standard imposes

blanket joint employer status on parties to certain business

models like franchises, temp agencies, subcontractors, or

staffing firms. This is also untrue. The rule does not

proclaim that all franchisors are now joint employers with

their franchisees, or that any company using workers from a

temp agency is automatically their employer. The particular

business model used by parties in any case is not

determinative. Instead, the Board looks at every case

individually, and grants companies a full and fair

opportunity to explain the underlying business relationship

and dispute whether they control the relevant workers'

essential terms and conditions of employment. The Board

conducts a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis that

considers whether the putative joint employer controls

essential terms and conditions of employment.

Make no mistake, the Board's rule may well result in the

employees of a staffing firm, for example, being treated also

as employees of the firm's client, but only if the client

controls the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

That is the only way workers can meaningfully bargain at

work. But even in that situation, the workers are deemed

employees only for purposes of the NLRA and collective

bargaining, and the client would be obligated to bargain only

about the terms it controls. It would still be up to workers

to choose whether they want to organize a union and

collectively bargain with their employer or employers.

Nothing in the NLRB's rule alters employers' responsibilities

under any other state or federal law (e.g., tax laws, wage

and hour laws, or workplace safety laws) or requires any

changes to business structures. But it does make clear their

responsibility under the NLRA to show up at the bargaining

table.

The new rule is clear and commonsense: there is no

bargaining obligation for an entity that cannot control

workplace policies or working conditions. And for good

reason--their presence at the bargaining table would be

pointless. Workers have no interest in bargaining with a

company that lacks the power to implement the workplace

improvements they seek.

This rule simply invokes a more realistic joint employer

standard on par with the standard enforced during the Obama

administration, allowing a company's indirect or reserved

control over working conditions to be sufficient for finding

joint employer status. Workers' right to collectively bargain

cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change

terms and conditions of employment is absent from the

bargaining table.

For the reasons explained above, the undersigned unions

oppose any effort to nullify the Board's rule. In particular,

we urge Congress to oppose efforts to nullify the rule under

the Congressional Review Act (``CRA''). Here, a successful

CRA disapproval resolution would be particularly harmful: it

would revert the NLRB's joint employer standard to the Trump

Board's 2020 rule, which stymies workers at the bargaining

table. And further, as explained above, at least one federal

appeals court has strongly suggested that provisions of the

2020 rule are inconsistent with the NLRA, so litigation would

likely invalidate that rule as well. This would create

confusion for the workers, unions, and employers regulated by

the NLRB. Not only could the two standards be nullified,

leaving the Board's joint employer analysis in limbo, but the

NLRB's ability to address that limbo would be unclear due to

CRA limitations.

The CRA provides that once a disapproval resolution is

passed, the underlying agency cannot issue a subsequent rule

in ``substantially the same form'' as the disapproved rule

unless it is specifically authorized by a subsequent law.

Thus, if the Board's new rule is nullified under the CRA, and

the prior Trump rule is invalidated by federal courts, the

NLRB would be limited in issuing a clarifying rule. To avoid

confusion and ensure stability for workers, unions, and

employers, Congress must steer clear of using the CRA to

address the joint employer standard.

For these reasons, we ask that you support the NLRB's joint

employer rule and oppose any effort to weaken or nullify the

clarified standard.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United Steelworkers, in support of the President's veto.

United Steelworkers

Pittsburgh, PA, November 14, 2023.

Re: United Steelworkers urges a NO vote on H.J. Res. 98,

which would invalidate the National Labor Relations

Board's new Standard for Determining Joint Employer

Status.

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 active

members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union (USW), I write to oppose a misguided and

short-sighted Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution--H.J.

Res 98. If this resolution passes, American workers will

increasingly face a fractured workplace and lose access to

federally protected collective bargaining rights.

Updating the NLRB joint employer standard is necessary as

employers are increasingly using ``fissured'' workplace

models to keep the parent company from having to bargain with

workers employed by the smaller contracted companies. The

continued contracting out and increased usage of temporary

workers leads to terrible outcomes for the most vulnerable,

precisely because these workers lack the ability to

meaningfully organize and collectively bargain with their

appropriate employer(s).

For example, a 2014 National Employment Law Project report

found that workers at subcontracted firms receive wages from

7-40 percent lower than their non-contracted out peers. That

same study also showed that workers in subcontracted firms

suffer higher rates of wage theft and unpaid overtime.

Analysis from ProPublica has also shown that temp workers are

at an increased risk of workplace injury. Lastly, and perhaps

most chillingly, child workers have been found in meatpacking

plants, while auto-supply chains in the South have had

children as young as 14 years old working for subcontracted

firms--sometimes with deadly consequences. If this resolution

passes, Congress will have made it easier for corporations to

shirk responsibility of their employment oversight, and make

it harder for the American labor movement to stop labor

abuses such as wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace

injuries, and child labor.

The NLRB had to act as the result of a partisan rulemaking

process during the Trump administration. Prior to 2020, the

NLRB's assessment of a joint employer standard had been

guided by common law for over 50 years. The NLRB, as a quasi-

judicial body, would use case decisions to substantiate its

joint employer standard.

The Trump administration's NLRB dramatically broke with

precedent and created a regulatory rulemaking process to

establish a new joint employer standard. Through this final

rule, the previous NLRB added non-statutory and non-common

law requirements to the NLRB joint employer assessment--

notably, the requirement that an employer must ``possess and

exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control''

over a worker's ``essential terms and conditions of

employment'' to be considered joint employers.

The problem with this Trump era rule is that it

significantly constrained the NLRB's

ability to exercise jurisdiction over cases, and limited the

scope of the joint employer standard on when the NLRB can

weigh in. With such a weak standard, employers were able to

simultaneously influence a worker's wages, hours, and working

conditions--all while being inoculated from having to bargain

over those issues with their workers.

By returning to common-law principles in this new standard,

the NLRB provides ``a practical approach to ensuring that the

entities effectively exercising control over workers'

critical terms of employment respect their bargaining

obligations under the NLRA''.

Unfortunately, Representative James John (R-MI-10), along

with 29 other Republicans, introduced a Congressional Review

Act resolution to repeal the NLRB's return to past precedent.

USW strongly opposes the use of a CRA to undermine the NLRB.

If a CRA were to be successfully used, it would prevent the

federal agency from ever issuing a substantially similar

rule, freezing in perpetuity a process that was designed to

evolve with employment practices.

USW opposes H.J. Res 98 in the strongest terms and will

educate union membership on any floor vote outcome. The

NLRB's released joint employer standard returns the country

to prior precedent, and strengthens the legal right of

millions of workers across this country to collectively

bargain with their appropriate employer(s). Again, I urge you

to support this new standard and oppose H.J. Res. 98.

Sincerely,

David McCall,

International President.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I include in the Record a letter from dozens of labor and civil rights organizations in support of the veto.

November 20, 2023.

Re: NLRB Joint Employer Rule CRA.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Hon. Bernie Sanders,

Hon. Bill Cassidy,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Hon. Viriginia Foxx,

Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' C. Scott,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations

write to share our opposition to the Congressional Review Act

(CRA) challenge to the National Labor Relations Board's 2023

Joint Employer Rule.

Millions of workers in precarious and subcontracted work

depend on the joint-employer doctrine to protect their right

to organize under the NLRA. In labor-intensive and underpaid

industries like retail, hospitality, fast food, janitorial,

construction, and delivery, workers hired through

intermediary subcontractors like staffing agencies and

specialized contract firms are effectively deprived of their

labor rights because the law fails to recognize who their

employers are. They provide work central to the hotels,

retail operators, fast food chains, construction contractors,

delivery companies, and other corporations that rely on their

labor but are unable to hold those employers accountable when

their labor rights are violated. While this harms a broad

range of workers, it has particularly damaging impacts for

women, Black workers, immigrants, people of color, and people

with disabilities who disproportionately hold precarious,

low-paid jobs.

The Board's new rule reaffirms that, under the NLRA, a

worker may be jointly-employed when more than one entity

shares or co-determines the essential terms and conditions of

their work. What matters is not the corporate structure or

what the companies call the work relationship; what matters

is who has the power to control the essential terms of

employment, like pay, discipline, and health & safety on the

job.

Now, large corporations and industry trade groups are

pushing Congress to vote for a CRA resolution to overturn the

rule. Despite the claims made by these self-interested

groups, the joint employer rule is a simple and necessary

course correction that:

Rescinds the misguided 2020 rule, which improperly narrowed

the NLRA's coverage and unmoored the legal standard from the

common law, by requiring workers to show that a business had

``substantial direct and immediate control'' over the

essential terms of employment;

Grounds the legal analysis in the common law, building on

the Obama-era Browning-Ferris decision that the 2020 Trump

rule overrode;

Affirms that companies are liable for committing unfair

labor practices (such as terminating workers for exercising

their right to organize) and required to bargain with their

workers as joint employers, where they control the essential

terms and conditions of employment;

Accounts for forms of control that are ``indirect'' and

``reserved,'' as well as direct and actually exercised, in

determining whether or not there is an employment

relationship; and

Recognizes that the ``essential terms and conditions of

employment'' include workplace health and safety, and

direction as to how to complete the work, as well as control

over pay and discipline.

This rule is a major step toward safeguarding the labor

rights of millions of workers in subcontracted employment,

ensuring that corporations cannot skirt the law simply by

outsourcing responsibility for their workers. Should a CRA to

overturn this rule be brought to the floor, we strongly urge

all Members of Congress to vote No.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance; AFL-CIO; American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); APALA; Asian

American Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Collaborative of

New Virginia Majority; Bruckner Burch PLLC; Care in Action;

Caring Across Generations; Center for Economic and Policy

Research; Center for Law and Social Policy; Cincinnati

Interfaith Workers Center; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues;

Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community Legal

Services, Philadelphia; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity

of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.

CRLA Foundation; Demand Progress; Demos; Economic Policy

Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Equal Rights

Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; Impact Fund;

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Japanese American

Citizens League (JACL); Jobs to Move America; Jobs With

Justice; Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana;

Justice at Work; Justice in Motion.

Kentucky Equal Justice Center; KIWA; Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Aid at Work; Long Beach

Alliance for Clean Energy; National Advocacy Center of the

Good Shepherd; National Center for Law and Economic Justice;

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health; National

Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association;

National Employment Lawyers Association; National Employment

Law Project (NELP); National Institute for Workers' Rights;

National Organization for Women; National Partnership for

Women & Families.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; National

Women's Law Center; New Jersey Association on Correction;

North Carolina Justice Center; Northwest Workers' Justice

Project; Public Justice Center; Restaurant Opportunities

Centers United; Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition

Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on

Poverty Law; TechEquity Collaborative; The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Legal Aid Society;

The Women's Employment Rights Clinic (WERC) at Golden Gate

University (GGU); Transport Workers Union of America.

UAW; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of

America; United Food and Commercial Workers International

Union (UFCW); Women Employed; Worker Justice Center of New

York; Worker Power Coalition; Workers Defense Action Fund;

Workplace Fairness; Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers

University; Workplace Justice Project at Loyola Law Clinic;

Worksafe; Young Invincibles.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the credit rating that was threatened was the result of the Republicans threatening a default on our debt. That wasn't anything the Democrats had done.

Again, I just reiterate that under Biden over 15 million jobs were created. Under Trump over 6 million were lost. We have had the longest period of time of unemployment, under 4 percent, since the 1960s. I think that is a fairly easy record to defend.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, there is no reason to override the President's veto, and the votes aren't going to be there. Unfortunately, this is how the Republicans have operated during the 118th Congress. This is going to be the least-productive Congress in history.

In contrast, under Democratic leadership, last Congress, we delivered on significant results. We created millions of jobs, reduced unemployment to record lows, and, under this administration, kept it under record lows. We have saved more than a million people's pensions under the multi-employer pension fund, and we helped tens of thousands of businesses because they were legally obligated to pay into those failing funds until the businesses went broke.

We delivered historic funding for education. We improved child nutrition. We brought the number of uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever. I think we can take credit for all of that.

By prioritizing and wasting time on efforts like this, the Republican majority is failing to live up to the same standard that Democrats have lived up to.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the President for vetoing H.J. Res. 98 and protecting American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this override effort and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam President, there are times when the eyes of history are upon the U.S. Senate. This is one of those times. We are facing today an existential crisis at our southern border. It is qualitatively different than anything we have ever faced at our southern border in the history of our Nation.

A few moments ago, the Senator from Illinois acknowledged the border was broken, although he acknowledged it in the classic Washington way of using the passive voice--``the border is broken''--that is designed to hide and obscure who broke the border.

He is correct that the border is broken, but it was broken deliberately by the President of the United States, Joe Biden; by the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris; by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; and by every single Senate Democrat who repeatedly has rubber-stamped and embraced this open border policy.

The Senator from Illinois said the border is broken. He is also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, on which Senator Lee serves, and on which Senator Kennedy serves. In the past 3 years, we have held precisely zero hearings on the crisis on our southern border. The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot be bothered to inquire as to the cause of this crisis.

Understand why Alejandro Mayorkas became the second Cabinet Secretary in the history of the United States to be impeached. The last one was in 1876--the Secretary of War--and now, 148 years later, Alejandro Mayorkas joins him. It is not because Alejandro Mayorkas is incompetent. It is not because he is negligent. It is not because he is bad at his job. Rather, unfortunately, Alejandro Mayorkas is very,

very good at his job. However, he does not view his job as securing the border. He does not view his job as protecting our homeland security.

Rather, he views his job as openly and directly violating--flouting-- Federal law and aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of this United States. He is not trying to secure the border. He is trying to accelerate the invasion that is happening. He wants more illegal aliens and more criminal illegal aliens released into this country. Under the Biden administration, 10.4 million illegal immigrants have been released into this country.

Senate Democrats are desperate to avoid the misery and suffering and death that their radical policies have produced. At a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I asked Secretary Mayorkas how many migrants died last year crossing illegally into this country.

He said: I don't know. I have no idea.

I said: Of course, you don't. The number is 853. That is a number from your own Department, but you don't care about the dead bodies that Texas farmers and ranchers are finding--nearly three a day.

When I brought 19 Senators down to the border to see firsthand what was happening, we went out on a boat on the Rio Grande River, and we saw a man floating dead in the river, who had drowned that day. By the way, those 19 Senators were only Republicans. I have invited my Democrat colleagues. I have invited the Senator from Illinois: Come to the southern border and see the people who are dying because of the policies you support. None of them have any interest in seeing firsthand the deaths they are producing.

I have looked in the eyes of children--of little boys and little girls--who have been brutalized by human traffickers day after day after day. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for the little girls and little boys to whom unspeakable evils are being done.

I have looked in the eyes of women who have been repeatedly and violently raped by human traffickers. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for the horrific violence and suffering their open border policies have produced.

When I asked Secretary Mayorkas about colored wristbands on a poster I displayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee, he responded by saying he had no idea what those wristbands are.

Those colored wristbands are worn by just about every illegal alien coming to this country. The colors correspond to how many thousands of dollars they owe the cartels. Understand, the cartels don't view them as human beings. They don't even view them as livestock. They are cargo. The colors show how many thousands of dollars they owe.

If you stand on the banks of the Rio Grande River, you will see hundreds or even thousands of those colored wristbands laying there in the grass. And what Alejandro Mayorkas was saying, as I told him--I said: Mr. Secretary, you have just told the American people you are utterly incompetent at your job, and you don't even give a damn enough to pretend to try.

When I invited my Democratic colleagues to come to the border and see the wristbands, the Democrats don't take us up on it.

Understand why those wristbands matter. Thousands upon thousands of teenage boys, they turn themselves in to the Biden administration. They say: Where do you want to go?

Some will say Chicago; some will say New York; some will say Los Angeles. And the Biden administration puts them on an airplane, puts them on a bus, and sends them to every city in America.

The mayor of Chicago, the hometown of the Senator from Illinois, has declared it a crisis, the illegal aliens pouring into his city. Yet Senate Democrats not only will do nothing about it, they continue the policies in place that make it worse and worse and worse.

Understand, those teenage boys, when they arrive in Chicago or L.A. or New York--and, by the way, the Democratic mayor of L.A. has also said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of New York has said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of Boston has said it is a crisis. The Democratic Mayor of Washington, DC, has said it is a crisis.

When they arrive, they owe the cartels thousands of dollars. If they don't pay the money back, the cartels will murder their families. And so they are working for the cartels.

There are crimes going on in your home State of California today by illegal immigrants the Biden administration has released that are working for the cartels. There are Californians who are being robbed right now, who are being carjacked, who are being assaulted. There are people in Chicago who are being robbed, who are being assaulted.

You want to understand the misery, take a look at Laken Riley. There has been a lot of discussion about Laken Riley; although, sadly, only on one side of this Chamber. If a Democratic Senator has said the words ``Laken Riley,'' I have not heard it come from their mouths.

Laken Riley was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who was murdered because of the Democrats' open border policies. How can I say that with such certainty? Because her murderer, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, was apprehended in El Paso. We had him. We had him. He was arrested. All Joe Biden and all Alejandro Mayorkas had to do was follow the law, and we would have put the murderer on a plane and flew him back to Venezuela. And he never would have been in Georgia murdering Laken Riley.

But Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas made the decision that politics matters more than protecting American citizens, and so they released this violent criminal.

He went from El Paso to New York City, where he was arrested again. We had him a second time, this time for endangering the safety of a child.

Unfortunately, New York City is a sanctuary city run by Democratic politicians, so what did they do? They let him go a second time, and he went down to Georgia. And Laken Riley, 22 years old, was out jogging, a nursing student. She is out jogging like millions of people do across America, and this murderer took a brick and beat her to death.

If either Joe Biden or Alejandro Mayorkas had followed the law or if New York had kept him in jail, she would still be alive.

Do you know what I also haven't heard from Senate Democrats? The name Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy, murdered in Prince George's County, MD, just miles from where we are right now, murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas released.

Just a few weeks ago, news broke of an illegal alien from Haiti that not only did Biden release but flew from Haiti to the United States. The Biden administration has had over 300,000 secret flights bringing illegal aliens to America. In this case, they brought the Haitian illegal immigrant to Boston, MA. And what happened just a couple of weeks ago, he was arrested for violently raping a 15-year-old girl who is seriously disabled.

These are the very real consequences of the Democrats' open border policies. Yet Democratic Senators don't want to confront the people who are dying, who are suffering because of them.

Alejandro Mayorkas was not impeached because he is negligent; he is impeached because he is actively defying the law. By the way, he has turned the Mexican drug cartels into decabillionaires.

According to the New York Times, in 2018, the revenue from human trafficking the cartels earned was roughly $500 million. Last year, it was $13 billion. Thanks to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats, the drug cartels' profits have gone up 2,600 percent. That is why the House has impeached Alejandro Mayorkas.

Now, what is the Senate to do when impeachment occurs? Well, fortunately, we have a document that tells us what to do. It is called the Constitution of the United States.

Under the Constitution, it is the sole power of the House to impeach and the sole power and responsibility of the Senate to try.

Twenty-one times in our Nation's history in more than 200 years, the House has impeached an individual and sent Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate. Here is what has happened in those 21 times:

In one time, the Senate concluded it had no jurisdiction because the individual impeached was a Senator, and

impeachment only attaches to members of the executive branch or the judicial branch. So they dismissed that one for lack of jurisdiction.

In three of them, the individuals impeached were no longer in office, and so the Senate didn't act because it was moot. It was no longer necessary to resolve because the individual impeached was out of office.

In the remaining 17 times, all of them--100 percent of the time--the Senate conducted a trial, the Senate heard evidence, and the Senate adjudicated guilt or innocence. Each Senator stood up and said ``guilty'' or ``not guilty.''

Well, next week, when the articles arrive, we are told that Senator Schumer intends not to proceed to a trial, not to follow the Senate rules of impeachment, not to allow any evidence but simply to move to table--to throw it out at the outset.

Why is Senator Schumer doing so? Three reasons:

No. 1, he desperately, desperately wants to stop the House managers from presenting their evidence.

The Senator from Illinois says: He knows there is no evidence. It is like an ostrich putting his head in the sand. One way to know there is no evidence is look at no evidence, hear no evidence, consider no evidence, and do everything you can to prevent the American people from hearing evidence.

No. 2, the Senate Democrats want to stop a trial. They don't want the American people to know the suffering and misery and dead bodies their policies are producing.

But No. 3, the Senate Democrats desperately want to prevent Democrats who are on the ballot right now from casting a vote of guilty or not guilty. They want to avoid an adjudication, because, do you know what? Senate Democrats are back in their home States saying: Gosh, I am really concerned about illegal immigration.

If they were really concerned, we can decide that next week by voting to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a trial.

Now, let me say something. I look and see the Senator from Illinois; I see the Senator from West Virginia. All three of us were on the Senate floor at another momentous time in 2013, when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option and blew up the filibuster for nominations. That did enormous damage to the institution of the Senate.

I remember standing in the well of the Senate, 10 feet from where I am now, and turning to Senator Amy Klobuchar that day. I told her, I said: You are going to regret this day. This is a catastrophic mistake.

I told her then: The result of this decision from Harry Reid and the Democrats will be more judges and Justices on the Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

If you want to know why Roe v. Wade has been overturned, it is because Harry Reid and the Democrats exercised the nuclear option in 2013. Had they not done so, there is no way this Senate would have confirmed all three of the nominees put forward. It was the direct consequence of the utter disregard for this institution Senate Democrats have.

I bring that up because we are at a second moment that is equally consequential, except instead of nuking the Senate rules as they did in 2013, Senate Democrats are preparing to nuke the Constitution of the United States itself, the impeachment clause, which every single time that the Senate has had jurisdiction and the person has been in office, the Senate has held a trial. If Senate Democrats proceed next week to table that, they will blow up that precedent.

I am here to make a prediction. Senate Democrats sometimes behave like small children with no ability to look to the future and anticipate the consequences of their actions. Everyone can recognize right now we have got a Presidential election coming up in November. None of us knows the outcome. I am going to posit to you right now: There is a significant chance Donald Trump will be reelected as President. I am also going to posit to you that is an outcome no one on the Democratic side wants to see happen.

There is also a significant chance Republicans will retake the Senate. But there is a possibility that Democrats will retake the House. That is a very likely scenario in this election.

If that happens--I turn to my friend from West Virginia because I want you to contemplate what will happen. If that happens, I am going to make a prediction: One year from today, we are going to be on the Senate floor, and if Democrats control the House, they will have impeached Donald Trump again, impeached him a third time and maybe a fourth time and maybe a fifth time. If they have the House, that is what they are going to do.

And if and when those impeachment articles come over to the Senate, if Senate Democrats next week dismiss this impeachment, I am telling you right now, Senate Republicans will do the same thing to any impeachment that comes over from the House. What Senate Democrats will have done is effectively eliminated the Senate's power of impeachment anytime the Senate is the same party as the President.

Many of us were here the last time this scenario happened. It was the first Trump impeachment. The first Trump impeachment, he had a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. The Democrats in the House impeached Donald Trump. They sent Articles of Impeachment over. The Senate Republicans could have played these games and tried to table the impeachment and said: We are going to shirk our constitutional duty; we are not going to have a trial. But we didn't. We followed the Constitution.

My question for my colleagues here is: Is there even one Democrat who cares about the institution of the Senate, who cares about the Constitution, who cares about democracy?

Democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending democracy while they are engaging in a relentless assault on democracy.

I have an organizing resolution that would follow the precedent and simply appoint an impeachment committee to hear the trial. The trial doesn't have to be on the Senate floor; that is typically done for Presidents. Instead, the impeachment committee could hear the evidence, which is what the Senate has done over and over and over again.

By the way, every Democrat who says we have got other things to focus on--FISA and other matters--the impeachment committee would proceed parallel with the Senate floor considering other business. So it would delay nothing on the Senate floor to follow our Constitution and have an impeachment committee. But it would avoid destroying the impeachment power of the Senate, destroying the Constitution. And it would also give the American people a chance to hear the evidence and to hear the presentation of the House managers.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 622; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to respond to Senator Durbin.

Madam President, nowhere in Senator Durbin's remarks did we hear any mention of the children being brutalized by traffickers. Nowhere did we hear of the women trapped in sex slavery. Nowhere did we hear the words ``Laken Riley.'' Nowhere did we hear ``Jeremy Caceres.'' Nowhere did we hear a word about the dead bodies--three a day, nearly-- that are being found on Texas properties. Nowhere did we hear a word about the suffering.

Instead, what did he do? He pointed to the Democrats' longstanding objection that granted amnesty to as many people as possible so they get more Democrat voters.

The Gang of 8 bill was a terrible bill. And Senator Durbin is unhappy that democracy operated and the House of Representatives made the decision not to pass it. That is the way our system works.

That is what led Senate Democrats and Joe Biden to decide to just open the border lawlessly because they couldn't actually get the votes to pass their bill.

The Schumer bill he is talking about would have made this situation worse. And understand what Senator Durbin is saying. It is the policy of Senate Democrats to support these open borders. They don't have any arguments on the merits.

By the way, Joe Biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. All he had to do was nothing because we had success in securing the border. And Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas deliberately broke the border, and they continue the policies in place that ensure tomorrow more children will be brutalized and more women are going to be raped. They know that, and they are not willing to do anything to stop it.

That is, I believe, immoral and wrong, and the Senate should hold a trial as the Constitution requires. We owe that to the American people.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 947, I call up the

joint resolution (H.J. Res. 98) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, House Republicans are coming to the rescue of small business owners once again. The House will soon vote on a bipartisan Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind President Biden's antifreedom, antigrowth joint employer rule.

Business-to-business relationships are fundamental to American commerce. At its most basic level, a joint employer standard should ensure that the entity calling the shots in the workplace is legally liable. That is why it is important to get this right.

Under the Trump National Labor Relations Board rule, it was right. The Trump NLRB made sure that clear criteria were met before an employer was deemed legally liable for an individual's employment conditions.

Critically, the Trump rule recognized that the ability of businesses to control their destinies is a pillar of the American Dream. It established a standard that enticed countless men and women to start and grow small businesses and employ millions of workers.

The Biden NLRB upended this easy-to-understand joint employer standard that promoted economic growth and job creation. Under the new joint employer rule, small business owners are going to be compelled to acquiesce to more Big Government regulation and union boss control.

Here is why: The traditional Trump rule stated that two or more businesses were considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act if they shared actual, direct, and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment, including hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction of employees. This predictable and clear standard ensured employers would not be saddled with collective bargaining obligations or with liability of a company they do not control.

Under the Biden NLRB rule, an employer now includes those who have only indirect or even potential control over employees' essential terms and conditions of employment. Like a rerun of a low-rated TV show, we have seen this story before.

While the Trump Board restored the commonsense, traditional joint employer standard, the Biden NLRB's rule largely revives an Obama-era standard. The Obama NLRB upended decades of precedent and broadly expanded the definition of joint employment. That means working families and small businesses are up against a confusing and damaging new rule from Biden's NLRB, which will sow confusion and destabilize the economy in a time when persistently high prices are crushing hardworking Americans.

The results from Obama's joint employer rule give us an eerie glimpse of what is to come. Franchise operational costs increased by $33 billion. The decision caused 376,000 lost job opportunities in the franchise sector alone. It increased NLRB unfair labor practice charges by 93 percent, imposing significant litigation costs on businesses, both large and small.

Special interests are hard at work attempting to sweep these facts and the failed historical record under the rug. The AFL-CIO purports that the rule will in no way threaten or disrupt franchise arrangements or staffing firms. Big Labor set the line, and the Biden administration took the bait--hook, line, and sinker.

Moreover, this is not the only myth Big Labor is spreading about the resolution. Let me be clear. This resolution does nothing to restrict union activity. It does not alter the rights afforded to workers under the National Labor Relations Act. What it does is ensure the appropriate parties meet at the bargaining table to resolve labor disputes.

While the Biden NLRB's joint employer rule takes the side of the special interest masters, House Republicans have heard the pleas and are taking the side of workers, small businesses, and the American entrepreneurial spirit.

Congress must stand with franchisees, small and large business owners, and millions of workers by voting with a bipartisan mandate to rescind the Biden NLRB's joint employer rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the distinguished chair of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), chair of the Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), and the prime sponsor of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Black Chambers, and U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supporting H.J. Res. 98.

January 3, 2024.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations representing millions of minority-owned

businesses across the United States, we write in support of

the joint Congressional Review Act resolution concerning the

National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) joint-employer rule.

As discussed below, we support this bipartisan measure

because of the opportunities it represents to bridge the

racial wealth gap through entrepreneurship and fair

competition. While our organizations agree with the aim of

the National Labor Relations Act and the mission of the NLRB,

this rule represents a broader need to modernize our laws for

the diverse economy of the 21st century.

On October 26, 2023, the NLRB released a final rule setting

forth a new standard for joint employer status under the

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This rule would have a

concerning impact on all small businesses, contractors, and

franchisees around the country who could be held liable for

potential NLRA violations for employees that they do not

directly control, just by the virtue of entering a standard

business-to-business contract.

We write you today, however, because we believe this rule

could particularly impact minority-owned small businesses and

franchisees that rely on these contracts to sustain and grow

their businesses. The rule will take effect on February 26,

2024, unless Congress acts.

The franchise model has been a driver for minority

entrepreneurship and job creation, by allowing budding

entrepreneurs to partner with well-known brands and bolster

local ownership of Main Street businesses around the country.

It has also been particularly successful on ramping first-

and second-generation immigrants into business ownership. We

believe that the unintended consequences of this rule could

threaten the entire franchise modal. It is our experience

that when business models are transformed--for better or

worse--the minority community, often under-capitalized,

shoulders a disproportionate burden of the immediate harm. We

are very concerned that what will remain of the franchise

model could undo progress toward diversity and inclusion in

this major sector of the economy.

This is particularly harmful at a time when minority

entrepreneurs are just beginning to reap the benefits of this

model. A recent study found that minority entrepreneurs are

more likely to own franchised businesses as opposed to non-

franchised businesses. The franchise model can be a helpful

tool to encourage higher rates of entrepreneurship among

women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups. Below

are some of the key findings:

Nearly one-third (32%) of survey respondents said they

would not own a business without franchising. Women and other

first-time businessowners were even more likely to consider

the franchise opportunity as critical to their ability to

launch a small business.

Nearly one-third (26%) of franchises are owned by

minorities, compared with 17% of independent businesses.

On average, Black-owned franchises earn 2.2 times more than

Black-owned independent businesses; Hispanic-owned franchises

earn 1.6 times more than Hispanic-owned independent

businesses; and Asian-owned franchises earn 1.4 times more

than Asian-owned independent businesses.

Beyond the concerns of the minority franchisee community

that we represent, we also believe this rule could harm

minority business success subcontracting to large prime

contractors. Subcontracting is an important pathway for

businesses that are just starting--which in recent years are

more likely to be owned by minorities and women. This rule

similarly threatens the relationship between subcontractors

and their prime partners, undoing the important work that has

already been done to diversify our supply chains.

For these reasons, we ask you to support the Congressional

Review Act joint resolution of disapproval (H.J. Res. 98/S.J.

Res. 49) to undo the NLRB's final rule on joint employer

status. We must all collectively then ensure that policies

that support a modern, diverse economy are at the front of

the legislative calendar in the new year.

Sincerely,

National Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce

and Entrepreneurship (National ACE).

U.S. Black Chambers, Inc.

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this letter raises concerns about the NLRB joint employer rule's ``impact on all small businesses, contractors, and franchisees around the country.''

Particularly, the letter notes that the rule could ``impact minority- owned small businesses and franchisees that rely on these contracts to sustain and grow their businesses.''

The letter continues: ``The franchise model has been a driver for minority entrepreneurship and job creation by allowing budding entrepreneurs to partner with well-known brands and bolster local ownership of Main Street businesses around the country. It has also been particularly successful on ramping first- and second-generation immigrants into business ownership.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider these views, vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 98, and overturn the Biden NLRB joint employer rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of more than 70 organizations, led by the International Franchise Association, supporting H.J. Res. 98.

November 9, 2023.

Support Using the Congressional Review Act to Overturn the NLRB's Final

Joint-Employer Rule

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations, on

behalf of a diverse group of workers, small businesses, and

critical sectors of our economy, write in strong support of

H.J. Res. 98/S.J. Res. 49, a joint resolution of disapproval

under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the National

Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Final Rule on Joint-Employer

Status. This misguided rule will harm millions of workers and

small businesses across the country, and we urge you to vote

to protect your constituents from the NLRB's overreach.

Issued in October 2023, the NLRB's Final Joint-Employer

Rule institutes an unworkable, overly broad set of

circumstances under which a company is considered a ``joint

employer'' under federal law. The Final Rule will cripple

small businesses in numerous sectors by exposing them to

frivolous litigation, eliminating jobs, and slowing wage

growth across the country--just like it did when a similar

standard was implemented in 2015. At a time of continued

economic uncertainty, it is alarming that the NLRB has chosen

to move forward on such a divisive and damaging joint

employer rule.

Fortunately, in the coming weeks, members of Congress will

have the opportunity to vote to nullify the NLRB's Joint-

Employer Final Rule by utilizing the Congressional Review

Act. By voting in favor of H.J. Res. 98/S.J. Res. 49, members

can demonstrate that they support workers and small

businesses in their states. Accordingly, we urge your support

for nullifying the NLRB's Final Rule and look forward to our

continued partnership.

Sincerely,

Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Bakers

Association; American Car Rental Association; American Health

Care Association; American Hospital Association; American

Hotel & Lodging Association; American Pipeline Contractors

Association; American Seniors Housing Association; American

Staffing Association; American Supply Association; American

Trucking Associations; Argentum; Asian American Hotel Owners

Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated

Equipment Distributors.

Associated General Contractors of America; CAWA--

Representing the Automotive Parts Industry; Coalition to

Promote Independent Entrepreneurs; Family Business Coalition;

FMI--The Food Industry Association; Franchise Business

Services; Global Cold Chain Alliance; Heating, Air-

conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International; HR

Policy Association; IHRSA--The Health & Fitness Association;

ICSC; Independent Electrical Contractors; International

Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise

Association; International Warehouse Logistics Associations.

NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops;

National Association of Convenience Stores; National

Association of Electrical Distributors; National Association

of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers;

National Association of Professional Employer Organizations;

National Association of Realtors; National Association of

Small Trucking Companies; National Association of Wholesaler-

Distributors; National Center for Assisted Living; National

Cotton Ginners Association; National Council of Chain

Restaurants; National Federation of Independent Business

(NFIB); National Franchisee Association; National Grocers

Association.

National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association;

National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC); National Ready

Mixed Concrete Association; National Restaurant Association;

National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors

Association; National Small Business Association; National

Tooling and Machining Association; National Waste & Recycling

Association; Power & Communication Contractors Association;

Precision Machined Products Association; Precision

Metalforming Association; Real Estate Roundtable; Retail

Industry Leaders Association (RILA).

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; TechNet;

Technology & Manufacturing Association; The Association for

Hose and Accessories Distribution; The Community Gyms

Coalition; Tile Roofing Industry Alliance; Transportation

Alliance; TRSA--The Linen, Uniform and Facility Services

Association; Truck Renting and Leasing Association; Wholesale

Florist and Florist Supplier Association; Workplace Policy

Institute; Workplace Solutions Association; U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, the letter argues that the NLRB's joint employer rule is ``misguided'' and ``will harm millions of workers and small businesses across the country.'' The letter also states the final rule ``will cripple small businesses in numerous sectors by exposing them to frivolous litigation, eliminating jobs, and slowing wage growth across the country, just like it did when a similar standard was implemented in 2015.''

The letter continues: ``At a time of continued economic uncertainty, it is alarming that the NLRB has chosen to move forward on such a divisive and damaging joint employer rule.''

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me in listening to this debate this morning from speaker after speaker on the other side that they have no experience in the private sector and no idea of how our economy works. Our country has flourished economically because of freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in this country. They constantly want to squelch both of those principles.

I will point out a key difference in the Republican and Democratic Parties illustrated by the joint employer rule. Listen carefully to the language under debate. The conservative language: direct, immediate. The liberal language: indirect, potential.

Any casual observer of American politics can understand how the blatant attempt to smuggle legal ambiguity into the otherwise clear-cut law will be abused by a weaponized and partisan agency. It will open every American franchisor and franchisee to lawfare from the left if it does not toe the Democratic Party line.

With the spurious pretenses we have seen this administration use to go after Catholic Americans and concerned mothers, we don't need to give it another tool to go after American small businesses.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6192

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

Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration has waged a war on American energy, and this war has made its way into Americans' homes.

President Biden and the Department of Energy's Secretary Granholm have sacrificed appliance affordability and reliability in their pursuit of a radical rush-to-green agenda. In the name of energy efficiency, the Biden administration has issued rules on home appliances that would drive up costs and make these popular products less reliable and available to the American families.

The Biden administration's new rules do not save a significant amount of energy and are not cost effective. The Biden administration's rules discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electrification of appliances, regardless of the cost, reliability, or availability. Just look how the minority tried to ban gas stoves before my Save Our Gas Stoves legislation and public outcry dialed it back.

House Republicans are leading to protect Americans from Federal mandates that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, are not practical, and eliminate the performance features of product choices.

My legislation, H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, fights back against the Biden administration's radical agenda and will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of the household appliances Americans rely on every day.

Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, also called EPCA, provides specific criteria the Department of Energy must follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. It is supposed to result in a significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and economically justified.

The problem is that current law doesn't define the parameters for these criteria, so the Biden administration has ignored these critical consumer protections by proposing and finalizing standards that violate the statute.

My bill will define how much energy or water has to be saved. My bill will define that any additional upfront costs to install a new appliance that has new mandated energy efficiency standards will be recuperated within a reasonable period of time.

H.R. 6192 will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full lifecycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified. The bill requires a 3-year or less payback to the consumer and requires consideration of the cost for low-income households.

No longer will the Biden administration be able to say a savings of 12 cents per month is economically justified, as they have done before, and no longer will a customer have to hold onto their appliance for 8 to 10 or longer years just before they see any cost savings.

The bill establishes a minimum threshold for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards. The bill requires that any new standard must achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in energy or water usage. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses so there can be no more natural gas bans.

The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the lifespan of the products. Americans want their appliances to work. The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save the

consumers money and if the appliance doesn't work.

Last week, I asked Secretary Granholm in committee some very basic questions about the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should be technologically feasible?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should not increase net cost for consumers?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should save a significant amount of energy?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I stated to her: Efficiency mandates increase the upfront costs of appliances, which can really hurt low-income families and renters who do not have the luxury of waiting years for the energy savings to break even.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that 3 years is a reasonable payback period for efficiency regulations?

You know what? Secretary Granholm said she thought the payback should be done within 1 year.

Thus, folks, Secretary Granholm is on record supporting every key element of my bill.

In January of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court found that the Department of Energy has abused the law. In their opinion, they said: Department of Energy `` . . . failed to adequately consider appliance performance, substitution effects, and the ample record evidence that Department of Energy's conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and water rather than less.''

It is time to reform the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Like our laws set speed limits to determine at what speed we are breaking the law, it is time to define what economically justified and technologically feasible mean. It is time to fight back against the radical agenda set by the Biden administration. It is time for energy efficiency laws to actually save Americans money, actually save energy and water, and actually preserve Americans' consumer choice.

Mr. Chair, I ask both Republicans and Democrats to support my bill, H.R. 6192, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is the chair of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to go over some of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused this bill of mine of doing.

First, Mr. Pallone, who I respect, said this bill will raise energy bills. Absolutely not. In fact, if you read the bill, it couldn't be clearer because the text states: The Secretary cannot issue a new standard if the energy efficiency standard results in additional cost to consumers. It is very clear. In fact, the whole goal of this bill is to save consumers money and also make sure that their appliances actually work.

My fellow colleague, Representative Castor, said: We need to side with the people. Well, that is exactly what my bill does. I will tell you why. Let me give you some examples of what our current Department of Energy is doing and why this isn't a waste of time to be talking about because this is for the people. This is for every household in America that has to pay more money because of these crazy Department of Energy regulations.

Let me give you some examples: For clothes washers, the Department of Energy estimates that its standard could save as little as $9 for certain models over the average lifetime for the appliance, which is estimated to be 13.4 years, $9 over 13.4 years. Wow.

For dishwashers, the analysis by the Department of Energy under Biden finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 28 percent, and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased cost on a product that may only last 7 to 12 years.

My bill is for the people.

Here is another DOE rule under the Biden administration: For refrigerators and freezers, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost to replace that refrigerator or freezer by 25 percent, and it could take

consumers 10 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 14 to 15 years.

Here is another example: For air conditioners, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 30 percent, and it could take consumers 4 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 9 years.

Here is another one: For clothes dryers, Biden's Department of Energy's own analysis--I am talking about their analysis, not mine-- shows that it would take between 6 years and 46 years to pay back the increased cost, depending on the type of dryer and the product features.

The payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical. For example, under Biden's Department of Energy, the payback periods for proposed clothes dryer standards are 6 years for electric, 18 years for electric compact, 20 years for vented electric compact, 5 years for vented gas, 11 years for ventless electric compact, and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer/dryer.

With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, who say this is a waste of time--we are wasting time, we should be talking about all of their priorities. No. Republicans are here. We are standing up for the average, commonsense, everyday American who can't afford groceries anymore, let alone these crazy, radical standards that the Biden administration is pushing through that will increase their costs.

That is why I am doing this bill. We want appliances that not only work, but we don't want to bankrupt the American people with all these crazy, radical, Biden rush-to-green energy policies.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, my colleagues keep saying: Do something that the people really care about. This is something that the American people really care about.

Let me show you a Wall Street Journal article from today. It is from today. It is titled, ``Biden is Coming for Your Air Conditioner.'' It says: ``Your next new home air conditioner could set you back $12,000 or more, with Federal regulators contributing to the rising cost of staying cool.''

I am from Arizona. We need air conditioners. People are just trying to get by right now because of the inflation under Biden. Biden's economics--Bidenomics, as he calls it--is costing people money.

The Energy Department in January 2023 issued a new efficiency standard for residential air-conditioning systems. It necessitated a major redesign that increased costs by $1,000 to $1,500 per air conditioner.

It isn't clear that consumers will ever earn back in long-term energy savings the steeper upfront costs they are paying.

Next up is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation scheduled to take effect in 2025. It will require air-conditioning equipment makers to use new refrigerants deemed sufficiently climate friendly. The only refrigerants being used by manufacturers that meet the EPA's new green standards are classified as mildly flammable.

Manufacturers in earnings conference calls have estimated that the price of compliant equipment will increase the price of the air conditioner at least 10 percent. The switch to flammable systems will also require additional technician training and extra installation steps that are likely to increase labor costs for installations and repairs.

I wish that I didn't have to sponsor this bill. I mean, if you asked me a number of years ago would I sponsor this, I would have thought it wasn't necessary. However, under the Biden administration, they have just gone crazy. I don't know if radical environmentalists are bending the ear of President Biden or what is going on because, as I have demonstrated, this isn't helping Americans. This is a radical agenda that is increasing the prices on everyday Americans, and we can't afford it. That is why this bill is necessary.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, sometimes I feel like it is deja vu. I remember standing here and talking about my Save Our Gas Stoves bill.

My Democrat colleagues--not all of them because some of them voted with me on my bill--said the same arguments. This is a waste of time. We are not banning stoves. The Americans don't care about this.

Well, guess what? That bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and then guess what? It worked because the Department of Energy dialed it back.

Originally, according to their own analysis, they were going to effectively ban 96 percent of all the current models of gas stoves. Now, it is only 3 percent. We won. The American people won. That is why I am doing this bill.

When my friend, Mr. Pallone, says, well, these energy efficiency standards will save all kinds of money, what he is not saying is all of the money that it is going to cost extra up front for these new, revised standards, and that is if the thing even works well.

Let me remind my colleagues what this bill actually does and why it is needed. It is a commonsense bill. It will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full life cycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified.

The bill requires a 3-year payback. The Secretary of Energy said, oh, it should only be 1 year, so there shouldn't be any problems with my bill.

The bill establishes minimum thresholds for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards.

My Democrat colleagues say they want to save energy and water. So do I. Let's put it in the bill. Let's say, okay, it has to save 10 percent.

The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses, just like they were trying to do with the gas stoves.

The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the life span of the product.

You know why? Because Americans, when they buy new appliances, want them to work as good as the ones that they have now.

The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save consumers money and they don't work.

This is a commonsense bill. It should be a bipartisan bill. I don't know why my Democrat colleagues are fighting it so hard because it says it has to save the consumers money.

It is all about helping the American homeowner who is struggling with Bidenomics right now. I am telling you: People in my district, they complain about the prices of groceries. They are complaining about the price of gas.

When their air conditioner, when their water heater, when their dishwasher starts to fail, and they have to buy a new one, they don't want to pay a whole bunch more, and they want it to work as well as their current one has done for years.

That is the purpose of my bill. That is why I ask my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues to support my bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.