H.Res. 947

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 the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 thank the ranking member of the full committee and the manager of this presentation on the floor for dealing with H.R. 788.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to save lives. This baffles me when good work is being done and has been done over the years. No one has complained about misconduct of the recipients of the settlement funds helping people who have been impacted negatively, sometimes with irreparable harm. They are assisted by a number of organizations making a difference.

Rather, we want to go forward with the corporate unaccountability act, making this an unreasonable attempt and unconstitutional attempt by Members on the other side to stop protecting victims and protect wrongdoers, which is a continuation of the dangerous behavior that has brought about this settlement.

What do Americans look to their Federal Government for? They look to the government to be their rock, their anchor in times of natural disasters, man-made and otherwise. They look to their government in times of war and peace for us to defend this Nation. They certainly look to make sure that in the normal comings and goings of their work with their families, their communities, that someone is looking out for them. That is what the settlement opportunities give to our various agencies.

This would allow the continued work, rather than the taking away of these dollars from legitimate groups that are helping to make life better. This weakens the Federal Government's ability to settle these issues. It takes away the idea of legal aid and legal aid organizations being able to help individuals without access to legal assistance. It helps develop community banking, financial institutions. It gives housing opportunities to those who have been taken advantage of.

We know that we are in a condition of toxic air and toxic contamination in our neighborhoods, and what does the ability to settle the disaster that has been created do? It tells those offenders this is how they make the community whole. This is how they save lives.

I know it well in Fifth Ward, Texas, and the surrounding areas. For a long time, a corporate offender contaminated the soil. They were growing plants and flowers, so whole neighborhoods had an epidemic of cancer. There were whole generations that lived around this particular toxic site, but it was only the Federal Government--the EPA, in particular--under the Biden administration that came in and got a handle on this and insisted that the health needs of these individuals, the cleanup needs of these individuals, was going to be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking member, for yielding additional time.

This is not that s-word. I don't even want to say it because it means that it is something wrong. This is a good settlement opportunity that will help the public in fighting against bad actors. It will work on improving the criminal justice system, bankruptcies, the environment, civil rights laws, the Fair Housing Act, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

This is a pathway to disaster. That is what H.R. 788 is. Don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. What we want to do is help the American people and eliminate H.R. 788, which is going to take away the tools to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying we want to save lives, and that is what we want to continue to do in these dastardly conditions that have happened all over the Nation. We want the Federal Government to be standing next to Americans and to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from several organizations that oppose H.R. 788.

January 8, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 788--The Prevention of Community Restoration

Act.

Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the

so-called ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023''. The

bill prohibits settlement agreements where the United States

is a party from including certain ``donations'' to non-

federal actors, primarily non-profits, educational, and

community-based organizations.

Under existing laws, settlements from federal enforcement

actions can include payments to third parties to advance

programs that assist with recovery, benefits, and relief for

communities harmed by lawbreakers, to the extent such

payments further the objectives of the enforcement action.

H.R. 788 would cut off any payments to third parties other

than individualized restitution and other forms of direct

payment for ``actual harm.'' That restriction would handcuff

federal enforcement officials by limiting the ability of

federal enforcement officials to negotiate real relief for

harms caused to the public by illegal conduct that is the

subject of federal enforcement actions.

This bill would be a gift to lawbreakers at the expense of

families and communities suffering from injuries that cannot

be addressed by direct restitution because the bill would

prevent federal agencies from negotiating forms of relief

that would address injuries to the public that may be either

non-quantifiable or indeterminate. These forms of relief are

crucial when harm is difficult to monetize, such as damage to

the environment, the collateral consequences to communities

resulting from predatory lending by financial institutions,

or unknown health outcomes to individuals resulting from

chemical exposures in the workplace.

Under current law, the legitimacy and utility of federal

enforcement settlements that include payments to third

parties is clear, as long as such payments bear a nexus to

the prosecutorial objectives of the agency. This bill would

supplant the wisdom of officials at DOJ and federal agencies

to craft appropriate remedies.

This bill is also just another example of Congressional

overreach into executive branch decision-making. Not only

does it disregard the needs of future Administrations, but

the bill is sloppily crafted, failing to provide even a basic

definition of the ``donations'' or payments in question.

Further, the bill assumes that the government is always

going to be the party seeking to enforce the law, but this is

a fallacy. Laws are often enforced against the government,

and the government sometimes pays restitution to litigants.

There is a role for third parties to ensure that settlements

involving the government are followed and enforced.

Third parties that receive third-party payments include

nonprofits, community organizations, or trusts or foundations

that provide vital services in their communities. Members of

Congress should applaud the good work of these organizations

that serve the public good rather than vilify them.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 788.

Sincerely,

Yosef Robele & Brielle Green, Earthjustice, American

Association of Justice, American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of

Teachers, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Justice

& Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Clean Water

Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund,

Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Working

Group, Government Information Watch, Impact Fund, League of

Conservation Voters, National Association of Consumer

Advocates, National Consumers League, NRDC, Nuclear

Information and Resource Service, Public Justice, Union of

Concerned Scientists, Waterkeeper Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 788. Don't take that tool away. Help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

This bill would undermine our ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for unlawful conduct.

H.R. 788, which otherwise could be called the ``Corporate Unaccountability Act,'' is another unconscionable attempt by some extreme members on the other side of the aisle to protect corporate wrongdoers at the expense of their victims and a continuation of this majority's dangerous quest to prevent federal agencies from enforcing key protections.

H.R. 788 is yet another in a series of harmful bills that pose a direct threat to a broad range of critical protections Americans rely on in their daily lives by making it harder for federal agencies to implement, execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress.

These bills are part of the extreme MAGA Republican agenda, which seeks to render the federal government ineffective by any means necessary.

First, they proposed defunding and abolishing agencies that do not suit their radical views.

Then, they broadened their scope and put forward their Default on America Act, and later their extreme CR, which would have massively underfunded the federal government, hurting its ability to address our nation's most important priorities.

This week, the sabotage continues with legislation that puts corporate interests over communities by making it harder for agencies to hold corporations accountable for unlawful conduct and depriving victims of meaningful relief.

H.R. 788 would prohibit federal agencies from entering or enforcing legal settlement agreements that include payments to third parties in cases of corporate misconduct.

These third-party payments are important when the conduct at issue results in generalized harm, such as violations of public health, environmental or consumer protections.

Recipients are often nonprofit, educational and community-based organizations.

For example, the Department of Justice has reached settlement agreements in connection with the mortgage lending practices of major banks that required payments to legal aid organizations, community development financial institutions and housing counseling groups.

Eliminating this practice, as H.R. 788 threatens to do, would materially weaken the federal government's ability to hold bad actors accountable for their unlawful conduct in a way that effectively addresses the societal injuries they have caused.

This extreme and misguided legislation has earned opposition from both the Biden Administration and a broad coalition of groups, has zero Democratic cosponsors and only advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee by a party-line vote.

According to President Biden's Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 788 is unnecessary and ``would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.''

It should also be noted that the following groups who have come out in opposition of this irresponsible and dangerous bill:

American Association for Justice; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for Progressive Reform; Clean Water Action; Coalition for Sensible Safeguards; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Working Group; Government Information Watch; Impact Fund; League of Conservation Voters; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Consumers League; NRDC; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Public Justice; Union of Concerned Scientists; and Waterkeeper Alliance.

Let me also highlight the fact that the Administration strongly opposes the House passage of H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023, because the legislation is unnecessary and would harm the public interest.

H.R. 788 would prohibit the Federal government from entering into settlement agreements that include payments directed to appropriate parties.

This legislation seeks to address a problem that does not exist--the Federal government does not create or use ``slush funds.''

When the Federal government settles a case with those who violate the law, it seeks to hold bad actors accountable, to appropriately remedy the harm they have caused, and to prevent the recurrence of those harms.

H.R. 788 would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental, and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.

This bill would needlessly prohibit a widely respected and effective enforcement tool.

Specifically, it would block many agencies from including certain terms providing for payment to third parties in settlement agreements to which the United States is a party.

In the past, agencies have sometimes opted to work with entities that have violated regulatory requirements to agree to alternative forms of remediation.

These efforts have resulted in settlement agreements that include payments by those entities to third parties to advance programs that assist with recovery, benefits, or relief for communities harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action.

In this way, H.R. 788 would thwart federal enforcement officials' ability to negotiate appropriate relief for harm caused to the public by parties that are the subject of the enforcement action.

The criticisms of third-party settlements are misplaced: they do not unduly undermine congressional appropriation power, and they must satisfy basic requirements to be used.

The Congressional Research Service has found settlement payments to non-federal actors are permissible remedies to the extent they bear a nexus to the prosecutorial objectives of the agency.

Moreover, developing guidelines on appropriate scope, purpose, and use of third-party payments appropriately lie with the executing agency, which has the benefit of expertise and experience.

In sum, this bill is counterproductive and would undermine law enforcement goals by reducing the availability of effective remedies to address injuries to individuals and communities caused by illegal conduct. We therefore urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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