Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following cost estimate for H.R. 8183, Modernizing Access to Talents, Credentials, and Hiring Act of 2026, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which was not made available to the Committee on Education and Workforce at the time of the filing of the legislative report.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Harvey Lake of Jackson as the Veteran of the Month for October and honor him for his service on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Harvey was drafted into the United States Army in 1972, answering the call to serve his country during a pivotal time in our nation's history. He completed his basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, followed by Advanced Individual Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, where he trained as a 63B20 Wheel Vehicle Mechanic. Following his training, Harvey was stationed in Ludwigsburg, Germany, where he served for over 18 months with Company B, 34th Signal Battalion, VII Corps. His unit played an important role in relaying communications to the VII Corps at Kelly Barracks in Stuttgart, Germany, and contributing to the United States' efforts during the Cold War.

Harvey completed his service in June 1974 and was later honorably discharged from the Army in June 1978 at the rank of Specialist 4. For his service, Harvey earned the National Defense Medal, Marksman recognition, and a Wheel Vehicle Mechanic Certificate. His commitment to our nation is also part of a proud family tradition of military service. His father served during World War II as a B-24 gunner in the Pacific, while his brother Roger also answered the call to serve in the United States Army and was honorably discharged.

Since his time in the military, Harvey has continued to exemplify service, hard work, and devotion to his community. Though retired, he remains active in his community, reflecting the same character and determination that defined his military career.

Harvey Lake's faithful service and continued commitment to both our nation's armed services and Michigan's local communities should serve as an inspiration to us all. May others know of my high regard for Harvey, as well as my deep gratitude for his lasting contributions to the country we love.

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. WALBERG: Committee on Education and Workforce. H.R.

2332. A bill to authorize the use of Federal Bureau of

Investigation criminal history record information for

administration of certain licenses; with an amendment (Rept.

119-837, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House

on the state of the Union.

discharge of committee

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on the Judiciary discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2332 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr Speaker, I rise to recognize Turner Korotzer of Hillsdale as the Veteran of the Month for September, and honor him for his sacrifice and service on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Turner enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 2015, serving proudly as a Network Administrator with the Headquarters Battalion of the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton in California. During his service, Turner deployed twice to Kuwait and later to Syria with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Throughout his time in the service, Turner's dedication

to our Nation and local community earned him the Navy Achievement Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.

After leaving active duty, Turner's commitment to serving others never ceased, and he became an active member of the local veteran community, joining multiple veteran service organizations, including the Hillsdale American Legion. Turner eventually took on a leadership role with the American Legion, helping to plan Hillsdale's annual Independence Day fireworks event. He also has demonstrated deep dedication to his fellow veterans, providing peer support and, in 2025, organizing and participating in the cleanup of the property of a Vietnam veteran who needed assistance. Over the years, Turner has also volunteered with the Major Henry Holloway Canteen Unit, supporting local fire departments in the Hillsdale community.

Turner Korotzer's dedication to service and unwavering commitment to both our Nation and Michigan's local communities should serve as an inspiration to us all. I am honored to share his story today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the esteemed accomplishments of this distinguished veteran and public servant.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 4795) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4795.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act.

In recent years, we have seen campaigns to boycott Israel spread across American campuses. These campaigns have pressured colleges and universities to cut financial, commercial, and academic ties with Israeli companies and institutions. That can mean restricting study abroad opportunities, research partnerships, academic exchanges, conferences, and other programs involving Israel.

We cannot ignore the role these campaigns have played in fueling the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It is no coincidence that some of the largest supporters of these campaigns have applauded the October 7 attacks and continue to use anti-Semitic language.

The Boycott, Divest and Sanctions, or BDS, movement singles out and demonizes Israel. It rejects the truth that Israel is a close friend and strategic

partner of the United States. Our universities should not use taxpayer- funded Federal programs to discriminate against Israeli students, faculty, institutions, or businesses simply because they are Israeli.

H.R. 4795 would prohibit participating institutions from engaging in boycotts of Israel that are not based on legitimate business reasons. It would also require colleges and universities to treat academic opportunities involving Israel the same as those involving other countries, ensuring Israeli students and faculty have the same access to academic programs and opportunities as their peers from around the world.

This is about fairness. It is about justice. It is about protecting academic freedom. It is about accountability for Federal taxpayer dollars.

The Federal Government provides significant support to higher education. American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that utilize Federal programs while simultaneously pursuing discriminatory boycotts or unequal academic treatment based solely on ties to Israel.

H.R. 4795 passed the committee with bipartisan support, 24-9. That vote reflects what should be an important bipartisan consensus. Our institutions of higher education should be welcoming places for scholarship and exchange, not hotbeds of anti-Semitism and discrimination.

I hope the floor vote reflects this principle.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4795 and send a clear message that academic and economic freedom must be protected on our campuses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the sponsor of this good legislation and necessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about a simple principle: Our colleges and universities should not discriminate against Israel, Israeli institutions, or Israeli students; and Federal taxpayer dollars should never support institutions that engage in such discrimination.

Academic freedom means students and faculty should be free to study, conduct research, collaborate, and exchange ideas without boycotts closing doors based on nationality.

H.R. 4795 protects that principle. It ensures that colleges participating in Federal higher education programs do not engage in certain unjustified commercial boycotts of Israel and that academic opportunities involving Israel are treated fairly and equally.

This is particularly important at a time when Jewish students and faculty are facing an alarming rise in anti-Semitism on American campuses.

Our universities should be places where every student can learn without fear of discrimination or hostility and where academic partnerships are evaluated on their merits, not on campaigns that target one country.

The United States has a strong and enduring partnership with Israel. Our colleges and universities should not be undermining that relationship while asking American taxpayers to support their institution.

H.R. 4795 passed our committee with bipartisan support. Now it is time for the full House to stand for academic freedom, equal treatment, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

I thank Representative Virginia Foxx for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4795.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, to strengthen America's security, unlock economic investment, and support thousands of hardworking men and women.

As chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I held a field hearing in Indiana earlier this year focused on the mining industry. I heard and saw firsthand how innovation and emerging technologies have transformed mining operations.

These conversations reaffirmed what we all know: America has abundant natural resources, and when producers have a fair and efficient permitting process, they can safely and competitively access those resources to keep prices down, supply chains stable, and people employed.

Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration sought to implement excessive permitting burdens that slow domestic production, increase costs on both producers and consumers, and deepen our dependence on foreign adversaries like China for essential minerals.

These misguided efforts threaten both our national security and our competitive edge by narrowing the scope of projects eligible for expedited permitting.

The Protecting Domestic Mining Act reverses that course. By expanding eligibility for fast-tracked mining permits, this bill cuts permitting delays and gives American producers the certainty they need to invest, innovate, and build here at home, creating more jobs for American workers.

If we want to build on our manufacturing momentum, Congress must ensure we have reliable access to the critical minerals that support a surge in modern manufacturing.

The Protecting Domestic Mining Act strengthens American manufacturing, encourages job creation and economic growth, and ensures we can fast-track projects, reducing costs for producers and consumers alike.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1501 and uphold American competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1490 to condemn socialism and the dangerous policies being pushed by the Democratic Socialists of America, and, sadly, by my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The United States, including my home State of Michigan, has seen a troubling rise in support for socialism's destructive policies and leaders who seek to expand bureaucratic control in every sector of Michiganders' lives.

From defunding the police to letting noncitizens vote and seizing private small businesses, the DSA is promoting radical policies, Mr. Speaker, that undermine the values that have carried our Nation through 250 years and blessed the world.

There is nothing democratic about socialism. All it is is a soft word for communism. I agree. It has never produced prosperity. It has only led to fewer choices, more poverty, and more government control, with the cruel loss of freedom and liberty.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to listen to what we are talking about, to ultimately get past the idea of stupid and get on the idea of genius in favor of this resolution, to reject this radical ideology and protect the rights and freedoms of hardworking Michigan and American families.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following cost estimate for H.R. 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which was not made available to the Committee on Education and Workforce at the time of the filing of the legislative report.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following cost estimate for H.R. 7661, Stop the Sexualization of Children

Act, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which was not made available to the Committee on Education and Workforce at the time of the filing of the legislative report.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following cost estimate for H.R. 2870, Working Families Flexibility Act of 2025, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, and was not made available to the Committee on Education and Workforce at the time of the filing of the legislative report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Samuel ``Sam'' Dougherty of East Leroy as the Veteran of the Month for August and honor him for his service on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Sam served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve as a Combat Engineer from 1988 to 1994. Following his service, Sam continued his lifelong commitment to serving others by investing his time and talents in his local community. He joined the Construction Laborers Local 355 and has contributed significantly to the region through his service on the boards of the Leila Arboretum Society and the Kalamazoo Area Labor Management. His compassion extends even further through his involvement with CityLinC Foster Care and Adoption and the Advanced Manufacturing Career Consortium, demonstrating his dedication to creating opportunities and support systems for families and workers across Michigan.

Sam also started a pre-apprenticeship program serving veterans and worked as the Director of Southwest Michigan Operations for the Michigan Workforce Development Institute, where he oversaw workforce programs, built strong regional partnerships, and helped job seekers, including veterans, find stable, meaningful employment. His reputation as a collaborative, strategic leader made him an invaluable asset to regional economic development efforts.

Since 2024, Sam has served as the Michigan State Representative for Helmets to Hardhats, a national nonprofit organization that connects military service members, veterans, and reservists with quality careers in the building trades. Sam ensures that those who have served our country receive the opportunities, care, and support they deserve as they transition into civilian life. Sam also served as a volunteer for a freedom hunt for disabled veterans at Fort Custer for 20 years and currently volunteers with the Michigan Wounded and Returning Warrior Program, offering steadfast support to those who have borne the heaviest burdens of war. For his volunteer work with veterans, he has been awarded the Marine Corps League Distinguished Citizen Award.

Sam Dougherty's faithful service and continued commitment to both our Nation's armed services and Michigan's local communities should serve as an inspiration to us all. May others know of my high regard for Sam, as well as my deep gratitude for his lasting contributions to the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8823) to amend the Federal Employees Compensation Act to allow the Secretary of Labor to suspend payments to medical providers who have been convicted of fraud, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8823.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8823, bipartisan legislation that protects both taxpayers and the Federal employees who rely on the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, when they are injured on the job.

Federal workers who are navigating an injury deserve timely, honest, and compassionate care, not to become the target of fraud. Programs like FECA exist to ensure these workers receive the medical treatment and support they need to recover.

Unfortunately, some bad actors have exploited that trust. Instead of following through on the responsibility to care for injured workers, certain medical providers have treated FECA like a personal ATM: submitting fraudulent claims, abusing the system, and enriching themselves at the expense of both taxpayers and the very people they were entrusted to help.

The Office of Inspector General recently testified before Congress that since 2015, it has opened more than 320 criminal investigations involving the FECA program. These investigations have resulted in the indictment and

conviction of 322 individuals and more than $1.7 billion in recovered funds.

This is unacceptable. Every fraudulent claim weakens the program that countless injured Federal employees depend on. Every act of deception undermines confidence in a system that exists to support workers during a difficult moment in their lives.

H.R. 8823 delivers a straightforward, commonsense solution. It codifies existing Department of Labor policy to prevent medical providers who are convicted of defrauding FECA from continuing to receive taxpayer-funded payments through the program. If someone has been found guilty of exploiting injured workers and stealing public funds, they should not continue to profit from the very program they abused.

This legislation sends a clear message, Mr. Speaker: If you cheat taxpayers, exploit injured workers, and abuse the public trust, there will be consequences.

Fraud should have no place in our workers' compensation system. Ambulance-chasing schemes and dishonest providers have taken advantage of this program for far too long. Today, we have the opportunity to put an end to that abuse and reaffirm that these funds are meant to serve injured workers, not line the pockets of fraudsters.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8823 and tell these scammers that their payday is over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mackenzie), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, families across the Nation carefully budget every dollar they earn to provide for themselves and their loved ones. When they send their tax dollars to Washington, they deserve to know that their hard-earned money is being managed with the same discipline and responsibility.

The American people expect us to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. They work hard, pay their taxes, and deserve to know that those funds are not lining the pockets of fraudsters who exploit the system for personal gain.

Fraud is never a victimless crime. It steals taxpayer dollars and diverts funds away from those they are intended to serve. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that cannot be used to provide legitimate care for injured workers or fulfill commitments we have made to them.

Congress has a responsibility to protect both the integrity of our programs and the taxpayers who fund them. That means ensuring there are real consequences for those who abuse the public's trust and preventing them from continuing to do so. It also means taking commonsense steps to strengthen accountability and safeguard the programs that millions rely upon.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8823 does exactly that. It helps ensure that providers who have been convicted of defrauding the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program cannot continue to be allowed to profit from the very program they exploited.

This is a straightforward measure that protects taxpayers, strengthens accountability, and preserves the integrity of an important program for injured Federal workers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, stand up for responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and vote ``yes'' on

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Patrick Knight of Hillsdale as the Veteran of the Month for July and honor him for his sacrifice and service on behalf of our great Nation.

Patrick Knight served in the United States Navy as a Search and Rescue Helicopter Crewman from 1966 to 1970. During his time in active duty, Patrick served with Helicopter Combat Support Squadron One (HC-1) at NAS Imperial Beach in California and overseas with Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Seven (HC-7), the Navy's premier Combat Search and Rescue unit that is also known as the ``Sea Devils.'' While with HC-7, he assisted in rescuing pilots that had been shot down in Vietnam and the surrounding waters, helping his squadron to rescue approximately 150 pilots.

For his contributions to our Nation, Patrick was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Citation, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and the Combat Search and Rescue Air Wings. In 1971, the Sea Devils were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation by President Richard Nixon for their extraordinary heroism while performing rescue operations under adverse conditions.

Following his time in the military, Patrick continued to serve others, spending 32 years as a member of the Riverview Police Force and recently retiring as Chief of Police. Patrick has also remained active in the local veteran community, joining the VFW Post 1136 in Wyandotte. Currently, he serves on the Board for the Emergency Telephone Services for Hillsdale County and the Board of the Hillsdale Senior Center.

Patrick Knight's remarkable dedication to serving others and his leadership in our local communities inspire us all. May others know of my high regard for Patrick, as well as my deep gratitude for his lasting contributions to the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Adam Stoll, who is finishing 27 years of outstanding work at the Congressional Research Service. Members of Congress and their staff who are engaged with Federal education and labor policy have benefitted from his wisdom and professionalism, as well as the work of the many CRS analysts, specialists, and research assistants that he has supported and developed throughout his career. He has been an exemplary analyst, mentor, manager, and thought leader in his different roles during his tenure at CRS and has contributed greatly to providing authoritative and nonpartisan analysis to assist Congress.

Adam earned a bachelor's degree in political science from American University, a master's degree in politics and education from Columbia University, and a doctorate in Social Policy from Brandeis University. Before joining CRS, Adam was an Evaluation Officer at the Lila and DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Funds, designing evaluations for large national demonstration projects, and a Governmental and Professional Liaison Associate at the American Educational Research Association.

Since he began his service at CRS in 1999, Adam has been a nationally recognized expert on numerous postsecondary education issues, including student loans, college costs and prices, the federal needs analysis system used to determine student eligibility for various sources of financial aid, and the relationship between higher education tax credits and traditional student aid. After a distinguished and cherished career as a Specialist in Social Legislation, Adam began a lengthy career in management at CRS. From 2006 until 2023, Adam served as Section Research Manager for the Education and Labor Section in the Domestic Social Policy division at CRS, leading a group of analysts who support Congress on issues pertaining to education, workforce development, and labor standards. Since 2023, Adam has served as the DSP Deputy Assistant Director. Congress has indicated strong interest in CRS pursuing advanced data analytics, and Adam has played a key role in fostering the use of advanced analytic methods in CRS in its support to Congress. He has also has served on numerous Service-wide strategic planning groups and committees, including chairing a two-year study group that examined the alignment between the work being done at CRS and its workforce composition. Throughout his management roles, Adam has focused on helping his colleagues excel as CRS analysts and research assistants, so that they could provide Congress with exemplary service. While Adam's dedication to CRS' mission has been steadfast, his commitment to supporting the analysts and research assistants

that he supervised has been even greater and has endured even as his roles at CRS have changed.

As Adam retires to spend more time with his growing family, I know that his colleagues at CRS will miss him, and so will we. I thank and congratulate Adam on an outstanding career. He has a positive difference for students in postsecondary education and has served our Nation well in his capacity as a manager, which is a testament to his hard work and dedication. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters from Alex McDonald and Roger King, in opposition to H.R. 5408.

Re Opposition to the Faster Labor Contracts Act--H.R. 5408

June 9, 2026.

Hon. Tim Walberg,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and Workforce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walberg: We are writing regarding H.R. 5408,

the Faster Labor Contracts Act (``FLCA''). The FLCA is a

deeply flawed piece of legislation that should not be

considered by this Congress--or any other. It aims to speed

up negotiations for first collective-bargaining agreements

between employers and workers. The bill's authors evidently

believe that those negotiations take too long. But while

negotiations are long, they are long for a reason:

negotiating a first contract is hard. It involves detailed

financial and operational tradeoffs, which the parties must

negotiate from ground zero. So it is no surprise that

contracts often take weeks, months, or years to finalize.

That ``delay'' is not a sign that the process is broken; it

is a sign that the process is working.

Worse, the bill proposes to solve that problem with a

deeply flawed approach. It would funnel the parties through a

compressed bargaining schedule, terminating in compulsory and

binding arbitration. Parties would have only 90 days to

negotiate their own agreements, after which the bill's

processes would kick in. Those processes would be

exceptionally burdensome and expensive, requiring complex and

cost-heavy hearings to ``prove'' what a ``fair'' contract

would be. America's businesses cannot afford that burden, and

Congress should not force them to swallow it.

If that weren't enough, the bill is likely

unconstitutional. It would raise serious questions under the

Due Process Clause, the Vesting Clauses, and the Appointments

Clause. It would also threaten to convert every collective-

bargaining agreement imposed under its procedures into

``state action,'' dragging constitutional doctrines into the

American workplace. These problems have not been considered,

much less vetted. The bill needs serious rework, and members

should not vote for it if they take seriously their oath to

uphold the Constitution.

Yet despite these problems, some members are pushing the

legislation through with an unusual procedure--the discharge

petition. That procedure is inappropriate in most cases and

especially inappropriate here. This bill is deeply

problematic and needs the scrutiny of ordinary legislative

processes. It should not be rammed through with extraordinary

procedural maneuvers.

We urge you and the other members of Congress to reject the

discharge petition and reject this bill.

As you are aware, the House will be considering H.R. 5408

as a result of a discharge petition signed by certain Members

that requires the House to consider and schedule a vote on

this legislation without the benefit of Committee

deliberation. This discharge protocol and procedure is not

the preferred method to consider legislation. It precludes

meaningful input from all stakeholders who are potentially

impacted by the legislation in question. H.R. 5408 has not

had the benefit of any meaningful Member or staff analysis.

No hearings have been held on this legislation. No

opportunity has been provided for stakeholders to file

comments and submit questions regarding the legislation.

More troubling, no technical analysis has been undertaken

regarding the legislation. And that analysis is badly needed,

as this legislation is technically defective in several

respects and is not in proper form to be considered by the

House of Representatives. No financial or cost analysis has

been undertaken. No Committee markup has occurred regarding

this legislation.

This legislation should be referred back to the House

Education and Workforce Committee (``Committee'') to permit

Members and all stakeholders to consider counterproposals,

amendments, appropriate background research information, and

academic studies regarding the impact of this legislation. We

urge you and your colleagues to have H.R. 5408 returned to

the Committee.

Proponents of H.R. 5408 assert that there is a significant

problem with the time period it takes parties to reach an

agreement on an initial collective bargaining agreement. They

allege that employers are largely responsible for delays, and

such delays in the negotiation process are designed to

undermine union representation. They further allege that such

delay strategies are often part of employers' plans to

decertify or remove a union. There is no reliable data to

support these arguments and allegations.

First, it is very difficult to ascertain the start date of

collective bargaining in negotiations, especially for first

contracts, where the parties may not have any prior

relationship. Does the start date of negotiations begin when

one party sends another party a request for information and

documents?--a procedure often used by unions to prepare for

negotiations. Does the negotiation start date begin when the

parties start general discussions about the issues to be

discussed in negotiations? Does a preliminary discussion

regarding whether the parties should conclude non-economic

issues before moving to economic issues start the negotiation

process? Do mutually agreed upon delay periods in

negotiations--which often occur--count toward the average

time it takes for first contracts to be completed? When does

the negotiation period end? Does it end when a tentative

agreement is reached or when any tentative agreement is

ultimately ratified by bargaining unit members? What if a

tentative agreement is reached between a union and an

employer, but the bargaining unit rejects it? Does the

subsequent period after such a tentative agreement is

reached count toward the average negotiation period for

initial contracts?

Further, how should legitimate litigation initiatives be

counted under the days it takes to negotiate an initial

contract? A union or an employer may have good faith reasons

to contest a decision of the National Labor Relations Board

(``NLRB'' or ``Board'') regarding the categories of employees

that the Board included or excluded from the bargaining unit.

Well-established federal labor law permits unions and

employers to appeal decisions through the federal court of

appeals--test of certification cases. Such appeal periods

can, at a minimum, take months if not over a year depending

on if a circuit-worthy appeal is filed. Additionally, what if

a union legitimately believes it needs certain information

from an employer before it can sufficiently bargain or

conclude bargaining? For example, information regarding the

cost of certain employer-provided health benefits and limits

of coverage of any employer policy could be information that

the union believes is necessary to make proposal in the

health insurance area. Should the period it takes the NLRB to

resolve any dispute of the scope of the information request

be included in calculating the time period to negotiate an

initial collective bargaining agreement? There are many other

examples that could be listed and should be analyzed and

considered in calculating the number of days that it takes

parties to negotiate labor contracts.

Absent a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the details

of hundreds of initial collective bargaining negotiations

over an extended period of time, there can be no meaningful

or reliable data to support any conclusions about the average

time it takes parties to negotiate such agreements.

Even if thoughtful or comprehensive studies could be

conducted to determine the average time it takes parties to

reach an initial collective bargaining agreement--which has

not been done to date--the results of any studies, in all

probability, would show it takes a substantial amount of time

to reach initial labor contract agreements. Such an analysis

may very well show that it takes in excess of over four

hundred days (400) on average to reach an agreement. Members

of Congress need to understand that this is a complex

process. Labor contracts often contain many articles and, in

some cases, are over one hundred (100) pages. These initial

agreements also often contain appendices, memoranda of

understanding, and ``side letters.'' These agreements,

especially from the union perspective, attempt to cover

virtually all of an employee's relationship with their

employers. The bottom line is that bargaining these contracts

takes time--considerable time.

The importance of carefully and thoughtfully negotiating

first contracts and their terms cannot be emphasized enough.

Such negotiations are critical for employees, unions, and

employers. There are good reasons that it takes time to

negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements. The

parties are not just negotiating over wages. They are

constructing a comprehensive workplace contractual framework,

including work schedule details, health and retirement

benefits, paid time off and holidays, discipline standards,

grievance and arbitration procedures, and dozens of other

topics critical to employees and employers. These

negotiations can be time-consuming because the results of

such negotiations and the contents of an initial collective

bargaining agreement are critical for the union to continue

as a representative for employees and for the employer to

continue its business operations.

Additionally, there are other reasons that may explain that

a significant amount of time is needed to negotiate initial

collective bargaining agreements. For example, either unions

or employers may exercise lawful, legitimate litigation

rights that must be resolved before and during negotiations.

Further, a union may have made a considerable number of

promises in its campaign prior to an election--a tactic that

is often used by unions and is lawful under the National

Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or ``Act''). It may take the

union a considerable period of time to try to convince an

employer of the merits of its proposals related to campaign

promises to bargaining unit members. Alternatively, it may

take considerable time in negotiations before a union and its

members conclude that an employer will not agree to such

proposals. The union may also attempt to obtain an agreement

on issues that fall into the category of ``permissive

subjects of bargaining'' under the NLRA. An example would be

a union proposal regarding the number of employees that an

employer would be required to hire to run its business,

including staffing on certain units or departments. An

employer may lawfully disagree with the unions proposal

regarding these permissible bargaining proposals. These types

of negotiations can be very time consuming.

Initial collective bargaining agreements are also

singularly important to the parties because they carry much

greater weight than common law contracts. As explained in

more detail below (see discussion of the Supreme Court's Katz

no unilateral change doctrine), the terms included in a first

contract do not expire when the contract expires. In effect,

they are legally presumed to continue indefinitely, until or

unless they are expressly altered by mutual agreement of the

parties. This unusual characteristic of federal labor law

contracts gives their provisions a kind of initial inertia

that tends to carry them through many successful agreements

for literally decades.

It is important for members of Congress to understand the

significance and complexity of initial collective bargaining

agreements before enacting any regulation or oversight. H.R.

5408, unfortunately, is an improper intrusion into the

collective bargaining process and, as further detailed below,

fails to recognize the complexity and time necessary to

negotiate an initial collective bargaining agreement.

H.R. 5408 should be rejected, and this legislation should

be returned to the House Education and Workforce Committee

for further deliberation.

Sincerely,

G. Roger King,

King Labor Law.

Alex MacDonald,

Co-Chair, Littler Mendelson Workplace Policy Institute.