mechanism. employers should not be able to endlessly delay and appeal elections and abuse a process that was put in place just as much for them as employees. organizing is a long and important history in american. unions and collective bargaining have made sure we have a weekend to spend with our families. the 40-hour workweek, make sure that women are paid fair wages, organizing has made sure workers are safe from all types and forms of workplace dangers. . it tracks very closely for income for middle-class americans. critics of this rule don't want a level playing field for labor organizations to fight for the middle class. they want a process that's open to delay and manipulation. rather than letting workers choose for themselves whether or not they want to join the union, bad actors would prefer to delay or prevent the choice from ever being made at all. this new rule reduces the

opportunity for bad actors to play games with the process and applies new technological updates to the process as well. the republicans time and time again seem to want to waste time on grandstanding instead of legislating. this is a perfect example of another bill that won't become law. the republicans want to tilt the economy towards the wealthy, towards big business, towards c.e.o.'s. we were sent here to do the people's work. the new rule for the nlrb is entirely consistent with the legislative intent of the creation of that agency and it's for the advantage of people who live in our towns and cities. it improves the economy, raises up the middle class, helps give everybody a fair shot at the american dream. when we talk about the pathway to the american dream the pathway to success in our country, the organized labor movement has and continues to make enormous contributions towards making sure that

americans are learning -- earning livable wages, that they can support their families and live the american dream. it's not only the weekends and 40-hour workweeks they have given us, the labor movement continues to fight for the middle class and to fight to grow the middle class and address some of the increasing trend of income disparities that's threatening our country. mr. speaker i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and then we will bring forward the import export bank clean re-authorization that -- export-import bank clean re-authorization that does create jobs for middle-class americans and manufacturing. some of those will be union and some of them won't be and that's the choice of the workers and the nlrb bill facilitates that choice. it doesn't presuppose that every workplace will want to organize, nor that no workplace will not want to organize. it simply has a fair set of rules in place, fair to businesses, fair to employees, fair to labor fair to

everybody that allows a decision to be made regarding organizing in the workplace. but what's even more important about the effort mr. heck talked about is it allows workers and business owners to participate in the bigger pie. that's what we all want. by re-authorizing the export-import bank, we're creating jobs in our country and the export sector and that means that owners of the companies will do well. it means that employees of the companies will do well. it means the management will do well. it means the line workers will do well so let's participate in a growing pie by passing a clean re-authorization of the export-import bank rather than trying to divide the pie, to make more away from working families in the mill class and give more to -- middle class and give more to big businesses. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, i urge a no vote on the bill and

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the proud traditions of this house and its committees are continued by the committee funding resolution this rule will provide consideration of. our record of careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars continues with the house authorized funds for the 114th congress below those in 2008. the funding resolution was favelly reported out of committee by -- favorably reported out of committee by unanimous vote vote. the chair and ranking member worked to develop their priorities and each committee also reaffirmed its commitment to uphold the equitable 2/3 1/3 allocation between the majority and minority sides. our record of careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars continues with the house authorized funds for the 114th congress below those in 2008.

returning to the ambush elections rule which was sadly not crafted in the same bipartisan fashion as our committee funding resolution, mr. speaker, we must remember that providing for free and fair elections is one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy. the national labor relations board's ambush elections rule is an affront to that principle. without a chance to opt out, it provides the personal contact information of every employee to organizers who may have had no previous interactions with those employees. the rule could lead to union representation elections being held within only 11 days without any certainty over who should be participating in the election or adequate time to consult with legal counsel. it's not as if existing rules favor one party over another. if anything they favor unions.

currently 95% of elections occur within two months and unions win more than 60% of them. the national labor relations board should be focused on maintaining fair union representation elections backed by long-standing precedent, not upending a long-standing carefully tailored process for elections that provide fundamental protections to all stakeholders. workers, unions and employers. this congressional review act joint resolution is an important step in congress exercising its oversight role to ensure that independent agencies and the executive branch do not step on vital protections for hardworking americans. i strongly commend this rule and the underlying resolutions to my colleagues to their support. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina

yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adopting the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, take your conversations off the floor. that includes the staff in the back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will proceed with the business of the day when the house is in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: mr. speaker pursuant to house resolution 152, i call up s.j.res. 8 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.

the clerk: senate joint resolution 8, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 oftitle 5, united states code, of the rule submitted by the national labor relations board relating to representation case procedures. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 152 the joint resolution is considered as read. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. mr. kline: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous material on s.j.res. 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kline: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. kline: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of s.j.res. 8. in just a few short weeks, a regulatory scheme that many americans never heard of will become a reality in almost every private workplace across the country. . today workers and employers rely on a fair process for union elections. under the current process, employers have time to raise concerns and more importantly time to speak with their employees about union representation. under the current system, workers have the opportunity to gather the information they need to make the best decision for their families. but unless congress acts, mr. speaker, that will all change. under the guise of streamlining union elections, the national labor relations board is

imposing draconian changes that will undermine the rights of workers, employers, and unions have long enjoyed. the board's rule arbitrarily limits the amount of time employers have to legally prepare for the election, and it denies workers a reasonable opportunity to make informed decisions about joining a union. the rule also delays answers to important questions, including the voter eligibility. until after the election. which means the integrity of the election results will be compromised for a single ballot is cast. to add insult to injury, the board's rule will also force employers to provide union organizers with their employee's personal information. including email addresses phone numbers work schedules, and home addresses. instead of advancing the plan to help stop union intimidation and coercion, the board is actually making it easier for labor bosses to harass employees and their families. are there times when delays

occur under the current system? of course. but delay is the exception not the rule. in fact, right now the median time between the filing of election petition and the election is 38 days. yet under the board's new rule, a union election could take place in as little as 11 days. 11 days. this is a radical rewrite of labor policies that have served our nation's best interest for decades. unfortunately this is what we have come to expect from the national labor relations board. let's not forget, this is the same federal agency that tried dictating where a private employer had to run its business. this is the same agency restricting workers' right to secret ballot election. this is the same agency ignoring the law by asserting its jurisdiction over religious institutions. this is the same agency tying employers and union red tape and empowering labor leaders to gerrymander our nation's workplaces. this is a federal agency that is simply out of control. and it is our responsibility to

do something about it. this resolution, which i am proud to sponsor along with senator lamar alexanderer -- alexander, invokes congress' authority under the congressional review act to block the nlrb's election rule and anything substantially like it. if the board or my democratic colleagues want to pursue responsible reforms to improve the union election process, stain ready to work together on that effort. but if you believe employers should be free to speak to their employees during a union organizing campaign, then support this resolution. if you believe workers should be free to make an informed decision about whether to join a union, then support this resolution. if you believe we should protect rather than threaten employee privacy, then support this resolution. and finally if you believe workers, employers, and union leaders deserve a fair election process, then reject the board's ambush election rule by supporting this resolution. i encourage my colleagues to stand with america's workers and job creators by voting yes on

s.j.res. 8, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to s.j.res.le, the congressional review act resolution of disapproval that we are considering today would undo the nlrb's election rule. the national labor relations board -- election rule is promulgated to make the election process more efficient and fair. the current process to hold an election on whether to form a union is badly broken. after workers have filed a petition to hold an election, bad actors can use frivolous litigation to stall an election for months, even years. election delays can provide opportunities for unscrupulous employers to engage in threats, coercion, intimidation of workers. these plays can be exploited, to

violate the workers' rights, including firing pro-union workers threatening to close the plant if the workers choose to vote a certain way. we all know that the sanctions against violations are insufficient to deter the unscrupulous activities, including priring pro-union employees. researchers from the center for labor research and education at berkley -- berkeley, bound the longer the delay the more likely the employer was to engage in illegal conduct and violate its employees rights. the rule would help prevent the illegal intimidation and coercion of workers. now, mr. speaker, this regulation provides targeted solutions to the specifically identified problems. the rule brings into the 21st century the updating of rules involving transmission of documents and communications, allowing you to use email and electronic communication rather than paper.

it will enable the board to better fulfill its responsibility to protect employees' rights by barely, accurately, and quickly resolving issues of representation. in many cases the rule simplifies and standardizes practices that have been common in regions all over the country already, or reflects existing practices used in civil actions. the rule does not change substantive law involving elections, it just makes sure that you can have a timely election. these modest updates provide workers and employees with the reasonable time to consider unionization while preventing unreasonable delay by bad actors mr. speaker, this resolution isn't going to go very far. the administration has already issued a statement of administration policy that i'd like to quote from. it says that the board's modest reforms will help simplify and streamline private sector union elections, thereby reducing

delays before workers can have a free and fair vote on whether or not to form or join a union. it goes on to say it will give workers greater voice. it can help ensure that the link is restored between hard work and opportunity, and that the benefits of the current economic recovery are more broadly shared. it says that the national labor relations board representation case procedures rule helps to level the playing field for workers so that they can more freely choose to have -- make their voice heard. in so doing it will help us build an economy that gives greater economic opportunities and security for middle class families, and those working to join the middle class. the it concludes, mr. speaker that if the president were -- it concludes, mr. speaker, that if the president were presented with h.j.res. 8, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the resolution. mr. speaker, we ought to spend more time instead of working on this resolution and wasting time

on this resolution, we should be addressing job creation, stagnating wages, and economic inequality, and working to improve opportunities for americans rather than considering this resolution. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: somehow i'm not surprised that the obama administration supports the administration's national labor relation board actions. at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on work force protection, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: thank you mr. chairman. and mr. speaker. i hesitate to say it this way, but the fact of the matter is that the nlrb is trading a solution to -- treating a solution to a problem that does not exist. by wholly changing the union election process through their

new ambush election rule. this rule, if left unchecked, restricts the right of employers to speak to their employees during the organizing campaign. it cripples, it cripples the rights of workers to make an informed decision. it denies all stakeholders access to a fair process. isn't that what we are about? this change is meant to weaken employers and employees who simply want a fair and just process that gives ample time for deliberative review and discussion and decisionmaking. furthermore, the ambush election rule completely disregards the promise of neutrality, the nlrb is mandated to uphold. the nlrb should serve as an impartial arbiter of labor disputes, and i urge my

colleagues to join the senate in passing s.j.res. 8, which will stop these harmful and unjust actions. committed by the nlrb and preserve fair election policies which have been in place for decades. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. scott. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise in very strong opposition to this resolution. and i urge every one of my members to oppose this resolution. we considered a paycheck fairness act and kickoff bill which said if the unions got

signatures of a certain percentage that they could move ahead and be organized subject to an election. there was a hue and cry about that was undemocratic. that there ought to be a requirement for an election. a number of people came into my office and i said, well i we can accommodate that. we'll require to make sure that as every one of us can do, you can get the names of the voters you can get their addresses you can even get their history of voting. and you can perhaps call them on the phone. we can all do that. in elections. but the fact of the matter is and everybody on this floor knows it procedurally so many

employers who do not believe that they are going to prevail take the steps of delaying and delaying and delaying. they want elections tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. mr. speaker, what the nlrb is trying to do with this rule is to make sure that there is an election. that it is fair. and that it will be held in a timely fashion. i hope this house defeats this bill. it would prevent the national labor relations board from implementing the rule if promulgated in december to modernize worker representation elections. but there's a near of elections, and the fear of the elections is the majority of employees will say yes, i want to have a better voice. this is a case once again, of

the republican majority seeking to roll back the hard-earned rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. that's not an assertion. that is demonstrably proved in state after state after state over the last few years in which republicans have taken control, and their first item of agenda -- of the agenda has been to undermine workers' rights. when workers organize for higher wages and benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, and affordable childcare it opens doors of opportunity for workers and their families to secure a place in our middle class. we know our middle class is shrinking. we know the middle class is having a very tough time. may i have one additional minute? mr. scott: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: according to a 2013 report by center for american progress, the decline of union membership between the 60's and

today correlates to the decline of the middle class. when we have strong unions and workers' rights protections the middle class does better. and workers who are not unionized benefit from the ripple effect of rising wages. let's defeat this bill. and i think mr. kline, the chairman of this committee, has said that he would sit down with mr. scott and come with a bipartisan bill, which this is not which will do what all of us say we think is fair have elections. have elections where both sides -- of course the employer always has access to the voter in this case -- and do something for the american worker and for business which will put us on a steady path to growing the middle class and making sure that workers are

treated as they ought to be, with the dignity and respect and ability to support their families that they they need. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i always find it interesting to listen to the debate. you know this bill is about elections. everybody in this body has an election. but everyone in this body knows when their next election is going to be held and how much time they have to campaign. so much so that we have rules on this floor when we cut off communication months in advance so you can campaign. i listened with interest to the minority whip speak on this floor. his support for something

different than this bill does. i wonder if he would have and if he cared so much about the nlrb was doing if he would apply those exact same rules to his own election? would he care to not know when it's going to be and when it's called he's got 11 days to campaign? i think his speech would be different. so why are we asking the rules for us to be different for every other worker across this country. you know, the root of representation is to work for the interest of those you represent. everyone in the house knows that. and unions as representative bodies should exist for the benefit of the workers. but i don't think anyone disagrees that it's the workers, not the unions, who know what's best for themselves. workers are the best judge of whether they want to support union political activities or even if they want to join a union at all. joining a union is a big choice.

but to make an informed decision, workers need time. to decide what's best for them and their families. and they shpt -- and they shouldn't be pressured or rushed. so if unions really care about workers, if they're confident that their benefits of the unions outweigh the costs, they'll give the workers as much time as they immediate. that's the irony of the recent decision by the national labor relations board. to allow unions to call rush elections to ambush employees and employers ambush elections don't help workers. instead they bully workers to accepting unionization as fast as possible. that's not pro-worker. that's pro-union. and there's a big difference. and what make this is situation worse is that ambush elections will soon be forced on workers, not by an act of congress, but unelected bureaucrats at the nlrb. that's an affront to the

separation of powers that this country was based upon. so here in congress, mr. speaker, we're taking action. as our senate colleagues have already voted to do, we're going to use the congressional review act, send a resolution straight to the president's desk that blocks anti-workers an antibusiness rule. now i know the president has already threatened to veto this resolution. but i actually hope he'll change his mind. because what does the president want to fight for? does he want to fight for the work her does he want to fight for the small business, the jobs? ambush elections don't help workers. they don't help employers and they don't help unions. and no public official, not any member of this house and especially not the president should ever support rules that allow special interests to strong arm the hardworking american people. mr. speaker, nobody in this

house should support a rule about an election they wouldn't put upon themselves. and i don't know one member of this house that would sit back and say somebody can call an election and you only have 11 days to campaign. i'd like to hear somebody vote for that on this floor and ask to be held to the same standard they're trying to hold every -- every other worker in this nation. the speaker pro tempore: the jet yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. where to begin. in hearing the majority leader's remarks and talking about fair elections, how is it fair if only one side has access to the phone numbers and email addresses and not the other side? can any of us imagine running in our campaigns where only we are or only our opponent, can call

or write emails to the voters? that doesn't make any sense. talking about 11 days, again that's fictitious. this rule is about the one in 10 cases that take over 100 days. we heard testimony about them lingering on days and days. and the longer it takes, there's a direct and causal relationship to illegal behavior. the election rules the nlrb has implemented will help expedite this process to help ensure it's done in accordance with the law. it modernizes our antiquated system to help workers. these will set up a fair system so bad actors that needlessly debay ley and abuse the electoral system for the sole purpose of trying to coerce employees through mandatory meetings, threats and firings won't be rewarded for their bad behavior of -- behavior this isn't just some far-fetched

idea. one in so cases take over 100 days. now why would delaying union election at every turn be a bad thing? during that delay workers are often forced into rooms, receive threats, are bombarded with texts and emails from the employer, from one side in the election but the other side of the election, absent these rules doesn't have access to text or phone. we should be focused on creating good jobs, not the stroying them and growing the middle class, not shrinking it. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back, the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i'd like to yield two minutes to the quelt from south carolina, mr. wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck nighed for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman kline for yielding. i appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue and i'm grateful to be a co-sponsor of this legislation.

as a member of the house education work force subcommittee on health, employment, a-- labor and pensions i'm concerned that the national labor relations board late etc. rule, referred to as the ambush rule, and i stand in strong support of s.j.res. 8. the national labor relations board is to force elections. it will compel employers to provide personal information about their employees such as names address, telephone number and email addresses this will violate the privacy of workers while recusing the informed decision period. to add insult to injury, the rule does not limit or dictate what unions can do with this sensitive information. i'm pleased that south carolina is a right to work state. union membership is not a requirement of employment in our state, it's based on freedom of choice. i'm grateful we have fought as a state to give our employees and job creators the flexibility to

choose what's best for them. south carolina has successfully opposed a rogue nlrb when the nlrb tried to block 100 jobs. with the governor -- with the help of governor niki haley and our jarts we stopped the nlrb and over 7,000 jobs have been created. s.j.res. will express our strong disapproval of the national labor relations board rule and ensure a fair process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i'm pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee on work force protection, mrs. wilson two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. wilson: thank you, ranking member scott. mr. speaker, the congressional review act is yet another attack on employees' rights to organize and to limit the national labor

relations board. the nlrb should have the ability to safeguard those rights and protect our nations work -- our nation's workers from unfair labor practices. it is outrageous that the rights of employees are attacked, particularly at a time when we have a jobs deficit a shrinking middle class and are still struggling to recover from the great recession. the nlrb has made modest attempts to modern its its elections procedures and reduce unnecessary litigation and delay in the election process. these are commonsense fixes that should not be controversial. the move would freeze in place the board's current election procedure. the board would be prohibited from adopting rules to use new technology oor modernize its procedures. the nlrb is an expert agency and

should be trusted to determine the appropriate use of electronic voting or rules to safeguard ballot secrecy. furthermore, i'm not aware of any other government agency that has to seek congress' permission before modernizing its rules for voting that takes place under its jurisdiction. this -- dismantling the nlrb would only serve to weaken, undermine, and jeopardize the economic security of the middle class. it is bad for business, bad for families, and bad for our economy. in fact, the national labor relations board is the last line of defense for workers. we shouldn't be attacking our nation's employees. we should be supporting them investing in them, and protecting them. let's come together to create jobs, protect the middle class and make the investments we need

to grow our economy. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back to mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. speaker. now i'd like to turn to a new member of the committee, someone who has been actively engaged in the measure -- in the major debates since he walked into this body, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. russell: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, labor relations are vital to the smooth operation of business and commerce. in the culture of our republic, americans are raised to expect to have their say in everything from school room elections to choosing the president of the united states. it is in our d.n.a. to have a choice. to inform that choice we expect free speech, we can ask

questions, gain information, and make wise decisions. this is why the recently finalized rule by the national labor relations board is so egregious. it is against that american spirit. under this rule, long-standing policies that allow employers and employees to guide how they relate through unions has been deeply damaged. companies could have as little as 11 days, or employees in relating to the companies, as little as 11 days to make a choice that could drastically affect their career and the health of the business that they reply lye on to put bread on the table. employers would only have a seven-day period to obtain counsel, set parameters and are even restricted in contacting and discussing issues with their employees. they are prohibited from making any changes after that seven-day period based on new information that they may acquire.

further, the privacy and safety of workers is placed in jeopardy by a swift ambush election process imposed by these rules that could put their employment in jeopardy. this resolution stop this is. it restores policies that have guided labor relations for decades. it upholds the right of american workers to gain information to make choices without draconian strongarm pressure tactics that harm the worker and stifle american free intervise. this body was founded, mr. speaker, on the spirit of promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility for our nation. passage of s.j. 8 aids this by stopping and blocking the strong arm tactics of the national labor relations board and the american people are counting on us to do that job. i yield become my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from oregon, a member of the committee on education and the work force, ms. bonamici, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise in opposition to senate joint resolution 8, an unnecessary partisan attack on hardworking americans that will interfere with the rights of workers to an expeditious election on union representation. america's middle class workers should be free to decide if they want an election. unfortunately, the current process can be mired in lit fwation and in some cases workers waiting for an election have faced interference or intimidation from outside groups. the nlrb's rules safeguards the ability to have workers to choose whether to be recognized by a union without confronting unnecessary delays. it makes little sense why they'd want to get in the way of americans. workers who ask for an legs on

union representation. it's also unreasonable to assume that employers many of which have sophisticated legal teams, are going to be caught flat footed. there's no ambush here. there was a long period for contacts, it's now unfir to use this by getting rid to have rule. the resolution is an ill-advised attempt to silence american workers and i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'd like to yield to another new member of the committee, someone who has also been engaged since the day he walked in the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. . mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman i'm always interested when we are talking about workers and i hear that people want to talk about what's best

for workers. i tell you that i am a new member of congress, and i've had the privilege the past 30 years of my life to give people the privilege to have a good job. that's one of the greatest privileges of my life. we all want to do what's best for those folks who are sacrificing for us. we appreciate them. we appreciate their efforts. and that's why i rise to support s.j.res. 8, to demonstrate disapproval of congress of the national labor relations board's ambush election rule. to protect our workers. a few weeks ago the subcommittee on health employment, labor, and pensions, which i am a member, held a hearing on this very issue. we learned that this nlrb rule is not only unprecedented, it undermines the rights of both workers and employees and

creates more challenges for businesses when our economy can least afford it. the expert testimony was from those who have been engaged in labor relations for quite a long time. with tremendous experience. and their testimony provided comments about just how troubling such a threat to the privacy of workers and their families as employers would be required to disclose the names addresses, phone numbers, and emails of employees to the nlrb, then to the union. this rule is misguided and the nlrb has no business in rushing to advance its own agenda. we need to protect fairness in the workplace, and that's why i call on my colleagues to support s.j.res. 8. i am proud to say that i am from

the state of georgia a right to work state -- could i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: in the state of georgia we have created almost 300,000 jobs since 2006. i'm proud to say we've got the finest workers in america. and i want those workers to have the freedom to make their decisions and not the nlrb. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the committee on education and the work force, mr. vow can, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for two minutes. >> i am a small business owner and a union member. i have a union business. the disapproval of the nlrb rule under the congressional review act is an extreme move that

would roll pack hardworking americans' rights to a fair and timely election on union representation. this rule modernizes communications and protects workers from dishonest employers. mr. pocan: when this law was written, emails and iphones didn't exist. it simply adds them to the list of what's available to contact people about joining a union. and second, it creates a fair, modern workplace election process that elections can be done in a timely manner. the current process has long been vulnerable to manipulation delay, and drawn out legal maneuvering by some unscrupe pew luss employers. the reality of today -- unscrupulous employers. the reality in today's workplace is employers still hold all the cards. a fewp bad actor employers can delay a vote by intimidating employees. they already have the phone numbers, emails and home addresses. let's face it, what's more intimidating? getting an email or saying you

know where someone lives? the bottom line this isn't about the nlrb rule. this is about a process we see across the country attacking hardworking americans. whether it's through so-called right to work laws or preventing the nlrb from updating the union election process, this is more evidence that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking americans who want the ability to form a union. this has a substantial impact on the lives. workers covered by collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not covered and more likely to have health care retirement, and paid leave benefits than nonunion workers. i would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering message. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves and has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized and has 17 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to another new member of the committee we've got an almost

embarrassment of riches of hardworking new members the gentleman from my neighboring state, wisconsin, mr. growthman, three minutes. mr. grothman: glad to speak one more time on s.j. resolution 8. i'm make two points. again. one of the things we see here is we have new rules which continue a trend and that is you're fundamentally changing the way things have been for 70 years. ok. in the past, unions have done a good job organizing. we have added union representation to things. but one of the things that business wants and america wants is consistency. one more time no big problems for 70 years, we are turning things fundamentally around. why is that bad? the gentleman from oregon just said this is no big deal because businesses all have lawyers on staff, or whatever. two comments on that. first of all businesses don't

all have lawyers on staff. and secondly i think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works and why it's so difficult to go in business today and why it particularly targets small business when you come with new regulations. this would be a problem even for a big company that did have a lawyer on the staff and say it's no big deal. of course, who is less likely to have lawyer on staff? a small business. who doesn't have full-time h.r. representatives and that sort of thing. this is targeting those small businesses. and again and again and again in this country one thing that bothers me is the degree to which people don't have sympathy for small business. when you change things, they are the ones who have to go out hire an outside lawyer, get up to speed op things, pay the big legal bills, and pay the price. that's one reason why in certain industries you do see over time

big businesses continuing to grow. because little businesses can't keep up with all the little rules. i'll remind people one more time that this invades employee privacy. it's something they are not asking for. there's no reason for outside groups to be able to get somebody's home address or that sort of thing. but in any event, i really think -dirble' ask the other people present in the room to go back home and ask particularly their small employers when they have to run for -- run to a lawyer -- first of all, if they ask their small employers whether or not they have a lawyer on staff, because i think the vast majority of businesses in this country don't have lawyer on staff. and secondly, whether they do or don't have a lawyer on staff, if they have to go run -- go run to a lawyer whether they think it's a big deal. now i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota

reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from minnesota mr. ellison, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman for the time. i'd like to point out that i think the people who promote this piece of legislation and the people who oppose it basically take their positions for the same reason. and that is that labor unions improve wages, make better working conditions, promote job security, and give strength in numbers. we oppose and support this bill for the same reason. some people want to see workers get more pay. we have seen stagnant wages. and some people think that when workers make more money, it just hurts corporate profitability. which by the way is up. it has been increasing. the point is simply this. the nlrb does its job and modernizes union elections. it proposes a rule. the republican majority comes in and says we don't like that because that might lead to more union elections and it may lead

to more unionized workers, and we like it how it is. we like flat and declining wages. we want the employers to have all the poyer. we want the workers to be alone and on their own and without the strength that the numbers that a union provides. it's simple as that. so americans watching this debate today have yet another opportunity to see who is on their side and who is not. american workers get more money and get paid better when they are in unions. collective bargaining strengthens family budgets because it means that workers can say you know what that's unsafe. you know what, you're making plenty of monny, so should we. you know what? we need to have some job security in a union contract around here an that's why we see the opposition to this nlrb rule. so it's disappointing. i think president obama was right when he said the number one problem facing the united states today is income

inequality. that is the concentration of riches at the top and the stagnation for wages for everybody else. if that is the problem, then we need to do something about it. that means modernizing the right to collectively bargain. and i will say modernizing union elections is the thing that will help us achieve that equality. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker i intend to reserve my last speakers, i have just been informed, will not make it to the floor. i will be our last speaker and i'll reserve until -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. norcross: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. certainly thank the ranking member. it's incredible. we are in this great hall of democracy, the world looks to this very building, for what it

seeks is to give people a voice. what our country was founded on. and what we are having a vote on today is to clamp down and shut the mouths of those who are seeking to have a voice. very recently there was a poll conducted that said, if given the opportunity 73% of american workers want to have a voice. would vote for a union. what we are hearing today is shutting down the voice. creating predictibility. this is about democracy. this is about what we in america believe in. giving everybody an equal opportunity for a voice. at the nlrb, and i have dealt with them for over 30 years, we have won some. we have lost some. they have been independent. sometimes i haven't been happy with their decisions, but i always felt they have been fair. but what we are talking about is bringing them into the 21st

century. making a voting date that is agreeable to what real people thifment you shouldn't have to wait six months, nine months to go through the appeal process. remember, the employer has had access unfeathered -- unfettered access to all these employees. all we are saying is let's make sure that workers have a voice. they say no, no harm, no fowl. you go home. this is about creating an equal playing field which certainly isn't there. that's why i'm urging my colleagues to vote against this anti-american, anti-democracy, anti-worker resolution. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. boyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. scott.

one of the things that made the toth -- 20th century known as the american century was that the united states had the largest middle class in the history of the world. the idea that if you work hard, play by the rules you would get a fair wage and good benefits, and that your children would be even able to do a little bit better than you have been able to do. it wasn't always that way, though in the united states. we can thank to a great extent some of the great advances that we had in the 20th century as far as workers' rights to that of organized labor. without labor unions, we would not have the strength of the middle class today. it is no accident that in the post-world war ii period when you saw average incomes rise in the 1950's, 1960's 1970's, you saw average incomes rise for workers, sure enough you saw the

percentage of the american work force unionized also increase. it is also no accident that as the percentage of the american work force unionized declined, so too, did average wages. to the point where we are today where we have had a 20-year period in which the middle class wages are stagnant, in which the working class is actually falling behind, and no surprise, we actually have the lowest percentage of the work force unionized today in over 70 years. . mr. speaker, let's stand up for the middle class. let's stand up for our workers. let us reject this anti-labor anti-union, anti-worker measure and let's start fighting and working for those who are working for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. is the chairman prepared to close? mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for thery re-maining time. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the rule that is subject to this resolution creates no substantive change in the law, it just requires that an election be timely. we encourage this 1 -- we have heard this 11-day myth. let me go through about how you get to 11 days. fist of all, the regional office would have to issue a notice of hearing the same day the union filed an election -- the election petition. the hearing would have to be held as soon as possible and last only one day and the regional director would have to issue an opinion the same day. right now, the -- it currently takes a median of 20 dayers in regional director to issue a decision on the hearing and there's no reason to believe it would be any shorter under this rule. the union would have to waive all its rights to get information in terms of contact lists and things like that and

the region would have to schedule the election on the first day possible. the chance that all of that is going to happen to get you down to 11 days is just improbable. we need to, as the administration has indicated, the president is likely to revito his senior advisors would recommend a veto of the legislation. i would look forward to working with the chair of the committee to do what we can to create jobs and increase wages and create safe and -- create safe workplaces so i would hope that the chair would -- we can get together on that rather than waste time on this resolution. mr. chairman, i'd ask unanimous consent that the statement of administration policy be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker.

it is always interesting, isn't it, mr. speaker, to listen to the debate and claims that are made, claims that are refuted. and i found a little bit interesting listening to some of the comments on the other side of the aisle that apparently this congressional review act, s.j. 8 action and all those who support it are anti-union, anti-labor anti-worker, and i was a little shocked to hear even anti-american. i'm not called anti-american very often mr. speaker, and i do resent it a little bit but that's the way this debate kind of goes. let's get a couple of things, i think straight. i know about, everybody can have their opinion, not their facts. there are some things that i think are pretty clear. according to the national labor relations board itself, more than 94% of election os cur in

less than 56 days. less than two months, mr. speaker. and the median time is only 38 days. and unions, mr. speaker, win over 60% of those elections. so there is a voice there is a voice. for union organizers, for workers, and for employers. because there's time. there's not a rush. now we just heard some discussion about whether 11 days is probable or -- i think we all agree it's possible maybe it would be 12 or 13 or something like that but it's not in question that you only have seven days under this rule, and this is the rule by the way this is the rule that we're talking about, the law that's affected is many times think thicker than this. -- many times thicker than this

so my colleague was saying if you have a labor lawyer on staff if you're a small to middle sized company you don't, you can't afford that you have seven days to go out and find a lawyer that can help you comply with this rule and with the law, the much thinkinger district of columbia thicker law, seven days. to get through -- to get your position down in writing and then you're stuck with it. and then you could have the election four days later. that's not an opportunity for informed discussion and debate for either the workers or the employers. this is called an ambush election because it is indeed an ambush. and we heard one of the speakers talk about, well, would you rather have your email, have somebody have your email address or your home address?

thunder rule you get it all. mr. speaker clearly there are many instances of intimidation during these exercises and often that intimidation comes from union organizers, not your fellow workers, usually, but outside union organizers that are trying to push this onto the work force. so i'm very pleased to be supporting s.j.res. 8. to provide congressional disapproval. and i'm not surprised, as i mentioned earlier, that the obama administration supports the obama national labor relations board position here. but that doesn't mean it's right. and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be standing up for the voices that we have heard about for employers and employees so that they can make informed decisions. the nlrb's rule mr. speaker, stifles the right of employers

to speak to their employees during organizing campaign cripples the right of workers of the information they need to make a decision, a very important decision about whether or not to join the union or even that union. that's a big decision. and it shouldn't be jammed into 11 days or two weeks. you need the time to be informed to make such a decision. a yes vote on the resolution will help rein in this activist national labor relations board and ensure workers, employers, unions can participate in a fair union election process. is i urge my colleagues to support s.j.res. 8 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 152, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. the question is on third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter of title 5 united states code of the rules submitted by the national labor relations board relating to representation case procedures. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia ask for the yeas and nays? mr. scott: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by five-minute votes on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]