Providing for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House of Representatives in the 114th Congress, and Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 8, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the National Labor Relations Board
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 152 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of S.J. Res. 8, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board, and a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 132, providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 114th Congress.
Across the Capitol, the United States Senate took positive action on March 4 when it passed a resolution, S.J. Res. 8, invoking the Congressional Review Act to overturn the National Labor Relations Board's recent ambush election rule. On that same day, my colleagues and I at the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on legislation I strongly supported and cosponsored, H.J. Res. 29, which is identical legislation to that which will come before the House today.
The National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule is just the latest of its outrageous actions taken in defiance of longstanding precedent, jeopardizing employee free choice and privacy and employer free speech. This rule would give workers as few as 11 days to consider a consequential decision before voting for or against joining a union, prevent employers from having adequate time to prepare for union elections, and postpone critical questions over the election, such as voter eligibility, until after the election.
While providing little consideration of the longstanding rights of employees and employers, the rule further violates their privacy by ensuring that workers' personal information such as email addresses, work schedules, phone numbers, and home addresses are provided to union leaders.
There is a myriad of consequences to this harmful regulation, including constraining the rights of workers to make informed decisions, severely hampering employers' rights to speak to their employees during union organizing campaigns, and weakening privacy rights of workers.
These consequences will seriously impact the relationship of workers and employers and upend a carefully crafted process for organizing elections. These precedents have arisen over decades of practice within existing rules and should not be upended by hyperpartisan bureaucrats to the benefit of national unions at the expense of hardworking Americans.
H. Res. 152 also provides for consideration of H. Res. 132, the committee funding resolution for the 114th Congress. Since taking the majority, House Republicans have been careful stewards of taxpayer dollars, streamlining House operations and saving funds wherever possible. In fact, this Congress, the House remains below the amount authorized in 2008.
This bipartisan resolution will allow our committees to continue their vital work on behalf of this institution, including legislative reforms and oversight with additional investigations and field hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Colorado knows very well that the House is doing its work and focusing on the things that are important to hardworking Americans. Just this week, we are holding 81 hearings here in the House in various committees. That is definitely doing our work. We are here on the floor today looking at a very important piece of work and overriding this onerous rule. That is not a waste of time.
Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Board has been attempting for years to tip the scales toward union organizers, and last December, it was finally able to accomplish one of its major goals with approval of this ambush election rule.
The two Board members who descended from the decision were clear about the rule's primary purpose: enabling initial union representation elections to occur as soon as possible. This rule will shorten the length of time in which such an election is held from the current median of 38 days to as little as 11 days.
The Board's decision was broad and unprecedented, overturning decades of practice in labor laws and skewing elections in favor of unions. One of its most outrageous provisions is postponing decisions about who is eligible to participate in an election to after the election.
One of the most fundamental principles of a fair election is ensuring only those eligible to vote to have the ability to vote, maintaining the value of each voter's individual vote. That basic democratic protection would be shattered by this rule. It may also lead to more union representation elections being set aside and new elections being ordered.
Glenn Taubman characterized the consequences of this ambush election rule very fittingly in testimony before our Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, saying:
It is akin to a mayoral election in which it is unknown, either before or after the election, whether up to 20 percent of the potential voters are inside or outside the city limits.
The rule will also require a new mandatory poster be placed in the workplace within 2 business days of receiving a petition for election, the content of which will be determined by the National Labor Relations Board.
Employers are also provided only 8 days to find experienced representation before facing a hearing and must file an in-depth statement of position within only 7 days of receiving a petition for election.
Companies of any size--and, in particular, small businesses--frequently do not have in-house counsel and are not prepared at the drop of a hat to respond to complex, consequential legal situations.
A provision with a serious impact on employee privacy is the access provided to unions of additional contact information, including every employee's name, address, personal phone number, and personal email address, which must be provided within 2 days of an election order without any option to opt out.
Important review procedures would be set aside by this rule as well, including the opportunity for review of decisions made prior to the election by the Board itself. The Board's requirement for review of postelection disputes would be made discretionary for the first time as well, limiting oversight.
This flawed decision is currently facing litigation from the private sector as well, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade associations filing a lawsuit to block its implementation as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and employers' rights.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The word ``venerated'' is usually reserved for clerics and not government agencies. Such an attitude borders on worship of government agencies, and I doubt very seriously that the majority of hardworking Americans agree with that attitude.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my distinguished colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The history of this regulation is as sordid as most of the NLRB's actions have been over the past few years.
The Board initially attempted to promulgate this regulation in 2011 without a legitimate quorum and saw its decision struck down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
That court decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
After rescinding its initial attempt at imposing an ambush election rule, the Board, now back to its full strength after threats by Senate Democrats to exercise the nuclear option to spark filibuster reform, reintroduced the ambush election rule in February of last year. Today, we face the consequences of that effort.
Those efforts are not the only objectionable actions of the National Labor Relations Board in recent years. Last year, I sent a letter, with several of my colleagues, opposing the NLRB general counsel's efforts to deem franchisers joint employers with their franchisees. That determination could have profound consequences for the over 8 million Americans who go to work at our country's over 750,000 franchise businesses.
The NLRB also purported to be able to instruct private businesses as to where they could invest, telling The Boeing Company in 2011 that it could not operate a factory in South Carolina it had already built. Our Federal Government has far too much power, but, thankfully, it does not yet have the power to tell businesses where they can and can't expand. The Board was forced to withdraw its complaint in that instance.
The NLRB regulation that we will address today on the floor is just another in a long line of objectionable actions that the Board has taken since President Obama's appointees have taken office. There is no reason to believe that their approach to the law will change, but our step today to invoke the Congressional Review Act is merely another sign of our willingness to exercise oversight tirelessly into the Board's actions. We will continue to be vigilant on behalf of workers and their employers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The proud traditions of this House and its committees are continued by the committee funding resolution this rule will provide for 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 favorably reported out of committee by unanimous voice vote. The chair and ranking member of each committee worked together to develop their individual budget priorities, and each committee also reaffirmed its commitment to uphold the equitable two-thirds/one-third 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 is not as if existing rules favor one party over another. If anything, they favor unions. Currently, 95 percent of elections occur within 2 months, and unions win more than 60 percent of them. The National Labor Relations Board should be focused on maintaining fair union representation elections backed by longstanding precedent, not upending a longstanding, carefully tailored process for elections that provided 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 for their support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source