Patsy T. Mink: “Mr. Chairman, I believe there might be some merit to look at the jurisdiction, exercise of jurisdiction by the NLRB. But…”

“Mr. Chairman, I believe there might be some merit to look at the jurisdiction, exercise of jurisdiction by the NLRB. But certainly, to bring this matter before the floor, to ask for a vote, is simply not the way to go. The matter should be brought to the committee. The Member of the majority certainly has access to the leadership on the majority side of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and will be able to work out a matter such as this and allow the committees to deliberate on it, call hearings, have an analysis, to bring this matter to the floor without our ability to understand even what the impacts of this limitation would be? And the most egregious part of this amendment is, as we know, an appropriation bill has only the effect of 1 year. That means that this limitation would be in effect only for 1 year, the life of the appropriation bill. So the people who are affected by it are not going to know whether, when the charges are brought, they fall within the old jurisdiction or the new jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the employers will have a greater havoc in terms of the stability of their own operations, to know whether a matter can legitimately come under the Board or cannot come under the Board. It will be a huge mess to try to untangle this whole issue of jurisdiction, which is a very, very troublesome matter.”