[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6187-H6195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2587, PROTECTING JOBS FROM
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 372
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2587) to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from
ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer
employment under any circumstance. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
{time} 0920
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Because the one Republican amendment
submitted to the Rules Committee was not germane and because the
Democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, House Resolution
372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2587, the
Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. The underlying bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act
to prohibit the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down
or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. Since the NLRB
filed suit against Boeing, I have been reminded of an old saying: ``A
government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to
take it all away.''
What you see now is exactly that, Big Government killing jobs under
the guise of protecting workers. Let me be clear. Despite what
opponents will say, this is not a union issue. This is a classic
example of government overreach which will, in the end, destroy
American jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world.
With unemployment at 9.1 percent and an economy which is best
described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford
this action. Plain and simple, my legislation will remove the NLRB's
ability to kill jobs.
The government, especially an unelected board, does not need to be
involved in the business decisions of the private sector. In fact, it
cannot be. We already live in a country where our corporate tax
structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another
strike against us.
Today, the NLRB's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my hometown of
north Charleston. Let me say that again: 1,100 jobs already created and
filled. Who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company
from looking to expand, not just in South Carolina, a State where our
unemployment rate is at 10.9 percent, but anywhere in the country. This
instability is the last thing our job creators need right now.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. This commonsense solution will help spur job
creation and, more importantly, it will remove impediments to job
creation.
[[Page H6188]]
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this yet another closed
rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill.
The difference between the two parties could not be any clearer.
While Democrats continue to push for legislation that will create
American jobs, Republicans continue to attack American workers.
After more than 250 days, the majority, House Republicans, have no
jobs agenda, nothing. Instead, they have brought forth job-destroying
legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs, and they have
voted to end Medicare, cut Social Security and slash Medicaid.
Today, sadly, is no different. Instead of bringing the American Jobs
Act to the floor, the Republican leadership gives us H.R. 2587, the
``GOP Job Outsourcers' Bill of Rights.''
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my Republican colleagues detest the
National Labor Relations Board. They have made that crystal clear in
the past few months with their amendments to cut the NLRB's funding and
undermine its authority.
But today they have sunk to a new low. The bill before us guts the
very fundamental rights of American workers to fight for better wages
and working conditions, and it makes it easier for companies to
outsource American jobs overseas.
Not a single hearing was held on this bill, not one. No objective
assessments were done by the GAO or the Congressional Research Service,
not even any evaluation on the impact on wages or job security of the
millions of American workers who will be touched by this legislation.
If this is the Republicans' idea of a job-creation plan, they are
even further off base than I thought.
I would like to think that my Republican colleagues haven't thought
through the wide-ranging repercussions of this bill. So let me take a
moment to educate them.
Companies in the United States are free to move their operations as
they see fit, as long as it's not in retaliation for workers exercising
their right to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working
conditions, or to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work.
And the plain fact is, if a company is allowed to retaliate against
its workers simply for exercising their lawful rights, every worker in
every other State, including South Carolina, will lose some of their
fundamental rights. A year from now, if Boeing decides to move
production from South Carolina to China, to retaliate against workers
who try to organize a union, the NLRB would have no power to order
those jobs to be kept or transferred back to the United States. For
many American workers today, the NLRB's authority to restore or
reinstate work that has been unlawfully transferred, outsourced, or
subcontracted away from workers exercising their lawful rights is the
only remedy they have to keep their jobs.
By eliminating the power of the NLRB to order work be restored or
reinstated, a CEO may simply eliminate the work and thereby the worker.
That CEO may even explain to the workforce that he eliminated the work
because it was pro-union. Even worse, H.R. 2587 would apply
retroactively to any complaint that has not been resolved by the time
of enactment, including the Boeing case.
This is a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent. Congress has no
business sticking its nose into an ongoing legal proceeding. We have no
business changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game.
Republicans have sent a clear message: if you aren't a CEO of a
Fortune 500 company, you shouldn't have any rights in the workplace.
For the millions of hardworking middle class workers who are struggling
to support their families and pay their bills, H.R. 2587 is a slap in
the face.
Democrats will not stand idly by as this Republican Congress tries to
dismantle the rights of American workers. American workers have fought
hard and earned these rights. They have sweated and bled and sometimes
died to secure them. I am proud to stand with those workers and their
families.
I find it sad that this Republican leadership, a leadership that
routinely fights to protect tax loopholes for corporations that shift
jobs overseas, is now bringing this horrible anti-worker bill to the
floor.
I urge my colleagues to reject this far-reaching legislation and get
back to work to bring real and meaningful job creation bills to the
floor. Stop this assault against American workers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. There are a couple of comments I would
like to make on my good friend's comments.
For one thing, not a single union employee, not a single employee in
Washington State--Puget Sound, Washington State--has lost their job
because of the new line of work being done in North Charleston, South
Carolina.
Another comment that my good friend made had to do with Medicare and
what the Republicans are doing to Medicare. Let us not forget the fact
that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact
on Medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national
health care plan passed by the Democrats where they stripped $500
billion, $500 billion, out of Medicare to pay for the debacle known as
national health care.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Joe Wilson.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your
leadership.
The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act will prohibit
the National Labor Relations Board from dictating where private
businesses can and cannot choose to create jobs.
The legislation ensures private businesses across America will be
able to promote job growth by making decisions based on the best
interests of their shareholders and workers. The act prohibits the NLRB
from ordering employers to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment.
It fosters a positive environment for employers to develop their
businesses and the State that offers the best opportunities for growth
and job creation.
It's truly sad that this legislation must be created to counter the
overreaching agenda of the job-killing NLRB. Earlier this month, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the national unemployment
rate is at 9.1 percent. This means there were 14 million Americans that
were without jobs. So I find it bizarre that in this climate of high
unemployment, the NLRB is attempting to destroy thousands of jobs in
South Carolina.
In fact, as Politico has reported, the 1.1 million square-foot
building is built. I was there for the groundbreaking. I was there for
the topping out.
Already, as my colleague, Congressman Scott, has pointed out, 1,100
people are employed today. Another 8,000 people will be employed across
this State of South Carolina. This is not a hypothetical issue. It is a
completed plant with jobs, with families at risk today.
This year, my birthplace has served as the center of this
controversial ruling by the administration that a large manufacturer
that's created jobs across the country cannot relocate.
{time} 0930
This is now unprecedented. The Boeing complaint is a threat to all
right-to-work States, not just South Carolina. The NLRB is chasing jobs
overseas. Being a right-to-work State means employees in those States
can choose for themselves whether to join a union. The NLRB complaint
against Boeing is really without merit. It falsely indicates that
Boeing ``transferred work'' of the 787 Dreamliner assembly line from
Washington State. However, not a single union employee has lost a job
due to the decision to locate a new, second line for 787s.
The NLRB efforts may have an unintended consequence. With the legal
theory a business cannot expand from a union State to a right-to-work
State, business will get the message never to
[[Page H6189]]
locate in a union State in the first place. The only safe location is
to establish a business in a right-to-work State.
I applaud the proactive efforts of Congressman Scott in introducing
the bill. I want to thank the chairman of the Education and Workforce
Committee, John Kline, along with the distinguished subcommittee
chairman of Health, Employment, and Labor, Congressman Phil Roe of
Tennessee.
I urge support by my colleagues.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to clarify a few points. I would remind my friend from
South Carolina that he and every single Republican in this House voted
for the Republican line budget, which basically destroys Medicare as we
know it, voucherizing the entire system.
I also will remind him that it is his party's leading Presidential
candidate right now who is advocating eliminating Social Security. And
now we have a bill on the floor that my Republican friends are
supporting that will make it easier and more likely that U.S.
corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.
Stop the assault on American workers.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out and clarify a few points that
have been made here this morning. Regarding the Boeing case, this is a
clear overreach into the decision of the National Labor Relations
Board.
The National Labor Relations Act, section 7, establishes the basic
right for employees in this country to self-organize, to join, to form,
and to assist labor organizations.
The Boeing workers have been organized with and by the Machinists
Union since the 1970s. There has been a long and good relationship
there. The union and the employees at Boeing were trying to exercise
their basic section 7 rights. However, the management of Boeing, which
is a good company, but clearly in this case the management of Boeing
committed an unfair labor practice by threatening the employees that if
they exercised their rights under section 7, they would move the work
out of Washington, out of Puget Sound, and relocate it down to South
Carolina, which they did.
The National Labor Relations Board followed the law. This is not a
close case. This is the only decision that the board could possibly
come up with under the law. We are a nation of laws. You may not like
the result, but like it or not, workers in this country have a basic
right to join unions. I know that that's not a popular idea lately.
However, in this case, I completely support the board's actions. I
think they followed the law.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill,
and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this
bill.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Phil Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of America's job creators, the rule, and
H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.
What this bill does is it simply amends the NLRA, which was passed in
1935, and prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from ordering
employees to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any
circumstances. In other words, it allows managers to make business
decisions that are in the best interest of their company and their
employees.
Let's just give a CliffsNotes version of this.
Boeing is a great American company. I visited that company in
Washington State. I've also seen the Boeing plant in Charleston, South
Carolina. What happened was they moved a second line of business there.
The Machinists Union disagreed with that. Lodge 751 lodged a complaint.
What the NLRB is supposed to be is an impartial referee. It's like a
basketball game. When you go into a gym, you expect the referees to be
fair to both sides. And to my friend on the other side, the NLRB
oversees elections, but you have a right as an employee to vote for or
against a union. You have both rights.
What this is doing is: What about the people who work in South
Carolina? The company has invested over a billion dollars to create
good-paying American jobs. One week ago today, the President of the
United States stood right where you are and made a very eloquent speech
about job creation. But I guess it doesn't matter in South Carolina
where those 1,000 jobs--1,100 people are working. It's not a very
complicated issue. A company should be allowed to move within the
borders of this country.
I was raised in a union household. My father belonged to the union.
He lost his job several decades ago to a foreign country, so I know
what that's like. Certainly I am very pleased that the people in
Washington State have added jobs, not lost jobs out there.
So I believe that this absolutely is an egregious overreach of the
NLRB, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for
this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to those statements.
It is a simple case; I agree with that part. And Boeing is a good
company, a good American company. But in this case, if you read the
facts of the case, their management made multiple threats to the
employees that, if they chose to exercise their rights as employees
under the law, that they would move the work away from Puget Sound and
locate it in South Carolina. And that's exactly what they did. That's
exactly what they did.
You can manage a company, but you cannot use your management rights
to trample on the rights of those basic employees.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly love to
hear a single case, a single specific comment, a single specific fact
to undergird your comments, I would say to my friend from
Massachusetts.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, John Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
and H.R. 2587, the bill that it brings to the floor, and I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
The Boeing Company, which operates a huge manufacturing plant in
Puget Sound, has built a new production line for its 787 Dreamliner
fleet in South Carolina. There has been no coinciding layoff at the
Puget Sound facility. In fact, not a single job was lost in the State
of Washington as a result of Boeing's decision. On the contrary, Boeing
has added an additional 2,000 jobs in Puget Sound since that time; yet
the National Labor Relations Board decided that Boeing was harming the
labor unions in Washington, so they made this unfortunate decision.
No department or agency of the Federal Government has ever told any
business that it could not or even should not move from one State to
another without demonstrating the type of violation alleged in its
case. For the National Labor Relations Board to tell Boeing that it
cannot move from Washington to South Carolina with no substantive
evidence of antiunion hostility is an unprecedented, a dictatorial
power grab that makes people wonder if we still live in a free country.
If the shoe was on the other foot, Mr. Speaker, if a conservative
majority on the NLRB told a company it could not move from a basically
nonunion State to a heavily unionized State, those who are opposing
this bill would be screaming to the high heavens.
This action by the NLRB will stifle economic growth all across this
Nation and could cause more American companies to go to other countries
or discourage businesses from moving here in the first place.
{time} 0940
I am certain that those who created the NLRB could never have
imagined that a future board would make such an extreme, radical
decision such as this. The NLRB was not set up to be a one-sided,
unfair, biased agency that was set up just to protect unions. It was
and is supposed to be a fair, impartial, nonpolitical arbiter between
labor and management, business and unions. Every Member who represents
a right-to-work State, such as my State of Tennessee, should be very
concerned about this decision.
[[Page H6190]]
Boeing had a 39-day strike in 2008 that cost the company an estimated
$2 billion. The CEO of Boeing Commercial told the Seattle Times last
year, ``We can't afford to have a work stoppage every 3 years. And we
can't afford to continue this rate of escalation of wages.''
This administration claims to be concerned about jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Just a few weeks ago, The Washington Post
showed that 82 percent of the American people believe it is either very
hard or somewhat hard to find a job. Now, unelected power-mad
bureaucrats at the NLRB, who do not have to worry about their jobs,
have made a decision that will stifle job creation and business growth
and expansion all over the country. We should pass this bill and
overturn this shortsighted decision that could possibly protect some
jobs in Washington, but will ultimately hurt working people all through
this Nation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I want to make it crystal clear that this Republican bill does not
protect or create jobs. What it does is it forces American workers to
fight over existing jobs by giving up their legal rights and
underbidding each other. This is about a race to the bottom.
The problem I have with my Republican friends is their economic
policies are all about lowering the standard of living for working
families in this country. We should be trying to increase the living
standards for American workers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Rather than bringing up a bill that makes it easier and more likely
for U.S. corporations to send U.S. jobs overseas, they ought to be
bringing to the floor the President's jobs bill that he talked about
here in the United States Congress about putting people back to work.
He came up with a series of bipartisan initiatives that will help
stimulate and jump-start this economy. Rather than doing that, which
will put people back to work, we're debating an anti-worker bill that's
going to make it more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs
overseas.
It is wrong, and I would urge my Republican friends to stop your
assault on American workers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just say to my good friend, Mr.
McGovern, that there's no doubt about it that the President's jobs plan
does one thing. And it's consistent with what the NLRB would do as
well. It doesn't simply ship American jobs overseas. It ships American
companies overseas so they do not have to play in the quagmire pit
called the regulations that this President and the Federal Government
have imposed on businesses.
To quote from the conservative Chicago Tribune: The NLRB's worst
decision, however, is its unprovoked ``hit'' job on Boeing. There's no
question that whether you're a conservative, a liberal; whether you are
a passionate believer in the future of this Nation and this world,
here's one thing we all have in common: the decision for the NLRB to
attack America's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and
indefensible.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, we just spent several weeks back in our
own districts, and I had a chance to talk to a lot of folks--and a lot
of my Democrat friends. I do have some of those. They're always asking
me, Why can't you just agree with the President? Why can't we go along
with what the President says? And I always enjoy when I get the
opportunity to come before this body and look exactly at what the
President says and to look at what he says about what we're talking
about today.
What do we know what the President has said? The President said in
this very room just last week that he was for jobs. That's what Boeing
is doing. And the NLRB is fighting them. The President has said he's
for manufacturing jobs. He said that he's calling for all of us to come
together--private sector, industry, universities, and the government--
to spark a renaissance in American manufacturing and help our
manufacturers develop cutting-edge tools. That is exactly what Boeing
is doing and exactly what the Obama administration's NLRB is fighting,
Mr. Speaker.
What else is the President for? He's for exports. He's called on us
to double our exports. In fact, he pointed out, correctly so, that 95
percent of the world's customers and the world's fastest growing
markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those customers
because other nations are. We need to up our game, and that is exactly
what Boeing is trying to do in North Charleston and exactly what the
Obama administration's NLRB is fighting right now.
What else has he talked to us about? He's told us how important it is
to have jobs here. Again, just last Thursday night, in this very
Chamber, he said, And we're going to make sure the next generation of
manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here in the
United States of America.
That is exactly what Boeing is doing in North Charleston. They could
have opened this plant overseas. In fact, in hindsight, given the
treatment of the NLRB, maybe they should have. But they didn't. They
chose to create jobs here in the United States in Charleston, South
Carolina, and the Obama administration is fighting them at every
particular step.
Why are we here, Mr. Speaker? We're here because the President's
words don't match his actions. We're here and we are not agreeing with
our colleagues across the way because they are not backing up what they
say with what they do. If the President would do the right thing and do
what he did last week--he rolled back--and give credit where credit is
due--he rolled back the new EPA rules on the ozone emissions, he could
do the exact same thing before the end of the day today on this NLRB
action against Boeing. And he could do the right thing and encourage
jobs here in the United States, exactly as he said we would be doing.
But since he won't match his words to his actions, we must pass this
rule and we must pass this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), who believes that it is wrong for
the Republicans to pass legislation to make it easier for U.S.
corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the American people are very
concerned about the failure of House Republicans to help the American
people get back to work. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we may have it
all wrong. It turns out that House Republicans have been working to
create jobs, just not here in America.
While the American people are suffering, H.R. 2587 gives big
corporations which are already flush with profits and tax breaks yet
another free pass to take jobs from hardworking American men and women
and ship them overseas. Without the support of the National Labor
Relations Board to help American families get a fair shake, we can only
expect to see more layoffs, lower wages, and a bleaker future for
America's middle class.
Instead of stripping power away from the NLRB to ensure the rights of
workers are upheld and handing it to corporations to bust unions and
outsource jobs, we should be working to create good-paying jobs right
here in America, right in Ohio. We should be working to level the
playing field for the American workers, who are the best, hardest-
working, most innovative workers in the world.
It is time that the Republicans join us in that fight, and it's time
that they join us in voting ``no'' on this rule and on this very bad
legislation, H.R. 2587. Stand up for the American worker.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. My good friends on the left continue to
talk about shipping jobs out of America. I want to make sure that
everyone still recognizes the fact that the great State of South
Carolina is still a part of the United States of America. In fact, when
you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the
Washington State employees now
[[Page H6191]]
have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant
in North Charleston. In fact, if you're talking about creating American
jobs in American States--U.S. States--South Carolina--you would simply
look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in North
Charleston. You would think about the fact that the compounding impact
of those jobs in North Charleston could create up to 12,000 new
American jobs in our States.
So the fallacy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Jeff Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Ladies and gentlemen, I rise today in
support of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference
Act, that would end the funding for the NLRB's lawsuit against Boeing.
{time} 0950
I'm an original cosponsor of this legislation because I believe that
what the NLRB has done to Boeing and to the people of South Carolina is
one of the most egregious bureaucratic abuses of power that this
administration has perpetrated. And with this administration, honestly,
that's saying something.
Earlier this year, the NLRB decided that it had the power to tell a
company where it could move, what it could build, and how much.
Whatever you think of the NLRB, whatever stance you have on Big Labor
and labor unions, would you ever think that our government would
consider such an unconstitutional power grab?
In the midst of this Great Recession, when our number one focus
should be on creating jobs, the NLRB is trying to stop an American
company from building American airplanes with American workers, South
Carolinians, right here in America.
During a recent Congressional hearing, one of my colleagues from
South Carolina, he asked the head lawyer for NLRB if he knew of a
single union worker who had lost their job because Boeing decided to
expand production in South Carolina. NLRB's lawyer did not have an
answer.
But if NLRB wins this lawsuit--listen clearly, America: If NLRB wins
this lawsuit, the decision will be made, not whether to locate in a
union State or a right-to-work State, the decision American companies
will make will be about whether to continue production in the United
States of America or take those jobs and that manufacturing process to
another country. That is the hard reality of what NLRB is doing today.
I ask my colleagues to join the South Carolina delegation, and
America, today in standing up for freedom, standing up for the right to
start a business, standing up for American jobs, standing up to the
bullying tactics of an out-of-control bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's pass it right away. This is
an actual jobs bill that you can go and read. And this is one that we
can pass right now. We can pass this bill today, and we can get
Americans back to work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The Republican
bill creates open season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising
their basic rights.
My friends on the other side fight tooth and nail to protect all
these corporate tax loopholes that actually encourage companies to move
their jobs overseas. We can't touch them. They fight with passion on
the floor to protect them.
But when it comes to protecting American workers, they're AWOL. I
don't know what it is that they have against American workers, but this
bill undermines the rights of American workers to be able to stand up
and ask for a decent wage for an honest day's work. It undermines their
ability to ask for benefits like a good retirement benefit. This is
about taking away rights and powers of workers.
Granted, these workers don't give big PAC checks. They're not the
leaders of the Fortune 500 companies. But these people are the backbone
of our economy. We should be standing up for American workers in this
Congress. We should be fighting to protect American jobs to keep them
in the United States.
This bill makes it easier, in fact, more likely that corporations and
companies will retaliate against workers who stand up for their rights
by sending their jobs overseas to places like China. Why in the world
are we doing this?
We should be trying to find a way to empower workers in this country.
It shouldn't be about a race to the bottom. And it shouldn't be about
States competing for existing jobs.
This is a bad bill. This is a bad precedent. And quite frankly,
again, it is typical of what the Republican agenda is all about when it
comes to the economy. It's about a race to the bottom. It's about
lowering the standard of living for American workers while protecting
the big CEOs, the heads of the Fortune 500 companies. Their rights are
always protected. But when it comes to the little guy, my Republican
friends are on the opposite side.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Let's be clear. Let's talk about South Carolina for a
second. No one has mentioned this. South Carolina is a right-to-work
State. What does that mean?
It guts the ability of workers to organize and to form unions to
fight for higher wages and safer workplaces. Why do you think Boeing
was going to South Carolina? Because they thought it was going to be
worse for them or better for them? A right-to-work State that guts
unions, that's why they went.
Millions of Americans are working today and they're looking for work.
They're struggling to keep their homes. They are out of work. They're
not working. And yet we are debating legislation that tries, once
again, to eviscerate unions, accelerate that race to the bottom.
This bill does nothing to create good, well-paying jobs here in
America. It guts the regulatory powers of the National Labor Relations
Board. It legalizes runaway shops. It allows companies to fire
employees trying to start a union. It's a right-to-work State, and
actually makes it easier to ship jobs overseas.
None of this is what our economy needs right now. It's like what we
have seen from Republican governors in States like Wisconsin, Ohio,
Indiana. This legislation represents yet another front in the
majority's ideological assault against workers' rights all across the
country.
I represent a community where the right to organize was hard won at
the dress shops, where my mother sewed collars for pennies, at the gun
factories, the aerospace industry, the government offices, and the
great universities of my state.
The families of my district know from hard-won experience that labor
unions fight for employee rights, higher standards, greater equality,
security in work and retirement. They help ensure that workplaces and
politics are driven by the dreams and the aspirations of working
people, not by corporate power and the narrow agenda of the elites.
Unions were instrumental in forming the broad-based middle class in
this country, and thanks to decades of systematic efforts by companies
to deny their rights, as well as misguided trickle-down policies that
never do trickle down, union membership has fallen in our country.
Middle class workers have been squeezed. Their wages have stagnated,
their benefits cut, their job security weakened, their wage and hour
protections have been violated, and all the while, income inequality
has steadily risen in this Nation, to the point where even as over 15
percent of the population today lives in poverty, 1 percent of people
now make 23 percent of income in America.
This Republican majority is trying to go for the killing blow. They,
once again, attempt here to make a bogey man of the NLRB.
The Board's function is only to defend the rights that we consider
fundamental, the right to form a union, the right to be represented by
that union in dealings with employers, and the right to be free from
retaliation from doing so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. DeLAURO. The Board also enforces laws that protect employers and
third parties against practices by unions considered to be unfair or
harmful. In fact, the NLRB charter and
[[Page H6192]]
structure were amended to meet Republican concerns in 1947 by the Taft-
Hartley legislation.
Today the NLRB is simply doing its job, finding fair remedies for
employees and employers in workplace disputes and prosecuting
violations when they occur. Nothing radical about the NLRB.
What's radical is the anti-union message that this majority continues
to try to foist on the American people. They've tried to slash funding
for the NLRB. They've tried several times to repeal Davis-Bacon.
They're trying now to severely limit workers' fundamental right to
organize collectively.
The bill is not a serious attempt to restore jobs, restore economic
growth, or address budget deficits. It's about marginalizing the labor
movement--and with it the capacity for working people to find fairness
in the workplace. It will harm middle class families already dealing
with a tough economy. It will grease the wheels for companies to move
jobs overseas.
I urge my colleagues to stand with American workers and vote against
this rule.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.
{time} 1000
Mrs. BLACK. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm here today as a member of a right-to-work State and
a cosponsor of this legislation to speak out against NLRB's actions
against Boeing in South Carolina and NLRB's assault on the right-to-
work States. Not only are the NLRB's actions a gross intrusion of
government on private business, but this suit, if allowed to proceed,
would have a chilling effect on the business growth in all right-to-
work States like Tennessee.
In my home State, the unemployment rate is at a staggering 9.8
percent. And in some of my counties, we are well over a double digit in
unemployment. Too many Tennesseeans are out of work, and I don't want
companies with good-paying jobs to feel like they can no longer move a
facility to Tennessee for fear that there will be an NLRB lawsuit.
The actions of NLRB set a very dangerous precedent that the Federal
Government can tell a private company in which State they can or cannot
locate. Policies like this could very well drive a company to leave the
United States and go overseas where agencies like this don't exist.
That is why I stand here today in strong support of the Protecting Jobs
from Government Interference Act. This is an important first step not
only to put NLRB on notice that their actions will be checked by
Congress, but also to ensure that NLRB cannot dictate which State an
employer can locate jobs in the United States.
At a time when 14 million workers are unemployed, we must get Federal
agencies like NLRB out of the way and clear the path for job creation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle that it's September. When are you going to bring a jobs
bill to the floor? When are you going to bring legislation that's going
to help put people back to work during this difficult economy?
At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I don't mean to contradict my colleague, but the
Republicans do have a jobs plan. Now, it's true that Majority Leader
Cantor kicked off the week by saying, Not a penny for infrastructure.
We don't want to just build things in America. We don't want to invest.
That doesn't put people to work. You know, the $50 billion the
President proposed, that would create about 1.5 million private sector
jobs in the construction industry, but they're not interested in that.
They do have a jobs plan: snakes. Yes, snakes. Yesterday, in the
Oversight Committee, they held a hearing similar to what we're talking
about here today on a job-killing regulation being proposed by the
Obama administration. Keep out invasive species. Giant pythons, which
are taking over the Everglades, the Republicans say that is a job-
killing restriction. Just think of all the jobs related to snakes.
First, there's the importer of these invasive species. Secondly, we
sell them. Then there are people who raise things for them to eat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Then when they escape, we hire people, pest control eliminators, to
go out and try to find them when people abandon them. What a jobs
creator.
No, we're not going to rebuild our infrastructure. We're not going to
try and continue to have fair wages for people who build the best
airplanes in the world, Boeing. No, those things are off the table as
far as the Republicans are concerned. It's job-killing regulations,
that's what's hurting America.
Come on guys, get real. Let's rebuild America. Let's invest. Let's
pay workers a fair wage. You know, when a worker earns a fair wage,
they can afford to go to the small business down the street and
patronize them and buy their goods. And then maybe some day, if you
stop these job-killing trade deals, they'll be able to buy goods that
are actually made in America with their decent wages at an American
company. Get real.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mike Pompeo.
Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work
on this important piece of legislation.
In Kansas, we build airplanes with American workers. The Boeing
Company has a big facility there. Indeed, last night, on a telephone
town hall, I had a worker from Boeing call in. He was very worried
about his continued employment right in Wichita, Kansas, and in
America. He was worried because this administration has taken actions
to destroy manufacturing and aviation manufacturing here in America.
I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation because
the NLRB has no business telling The Boeing Company, who wants to
invest hundreds of millions of its own dollars--not taxpayer dollars,
its own dollars--creating jobs in South Carolina. What next? An attack
on Kansas? An attack on aviation workers all across America?
We need to pass this piece of legislation immediately and ask the
President to sign it. It's too important to American workers to allow
the NLRB to continue the Big Government policies of this
administration.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we should be talking here on the floor and debating and
considering an infrastructure bill to put people back to work. We
should be taking up the entirety of the President's jobs proposal that
he delivered in a speech a week ago. We should be taking up things that
will actually help this economy and put people back to work. Instead,
we are dealing with a bill that will make it easier and more likely for
U.S. corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas. And this is a bill that
creates a new race to the bottom for American workers' rights, wages,
benefits, and working conditions, and it is bad for this economy.
Why do my Republican friends continue to insist that the only way to
deal with our economic problems is to lower the standard of living and
the quality of life for American workers? Why are all the tough choices
being made on the backs of American workers?
We can do much better in this country. We need to be focusing on
jobs, not on this stuff.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Steve Palazzo.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I hear across the aisle my colleagues
talking about what have the Republicans done to create jobs, and they
point out where we've created a job.
Well, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to create
jobs, but it is our responsibility to foster a healthy business climate
in this Nation where our entrepreneurs and small business owners can go
out and create jobs, expand, and increase the benefits and the pay of
their employees. But you're not going to do that if you increase their
taxes. You're not going to do that if you have unelected bureaucrats
running around increasing job-
[[Page H6193]]
stifling regulations and circumventing Congress' efforts to foster an
atmosphere in this country to create jobs. You're not going to do that
if we continue to have frivolous litigation. All these things taken
together develop a certain amount of uncertainty in our Nation, and
capital sits on the sidelines or it goes overseas to a more friendly
job creation environment.
I'm in one of those 22 proud right-to-work States. In Mississippi, we
love the high-tech jobs we're getting and the advanced manufacturing
jobs and the Department of Defense aerospace industry, shipbuilding. We
like jobs in Mississippi. And this Protecting Jobs from Government
Interference Act will prohibit the NLRB from telling private sector
companies where they can or cannot locate.
We must restrain them. We must stop this, because the industries that
we have collected over the past several years in the State of
Mississippi, I firmly believe these companies would not have located
either to the United States or they would have not located to my State
if it wasn't for the fact that we have a great workforce and we're a
right-to-work State. We would have lost these jobs forever. We would
have never seen them. They would have left America or they would have
stayed in the foreign country they came from.
We like to work in Mississippi. We like jobs. We want more of them,
not less.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about creating a healthy business
climate. I don't know how we're creating a healthy business climate by
passing a bill that makes it easier and more likely that U.S.
corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.
After more than 200 days in the majority, House Republicans have
passed no bills, none, no bills to create jobs, moving instead on job
destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs,
with more to come.
This week, to make matters worse, we're taking up this legislation
that will encourage the shipping of jobs overseas and a bill that will
weaken the middle class. Instead of creating jobs and strengthening the
middle class and protecting workers' rights, the Republicans are making
it easier for corporations to send American jobs overseas. And it
allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their
rights to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working
conditions, and to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. I
mean, that's what this bill does.
You know, in 2000, the National Labor Relations Board was able to
force a company to bring jobs back to the United States from Mexico, as
the company was charged with shipping jobs to Mexico in retaliation
against workers seeking to organize a union. Under this Republican
bill, American workers would lose this protection.
Again, their plan for the economy is all about lowering the standard
of living, lessening the quality of life for American workers, while
protecting those who are most fortunate in this country, those who head
up the big companies.
{time} 1010
We should be debating on this floor today the President's job bill.
If my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they don't have to;
but that's the legislation that should be brought before the Members of
this Congress today, not this bill, a bill that punishes American
workers. Enough. You've been punishing American workers since you took
the majority. Enough is enough.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robert Hurt.
Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding and
for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2587, the Protecting
Jobs from Government Interference Act.
Over the past 2\1/2\ years, this administration has vastly expanded
the size and scope of the Federal Government and supported policies
that have destroyed jobs, stifled investment and innovation, and slowed
our economic recovery in Virginia's 5th District and across the
country.
One of the most recent and troubling examples of this government
overreach is the latest move by the unelected National Labor Relations
Board to block Boeing from creating thousands of jobs in South
Carolina. This kind of government intervention is a direct attack on
our economic freedom and has disastrous effects on 5th District
Virginians and all Americans. It has the potential to cost thousands of
jobs at a time when we need jobs most.
It dangerously and unacceptably inserts the Federal Government into
the business decisions of private companies, and it threatens to
undermine the economic competitiveness of all States, such as Virginia,
that have right-to-work laws.
Being the northernmost right-to-work State on the east coast has
helped make Virginia the best place in the country to do business and
has helped promote job growth and economic investment across the 5th
District and our Commonwealth.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work and unemployment
remains unacceptably high, right-to-work States should not be penalized
by an intrusive and overbearing Federal Government for their ability to
attract new business, investment, and jobs.
As part of the House's job-creation agenda, H.R. 2587 would remove
the Federal Government as a roadblock to job growth by preventing the
NLRB from dictating where employers and private businesses can set up
their operations, putting our economic recovery back where it belongs--
in the hands of the people instead of the Federal Government.
If we are serious about getting our economy back on track, we must
support these kinds of policies that help restore certainty to the
marketplace and provide our true job creators with the confidence and
freedom and opportunity necessary to do what they do best: innovate,
grow their businesses, and get America working again.
That is why I'm proud to cosponsor H.R. 2587. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague from
Massachusetts that I have no remaining speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Then I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that this bill is not a
retaliation against right-to-work States. I'm not a big fan of right-
to-work States in terms of how they treat workers and those who want to
organize unions; but this bill is really about protecting workers from
corporations that retaliate against them simply for demanding their
rights and organizing for their rights.
The Republican bill changes the rules mid-trial to benefit a
particular Fortune 500 company, Boeing; but this bill has wide-ranging
repercussions for American workers. This bill does not protect or
create jobs. It just doesn't. It forces American workers to fight over
existing jobs by giving up their rights and underbidding each other.
It's a race to the bottom.
The Republican bill makes it easier to ship U.S. jobs overseas.
There's no question about that. And the Republican bill creates an open
season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising their rights. Again,
this is a further assault on the rights and protections that workers
have fought so hard for for so many decades, and this bill undermines
the duty to bargain in good faith. This is an anti-union bill--there is
no question--among other things.
The bill also encourages law-breaking and intimidation by employers.
It removes a key disincentive against employers who unlawfully threaten
employees with job loss during organizing drives.
The Republican bill creates a new race to the bottom for American
workers' rights, wages, benefits, and working conditions. We're going
in the wrong direction with this bill.
This bill is one more assault on American workers, on the American
middle class. Time after time after time the Republican leadership has
stood up for Big Business and against the American middle class. Higher
gas prices--Republicans protect Big Oil tax breaks and do nothing to
help the average consumer. Health care coverage for
[[Page H6194]]
our kids through the age of 25--Republicans side with the health care
companies that put profits over patients.
With this bill, Republicans are promoting job creation overseas by
allowing companies to move overseas in retaliation of workers who are
exercising their own legal rights. Not only that, this bill goes back
in time and applies this bill retroactively. This is just like changing
the value of a touchdown in the middle of the Super Bowl simply because
you don't like the score of the game. This bill would be a joke if it
weren't so serious.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not
about protecting right-to-work States. Really, this is not even about
unions. This is about the rights of workers in this country. This is
about protecting American jobs. This is about urging companies to
invest in the United States and not making it easier for them to create
jobs overseas.
We're in a difficult economy right now, Mr. Speaker. We should be
debating on this floor the President's job bill. Every day we should be
doing something about jobs. And, instead, here we are in September. My
Republican colleagues have done nothing. They've done nothing except
continue an assault on middle class families.
Today, it's workers. They're going after Medicare in the Ryan budget.
Their leading Republican Presidential candidate is talking about
eliminating Social Security. All the protections, all the rights that
middle class families have fought for and have won that are essential
to a decent quality of life they're trying to take away. Enough.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on
this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts continues to talk
about the President's jobs plan that is nothing more than a brand
spanking new stimulus plan spending $467 billion by increasing taxes on
everyone, including the middle class. I cannot find it in my heart to
say to Mr. McGovern that the President's plan has any opportunity of
passing in this House, because the bottom line is simply this: we ought
to spend our time focused on the things that we have in common. It is
time for the games to stop.
We should look at the President's plan and pick out those parts of
the plan that we agree with. We should start by talking about having an
opportunity to work on corporate tax reduction, flattening the tax rate
for corporations. We have the second highest tax rate in all of the
world, and this environment creates an unlevel playing field for
America's job creators.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I'm just curious. When are we going to debate a bill on
this floor that helps create jobs? Why don't you bring the President's
plan to the floor and let's have it out?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Our President wants an up-or-down vote
on this one package.
We believe that the fastest and most effective way to show the
American people that partisan politics is over and that we're now
focused on the American people, we will take those parts, those aspects
of the President's bill that we agree with, like regulatory reform like
we're doing today, and simply say to the American people that we're
listening. We will take, without any question, an opportunity to debate
the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make America's
corporations more competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the
games which so often sidetrack things in Washington and pass this
important legislation here today.
This is not a question of pro-union--I agree with you--or anti-union.
It is a question of right versus wrong.
The NLRB has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and
hold employers accountable for unlawful labor practices. There is
simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where a private
business can establish its workforce.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
{time} 1020
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 372, if
ordered, and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2867.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 177, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 707]
YEAS--234
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
[[Page H6195]]
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Capuano
Giffords
Gosar
Kaptur
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (GA)
Marino
Nadler
Pence
Rogers (AL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Schrader
Van Hollen
Waxman
Webster
Young (AK)
{time} 1046
Messrs. HONDA, TONKO, SHERMAN, and LARSON of Connecticut changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 707 I missed
the vote due to a personal family issue. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
____________________