[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.''

                          ____________________