[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6198-H6215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING JOBS FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 372, I call up
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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). Pursuant to House
Resolution 372, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill,
is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2587
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Jobs From
Government Interference Act''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``: Provided further, That the Board shall
have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against
an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product,
production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation,
transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change
regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be
engaged in production or other business operations, or to
require any employer to make an initial or additional
investment at a particular plant, facility, or location''.
SEC. 3. RETROACTIVITY.
The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any
complaint for which a final adjudication by the National
Labor Relations Board has not been made by the date of
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 2587.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2587, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act is a commonsense
proposal that will prevent the National Labor Relations Board from
dictating where an employer can and cannot create work. Upon the date
of enactment, this limitation will apply to all cases that have not
reached final adjudication by the full Board.
Now, more than ever, the American people are looking for leadership
out of Washington and some common sense. They want to know their
elected officials are willing to take on the tough issues and make the
difficult decisions needed to get this economy moving again. They need
to believe Congress has the courage to tear down old barriers to new
jobs, regardless of the political cost. After 31 straight months of
unemployment above 8 percent, we cannot afford to cling to the status
quo any longer.
This legislation represents an important step in the fight to get our
economy back on track. It tells job creators they don't have to fear an
activist NLRB reversing important decisions about where to locate a
business. It offers workers peace of mind by ensuring no Federal labor
board can force an employer to ship their jobs across the country. And
it tells the American people we are serious about getting government
out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs who are
desperately trying to do what they do best, create jobs and
opportunities for our Nation's workers.
On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board sent a shock wave
across our struggling economy. In a complaint filed against the Boeing
Company, the NLRB demanded that this private company relocate work
already underway in South Carolina to Washington State. The Board has
more than a dozen remedies available to protect workers and hold
employers accountable. Regrettably, the Obama NLRB exercised the most
extreme remedy and, as a result, put the livelihoods of thousands of
South Carolina workers on the line. Equally troubling, countless
workers across the country now fear they could be subject to a similar
attack in the future.
Make no mistake. Every worker deserves strong protections that ensure
they are free to exercise their rights under the law. This legislation
preserves a number of tough remedies for the Board to punish illegal
activity. This Republican bill simply says that forcing a business to
close its doors and relocate to another part of the country is an
unacceptable remedy for today's workforce.
If the NLRB is allowed to exercise this radical authority, it will
have a chilling effect on our economy. Businesses, at home and abroad,
will reconsider their decision to invest in our country and create jobs
for American workers. We have already heard stories of Canadian
business leaders doing just that. No doubt, these difficult choices are
being discussed on shop floors and boardrooms across the country and
outside our borders.
Last month, this Board unloaded a barrage of activist decisions that
undermine workers' rights and weaken our workforce. If the President
will not hold the Board accountable for its job-destroying agenda,
Congress will. It is time we forced the NLRB to change course. This is
a sensible reform that will encourage businesses to create jobs right
here at home.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. For years, the understanding in this country has been,
if you show up for work every day and work your heart out and do your
best, what you get in return is a good wage, good benefits, and a
future that's secure as long as your company's secure, but it seems
like that version of the American Dream moves another continent,
another ocean, another day away each day that goes by.
{time} 1120
Outsourcing is destroying the middle class in the United States of
America, and this bill is the outsourcers' bill of rights. It says to
an employer, if you want to use as an excuse the collective bargaining
and union activities of your employees and you want to pick up and move
to Central or South America or Asia, here's the way to do it.
This bill draws a map of jobs outside--rather, it draws a map as to
how to take jobs from inside the United States and move them outside
the United States. If an employer, under our law for decades, says that
I'm gonna shut down and move my plant or my office because you dared to
try to organize a union or you've spoken up
[[Page H6199]]
for the rights of the workers, that's illegal. The purpose of this bill
is to remove the only effective remedy to combat that illegality.
If this bill became law, here's what would happen:
An employer who says, I'm tired of employees speaking up for their
own rights. I'm tired of union organizing. I'm tired of collective
bargaining. I'm moving to Malaysia, it would still be illegal under
this bill for the employer to say that, but there would be nothing the
labor board could do to stop that; because if the employer formed a
shell company in Malaysia and took all of the money and put it in the
shell company, and the labor board said, Well, you've got to pay
backwages to the people you just laid off, there would be no money to
pay the backwages.
This is the outsourcers' bill of rights. We don't need an
outsourcers' bill of rights. We need a working person's bill of rights
in this country. We need a bill of rights that says, if you hold up
your end of the bargain, the American Dream will no longer move out of
your reach.
This is a bill that overreaches, it undercuts the middle class of
this country, and it should be defeated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chair
of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of America's job creators and
H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.
What this bill does is simple. It amends the NLRA, the National Labor
Relations Act, which was passed in 1935, and prohibits the National
Labor Relations Board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down,
or transfer employment under any circumstance. In other words, it
allows managers to make business decisions that are in the best
interests of their company and their employees.
In filing the complaint against Boeing, the NLRB's general counsel
has put 1,100 good-paying South Carolina jobs at risk. Mr. Speaker, I
was in South Carolina about 5 weeks ago and viewed that plant. It's a
huge plant with 1,100 people working today--American people working.
This shot across the bow of American business sends a clear message:
Don't do business in a right-to-work State.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that Boeing
decided to build a plant in South Carolina as an act of retaliation
against a unionized workforce, but not a single worker in Washington
State has lost his or her job. They've added jobs. And I'm glad that
they have. I'm left to wonder that if the fact that South Carolina,
like Tennessee, is a right-to-work State has the NLRB to conclude that
a job created in Washington is more valuable than a job created in
South Carolina.
I grew up in a union household. My father worked in a factory making
shoe heels for BFGoodrich and Co., and his job was outsourced to Mexico
in the early seventies. So I've been through that as a family. I
understand that very well.
Very simply what happened, Mr. Speaker, is this, is that a company
wanted to expand a business line, a 787 Dreamliner, and they built a
huge factory in Charleston, South Carolina. A complaint was brought by
the general counsel, NLRB, against this. It's now being adjudicated
very expensively in the courts. Think what a message this sends to job
creators in America. If I were a business, there is no way I would move
to a non-right-to-work State because you can never get out if this
ruling is upheld.
And I might add also that there are over a dozen remedies that the
NLRB has: awards for backpay, effective bargaining, offer of
employment, placement of preferential hiring, payment for travel and
moving, and on and on. Over a dozen remedies.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage us to support this bill. The fact
is, with 14 million Americans out of work, 2 million more than when I
came to this Congress 3 years ago, we need every job in every corner of
the country. The administration's answer is more spending and more
regulation. It's a recipe for failure.
It's time we recognize a fundamental truth that government doesn't
create jobs; businesses do. But instead of trying to get the government
out of the way of our job creators, this administration seeks to throw
up more roadblocks.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The record should reflect the fact that there is an allegation that
Boeing, in the case that the gentleman mentioned, because of reasons of
union discrimination moved those jobs. There is nothing in this case
that says, if a company uses a legitimate business reason other than
discriminating against worker rights, they can't do so.
At this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a lifelong
advocate for the working people of the United States of America, my
friend from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, in September 2010, my Republican colleagues
issued A Pledge to America, stating that it is time to do away with old
agendas. That much is clear.
However, what is also clear is that this pledge is not to the
majority of the American people but to corporate America. To make
matters worse, Republicans are taking up legislation that will
encourage the shipping of jobs overseas and weaken the rights of middle
class workers.
Furthermore, my Republican colleagues have fast-tracked what is more
appropriately called the ``Job Outsourcers' Bill of Rights'' in the
interest of their cronies in corporate America.
Proponents of this bill claim that it will protect jobs by
prohibiting the government from interfering with a company's ability to
move its operation. However, the law that Republicans are trying to
amend to do so, the National Labor Relations Act, does not restrict the
location of company operations at all unless the company's location
effort is an act to retaliate against workers exercising their right to
organize, to demand better benefits, safer working conditions, and
ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work.
This is obviously a response to the case against Boeing, and I find
it inappropriate. Change in the law in the middle of trial is
irresponsible and dangerous.
The United States Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter in support of
this bill. But as noted in the letter, they represent the interests of
business. Well, I represent the interests of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PAYNE. I was voted into this position not by Wall Street, not by
corporate America, not by those people who reside in high-rise
skyscrapers, but by hardworking Americans who want to raise their
families the way that we had an opportunity to raise ours rather than
ratchet it down to the bottom.
I believe that this bill is foolish, hazardous to the well-being of
our Nation's workers, and our economic development.
It is time for the Republicans to abandon this pledge to corporate
America. I urge my colleagues to vote against this outsourcing bill.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a wonderful
representative of the people of Tennessee and the American people, a
member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.
{time} 1130
Mr. DesJARLAIS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from
Government Interference Act.
As I have traveled Tennessee's Fourth Congressional District and
spoken with 30-plus job creators, our conversations inevitably focus on
one basic complaint: that the Federal Government's overregulation of
the private sector is impeding job creation in this country.
Instead of reducing the regulatory burdens on business, an act which
would most certainly create much needed private sector jobs, this
administration has used its labor board to make it harder to do
business in America. Nowhere is this more apparent
[[Page H6200]]
than in its recent unfair labor practice complaint against Boeing.
If you want to talk about creating jobs, let's look at the facts:
Boeing has invested approximately $1 billion to build a plant in South
Carolina, which will create new, well-paying jobs in South Carolina.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DesJARLAIS. Despite the fact that not one--not one--single
employee in Washington has lost his or her job due to Boeing's
decision, the administration is attempting to destroy those South
Carolinian jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a
very persuasive voice against outsourcing, my friend from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the outsourcers' bill
of rights.
This bill would be devastating to workers across this country and
kick off a new race to the bottom. The outsourcers' bill of rights is a
naked attempt to directly interfere in a pending Labor Relations Board
case. Now, there is much to be said about workers' rights and the
importance of protecting them; but in the short time I have, let me
just say a little bit about what this means for the American economy.
It makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. It eliminates the only
remedy to force companies to bring work back from overseas. Companies
that make a commitment to the welfare of their employees--well-run
companies--and make commitments to their home communities rather than
shopping for the latest lowest pay scale someplace in the world
actually do better in the long run.
So the outsourcers' bill of rights is not only contrary to the
interest of workers; it's bad for our economy at large. We need to
improve worker protections, not weaken them. Yet the majority party and
the proponents of this bill continue their assault on the rights of
working men and women. It doesn't create a single job.
With 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the majority
today continues their ``no jobs'' agenda, bringing to the floor a
special interest that is dealing with one particular case rather than
creating jobs. It is not good legislative policy to legislate on
individual cases. I urge my colleagues to oppose the outsourcers' bill
of rights.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member
of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding some time.
I rise to give my strong support to this measure. This
straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the National
Labor Relations Board from dictating where private businesses can and
cannot locate jobs in America. Mr. Speaker, let me say that again: this
straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the NLRB from
dictating where private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in the
United States.
It's almost a bizarre situation that we're in. An American company
wants to provide American jobs in America, and we have an agency of
this administration that is trying to prohibit that.
Because of recent overreach by the NLRB, we, unfortunately, need to
have this legislation. Businesses that want to hire Americans in
America ought to be able to do so. For Americans wondering why jobs are
going overseas, it's that there are too many regulations--and too many
bizarre regulations--that are forcing companies out of this country
just so they can stay in business.
We must continue to empower businesses to create jobs, increase
investment, and keep production capabilities right here at home. Not
only does that produce a strong economy; it keeps a strong middle
class. This bill does just that by letting us stand strong in our
commitment to America's job creators. It's just disappointing that we
have to bring this bill forward over an administration and a
bureaucracy that doesn't understand the success of this country's last
200 years.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
The previous speaker's claim that the National Labor Relations Board
is dictating where jobs go in America is utterly incorrect. If any
company said, We want to move from State A to State B because we think
the State tax structure in State B is more favorable to us, they have
an absolute right to do so. The issue is whether they can move because
they want to discourage and undercut the right of collective
bargaining. If they want to destroy collective bargaining, they can.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a
very persuasive voice for the working families of America, the
gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2587.
In Hawaii, we believe in fairness and respect. We believe that
working men and women should be able to come to the table, have a voice
in their workplaces, be able to negotiate for fair wages and benefits.
This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across our
country.
Right now, what working men and women need most are champions in
their corner, champions who are fighting for real jobs. Instead, this
bill takes aim at our working families. It's another direct assault on
them and on workers' rights.
Let's face it. Companies today can move their business operations for
any business reason at all except for an illegal one. Today,
retaliating against workers who want to organize and join a union is
illegal. This bill changes that. It says companies can go ahead. You
can move your jobs to other States or even to other countries to punish
your workers who want to organize and have a voice. This would have a
chilling effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the
bargaining table. Workers have already taken big hits in their
paychecks and in their retirements over the years.
We should not make it easier for businesses to game the system. I
urge my colleagues to fight against this bill and to stand with the
working men and women of this country.
Aloha.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank Chairman Kline for yielding me this time and
for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor. I thank
Congressman Scott of South Carolina for his leadership in introducing
this legislation, and I thank all those who join with me in supporting
what I think is an important job-creating bill for this country.
It's important not just in right-to-work States, like South Carolina
or Virginia; but it's important in States that don't have protection of
workers under right-to-work laws, like Washington State, because
businesses both in this country and overseas that are looking to invest
are not going to look in places where they can be subsequently
restrained from being able to expand their business--and that's what is
happening here. They're expanding their business to another State if
they locate in a place where that can happen to them.
They are also not going to locate in right-to-work States. No. When
they need to expand, they're not going to have any statement about what
their intentions are or why they're doing it, as is the case with most
companies. They're simply going to locate in China or Taiwan or
Thailand or India or in 100 other countries around the world that are
very friendly and welcoming to employers who want to grow and expand
businesses. Unless the United States changes this law and restrains the
National Labor Relations Board from making these kinds of decisions,
we're going to suffer greatly in job loss.
So this is a great job-creating bill. I encourage my colleagues to
support the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act that
amends the NLRA to prohibit the NLRB in future and pending cases from
ordering an employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under
any circumstances.
This is an important measure. This will not just save 1,000 jobs in
South Carolina. This will save hundreds of thousands of jobs across
this country. It will ensure that employers have greater freedom to
make one of the most basic management decisions: where to locate a
business.
[[Page H6201]]
{time} 1140
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Virginia just said that this bill restrains
companies from growing jobs. Here's what it restrains. It restrains
from saying to a worker who dares to stand up and bargain for
themselves and fight for themselves, ``You're fired.'' That's what it
restrains; and it should restrain that, because that's our law.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one
of the most passionate voices for working Americans in the modern
history of this country, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. The National Labor Relations Act was a New Deal
initiative which helped save American capitalism by creating a process
which would protect the rights of employees and employers. This was
before NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, which tore legal rights for workers
apart, moved millions of jobs out of the U.S.
Yes, we stand for the workers at Boeing in Washington State, but we
also stand for the workers at Boeing in South Carolina, because they
will have no recourse if Boeing wants to move jobs to China.
You can't say you want to create jobs here at home while destroying
the rights of workers to organize, the right to collective bargaining.
These are basic rights in a democratic society.
You can't say you want to protect American jobs and not protect
American workers. Take away workers' rights to free speech, take away
workers' right to due process and you create a new class of slave
laborers here in the United States who are helpless to stop the
movement of jobs out of America.
This bill not only sacrifices the rights of Boeing workers in
Washington State, it also sacrifices laws that are designed to protect
workers' rights. It's an attack on all American workers.
It's one thing to take the side of the boss or the owners; it's
another thing to take the side of the boss or the owners when they want
to move jobs out of America.
Stand up for the American workers, stand up for workers' rights,
stand up for American jobs, and stand up for employers who want to keep
jobs in the United States.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Kline.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about jobs. The first thing I want
to do is correct this ridiculous notion that this bill causes jobs to
go overseas. I would argue it does just the opposite.
Just like Dr. Roe, I grew up in a union household. My father was a
United Mine Worker, and that's why I am here today. I was elected to
Congress to protect all workers, not just a select few.
Ninety-three percent of American workers are not in a union; 7
percent are, in the private sector. The National Labor Relations Board
complaint is an attack on American job creators.
Again, I was elected to protect all workers, not just a select few.
The NLRB's decision to punish Boeing for creating 1,100 new jobs is
just another example of the administration abusing its position to
advance a biased agenda. I want to remind everyone no jobs were taken
from Washington State.
This is a straightforward bill that prohibits the NLRB from ordering
an employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any
circumstances. This bill will create an environment necessary for
employers to develop their businesses in the State that offers the best
opportunity--and, I would argue, in the best country that offers the
best opportunity--to grow and create jobs and not have this left up to
a board of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and let's get America back
to work.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a
daughter and sister in a union family who doesn't forget where she came
from, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2587, a bill I call
the ``Outsourcing Bill of Rights.''
Especially during these difficult economic times, we have come
together to do the patriotic thing--protect and create jobs here at
home.
This legislation eliminates the NLRB's already limited authority to
order an employer to restore work taken away in a wrongful way. By
passing this bill, we are telling our Nation's workers we cannot and we
will not help them. Plain and simple, if this bill passes, it will lead
to increased outsourcing of jobs. Further, the bill will make certain
that employers will not be held accountable.
My colleague on the other side just mentioned that 93 percent of
American workers are not unionized, and I also would like to bring up
the point that we have seen wages across this country going down and
yet we have seen the profits in corporations going up. That's why we
are in the situation we are in right now.
I come from a union family, and I am proud of that. It was able to
give us the education that we needed, for my father and mother to be
able to buy us a home. That, we're not seeing today. Why? Because we're
hitting the workers. Why did we have unions in the first place? To give
them a voice.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. In my opinion, the
corporations should be a little bit more patriotic and start hiring
people so we can get this economy going and make this great country
what we are. America can go forward, but not without good pay for our
workers.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this
issue and so many others on the Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the NLRA is supposed to balance the rights of employees,
employers, and the general public, but you would never know that from
the recent actions of the NLRB. This unelected group of executive
branch recess appointees has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and
has become, frankly, nothing more than a taxpayer-funded law firm for
Big Labor.
Boeing is the most glaring example of their overreach, but it is not
the only one. At a time when union membership is at a historic low, the
NLRB seeks to give Big Labor a historically high level of influence
with this administration, whether it's quickie elections or mandating
advocacy posters in the workplace or this, the economic death penalty.
The NLRB is out of control and it needs to be reined in so it does not
do even more damage to this fragile economy.
With respect to the bill at hand in which my friend and colleague Mr.
Scott seeks to remove a single remedy from the arsenal of the NLRB,
leaving a dozen other remedies, this bill simply says that you cannot
force Boeing to close a billion-dollar facility, which is already being
constructed in Charleston, and fire the thousand workers who have been
hired and send the work back to Washington State, which is tantamount
to the economic death penalty. Not a single worker has lost a job or a
benefit in Washington State, Mr. Speaker, when Boeing started this
separate, distinct supply line.
The NLRB thinks a company should stay in a union State no matter how
many work stoppages there are, no matter how many customers have
threatened to go do business somewhere else because they can't get
their planes on time, no matter how many fines have been paid because
of late delivery of airplanes because of work stoppages, no matter
what. No matter how much money is lost, Mr. Speaker, the NLRB thinks
that Boeing should have to stay in a union State because it planted a
flag originally in a union State.
This Congress has limited civil remedies when they have been abused.
This Congress has limited criminal remedies whether they have been
abused. And this Congress must limit administrative remedies when they
are being abused, as they are now. Even the Chicago Tribune, Mr.
Speaker, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, acknowledges that
the NLRB is out of control.
I will ask my colleagues on the other side the same question I asked
Lafe
[[Page H6202]]
Solomon, the general counsel for the NLRB. Can you name me a single
solitary worker who has lost a job because of Boeing's decision to
start a separate line of work in North Charleston? Can you name me a
single solitary worker who has lost a benefit or suffered any
recrimination, any reparation because of Boeing's decision?
Mr. Speaker, if this administration were serious about job creation,
they would have reined in this agency a long time ago. They did not,
and we must.
{time} 1150
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
My friend who just spoke indicated that this decision, or attempt by
the NLRB, would destroy jobs in South Carolina. That's not accurate. On
page 8 of the NLRB's complaint, it says the relief requested by the
NLRB does not seek to prohibit respondent, Boeing, from making
nondiscriminatory decisions where work will be performed, including
work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.
At this point I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a strong, progressive voice for working
people in the United States.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.
When the President spoke in this Chamber last week, he urged us to
focus on jobs. Believe me, this outsourcer's bill wasn't what he had in
mind. He demanded that we move urgently to create new jobs, certainly
not jeopardize the ones we already have. This outsourcer's bill of
rights is nothing more than a gift to the majority's corporate cronies.
It gives unscrupulous employers the green light to retaliate against
workers, to punish them for engaging in union activities, or for
fighting for their rights as workers. And they do that by saying that
it is perfectly okay to pick up and leave town, and they do that after
the president of Boeing actually admitted the reason they were moving
to South Carolina was because there was too much union activity in
Seattle. That is retaliation, my folks.
Someone tell me how exactly is this supposed to revive our economy?
It's part of the Republican vendetta against workers and their
collective bargaining rights. It's part of their orchestrated assault
on the labor movement that built the American middle class. This is not
the time to be undermining or threatening the job security of any
American. It is time to defeat this bill and move immediately to pass a
big, bold jobs bill, one that will put America back to work.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 14 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. KLINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Then at this time I will yield 2 minutes to another member of the
committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2587, the
Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, of which I am a
cosponsor. Representing a district in the State of Alabama, a right-to-
work State, the current activist agenda of the National Labor Relations
Board greatly concerns me.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the NLRB objectively
applies the law written by the people's elected representatives.
Congress must also work to ensure that labor interests are not
undermining the employer's efforts to create jobs. At a time when
millions of individuals are unemployed and searching for work, public
officials in Washington should look to provide greater certainty to
America's employers so they can grow businesses and create new jobs,
not hinder them.
Unfortunately, the recent rulings and proceedings of the NLRB have
demonstrated otherwise. I enter this letter of support of H.R. 2587
from the Associated Builders and Contractors of Alabama in the
Congressional Record. ABC represents over 800 commercial construction
companies in my State, all of whom are concerned that the NLRB has
abandoned its role as a neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor law in
order to promote the special interests of unions. The Federal
Government, especially the NLRB, has no right to dictate where a
company can or cannot create jobs. The Protecting Jobs From Government
Interference Act will provide employers with the certainty they need to
invest in our economy and put Americans back to work right here at home
in the United States.
Associated Builders
and Contractors, Inc.,
Birmingham, AL, July 29, 2011.
Dear Congressman Roby: On behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors of Alabama (ABC), that represents 800 commercial
construction companies in our state, I am writing to express
our strong support for H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from
Government Interference Act. ABC urges House Members to
support H.R. 2587 and will consider this vote a ``KEY VOTE''
for our 112th Congressional Scorecard.
Alabama being a right to work state, this bill further
strengthens what your constituents feel is in the best
interest of Alabama.
For more than a year, the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) has moved forward with an agenda that is stifling job
creation and economic growth. The NLRB's decisions, proposed
rules, invitations for briefs and enforcement policies
demonstrate that the agency has abandoned its role as a
neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor law in order to promote
the special interests of politically powerful unions.
Recent rulemakings and decisions by the NLRB will have
negative implications for workers, consumers, businesses and
the economy. These actions inevitably will reduce employee
access to secret ballots; limit an employer's ability to
effectively communicate the impact of unionization to its
workers (``ambush'' elections); trample private property
rights; invite greater union intimidation of employees,
consumers and small businesses; and limit the ability of U.S.
businesses to quickly and flexibly adjust to the demands of a
changing economy and global competition.
The NLRB has also taken unprecedented steps to mandate
where and how one company--Boeing--can operate and expand its
business. The federal government has no right to dictate
where a company can or cannot create jobs. The Protecting
Jobs from Government Interference Act would encourage
investment in our economy by guaranteeing that businesses and
entrepreneurs retain the ability to decide where to conduct
business and where to locate jobs.
At this time of economic challenges, it is unfortunate the
NLRB continues to move forward with policies that threaten to
paralyze the construction industry and impede job growth.
With an unemployment rate exceeding 15 percent, ABC members
and construction workers cannot afford this burden.
ABC urges House Members to support H.R. 2587 and will
consider this vote a ``KEY VOTE'' for our 112th Congressional
Scorecard.
Sincerely,
Jay Reed,
President.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the most
effective leading voice for working people in America today, the senior
ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, my friend
from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding
and for that nice introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this legislation,
H.R. 2587.
This special interest bill is a job killer. It is simply a job
killer. It was spurred by a particular case involving a Fortune 500
corporation, The Boeing Company. But this bill is not just about
Boeing. This bill is really about working Americans all across this
country, and they should pay very careful attention to this bill and to
this debate because it affects their livelihoods, their ability to
support their families, the safety of their jobs at work, the
conditions under which they work, and their ability to participate
through their increased productivity in higher wages and better
conditions.
This bill takes those rights away from workers, from all workers, all
across the country. This isn't just about whether you belong to a union
or not. This is about whether or not your employer can retaliate
against you by taking your work away, by sending your work down the
road or out of the country. It makes it easier to outsource because you
simply, in response to a request by workers that they might share in
the profits of the company, they might have higher wages, their work
can disappear in an arbitrary fashion. And they have to understand that
that's what happens under this legislation.
For the first time in 70 years, American workers in the workplace
will not be protected. They will not be protected for the right to have
a grievance against the employer for their wages or
[[Page H6203]]
for the benefits that they are paid because the employer, for the first
time in 70 years, will have the ability to say: Well, if you need more
wages and you want more wages, you know what I'm going to do, I'm going
to take your jobs and I'm going to outsource them. I'm going to send
them to China. I'm going to send them to India. I'm going to send them
to another part of the country because I'm not going to pay higher
wages. Today, that's illegal. Under this law, it will not be. They can
take your job and your work away from you. We've got to understand what
that means.
We just saw that wages have taken one of the largest hits in a decade
in this country. We have seen, as workers fail to organize in the
workplace, wages have continued to go down. And at the same time, we
have seen the CEOs and the management of companies take out tens of
millions of dollars a year for each and every one of them, but not
share it with the workers. They have decided that they'll take the
increased productivity of the most productive workers in the world, the
American worker, and they'll take that increased productivity and
they'll take it for themselves. They won't continue the bargain that we
have in this country that if you work hard, you'll be able to improve
your lot in life. And so we've seen wages have stagnated in this
country. And now this. If you try to get better wages, if you seek to
improve your lot in life, if you seek to improve the ability of your
kids to go to school, to provide for your family, your work can be
taken away. This is a first in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This is a first in America. We must
repudiate this on behalf of families that are struggling all across the
country, those who are fortunate enough to continue to have a job, but
they can't have a job living under this threat that they won't be able
to better themselves if their employer decides to be selfish, decides
to retaliate against them for seeking to organize to do something on
their behalf. It's a fundamental part of the contract in America for
workers. It doesn't exist in a lot of other parts of the world, but it
does here. It has led to the middle class in this country, and it's the
middle class that is threatened by this legislation.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say on the previous speaker that we
have a czar to control these executive pays, and so if that czar is not
doing his job, that's another problem we need to address.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From
Government Interference Act. After the unprecedented actions by the
National Labor Relations Board early this year, I was proud to join the
gentleman from South Carolina and support this legislation.
Right now, our economy is suffering, and that suffering is felt even
more in the South where States like Georgia and South Carolina have
unemployment rates higher than the national average. We need to
encourage companies to invest in those States most hard-hit. The Boeing
plant in South Carolina directly created thousands of jobs in South
Carolina, and indirectly through suppliers and construction created
hundreds more.
{time} 1200
Instead, the President has once again overstepped his executive
authority and allowed the union attack dog to threaten to shut down the
plant in South Carolina, jeopardizing thousands of jobs.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2587 and stop the
National Labor Relations Board from killing jobs.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
We don't have a czar controlling executive pay in this country. We
have executives acting like czars outsourcing jobs around the world and
ruining the middle class. That's the problem in the United States.
It is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to the Democratic
whip, who strongly understands the value of collective bargaining, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, the issue here has been raised by a case that is not
yet concluded. Let me state that again: the issue raised in this
legislation is reference to a case that is not yet concluded and seeks
to interpose our judgment for the finder of fact and law's judgment.
Normally, we believe that's a bad practice in a Nation of laws, not of
men.
Secondly, this bill shows clearly a basic difference between many of
us on this side and many on that side of the aisle, and that is whether
or not you believe that working men and women have the right to come
together to organize and to bargain collectively for their pay, their
benefits, and their working conditions. In fact, it is my belief that
the overwhelming majority of working Americans, whether or not they
have joined such an organization, find their workplace safer,
healthier, their pay better, and more availability of benefits than
they would have if men and women had not been guaranteed the right to
bargain collectively, for which they fought and some died in the 1930s
and 1940s and later, because people did not want them to do that. They
wanted to say: I don't care how much money we make, this is your
portion.
Now, we see superathletes not stand for that if they're in the NFL or
in the NBA or the NHL. We understand that. They see their enterprises
making great money because they're great players. But the owners want
to pay them what they need to pay them. Why? Because they want to
maximize profits. I'm for that. That's the free enterprise system.
So we set up a system where we can bargain and we can come to a fair
resolution. But this bill says that the concomitant of that right,
which is that the employer cannot retaliate for the exercising of a
legal right, will be jettisoned. That's what this bill says pretty
simply. Yes, you have the right to bargain collectively; but if we
don't like what you're doing, we're taking a hike. We're going to
retaliate.
I do not decide today whether or not that will be the finder of fact
and law's conclusion in this case. I don't know that Boeing did that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I do not know whether that will be the ultimate
conclusion, whether Boeing in fact violated the law by retaliating. And
I've told my friends at Boeing that I don't know that that's going to
be the conclusion. But I do know this: I am for working men and women
having the right that they've had for some 70 years. And I believe that
working men and women in America, organized or unorganized, are better
off because we adopted a law to protect that right. Do not jettison.
And I close with this. I quote from a letter sent by hundreds of
professors with expertise in this area: ``We are dismayed that a single
complaint should be the basis for so fundamental a reversal of
longstanding law.''
Do not take this step. Reject this bill. Vote ``no.''
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the
committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.
Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, unions have been about protecting workers.
As a physician, I know that one of the major reasons for the increase
in life expectancy between the first and second half of the last
century was due in large part to increases in worker safety, which were
brought about by actions of unions.
I grew up in a union household. In fact, when my father was injured
on the job, it was his union that helped represent him in court and put
food on the table for my family. Too often, today's unions are more
about politics and protecting their clout than protecting workers.
This change in focus is exemplified by a Boeing union newsletter that
stated that ``2,100 bargaining unit positions may be lost,'' if Boeing
located a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina. Not jobs, not
employees, not brothers and sisters, but bargaining
[[Page H6204]]
unit positions. These employees were reduced to nothing more than a
number.
Employers must have the ability to locate where they can find the
best employees, period. I worry that if the NLRB takes away that
ability and prevents them from creating jobs in a right-to-work State
like South Carolina, what does that mean for other right-to-work States
like my State of Nevada, the State hardest hit by the recession and
with the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. Would the NLRB take
similar action against a company trying to create jobs in Nevada?
That's a risk Nevadans cannot afford to take.
H.R. 2587 maintains an employer's ability to locate where they can
find the best employees; and that is why I support this legislation,
and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
leader who's leading the fight against outsourcing and for collective
bargaining, the minority leader of the House Democrats, the gentlelady
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for
his tremendous leadership on behalf of America's workers. Thank you,
Mr. Andrews, for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, across the country, Americans of every political party
and every background--Democrats, Republicans, independents, and
others--agree that our Nation's top priority must be the creation of
jobs and economic growth and security. Yet for more than 250 days, the
Republican majority in the House has refused to listen to them. They,
the Republicans, have failed to enact a single jobs bill. And the
American people do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for
Congress to act to create jobs.
The President has proposed the American Jobs Act. He's called upon us
to pass the bill now. We support that, as do the Democratic Members of
the House. But today, instead of passing a jobs bill, we are wasting
the time of the Congress by attacking workers instead of strengthening
them. We are debating a bill to undermine the foundation of our middle
class instead of fighting to put people to work rebuilding our roads,
bridges, railways, broadband lines, schools, airports, and water
systems. We are voting on a measure to send jobs overseas instead of
focusing on how to keep jobs here at home through our Make it in
America initiative advanced by our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer. Make it
in America--how to strengthen our economy and our national security by
stopping the erosion of our manufacturing base, indeed, by
strengthening our manufacturing and industrial base.
I want to recognize my colleague, Congressman George Miller, the
ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his
leadership, his knowledge, and not only his intellect but his passion
and tireless advocacy on the subject of America's workers. As
Congressman Miller has said, our Republican colleagues have proposed
the so-called outsourcers' bill of rights or as I prefer to call it,
the Outsourcers' Bill of Wrongs--because this legislation has the wrong
priorities for America's economy and for American workers.
{time} 1210
The bill is about more than one company or a single case; it is about
the economic security of America's workforce and families.
Rather than create jobs, this measure encourages the outsourcing of
jobs and undermines the rights of middle class workers. This bill cuts
the National Labor Relations Board, makes it easier for corporations to
ship jobs overseas, and 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 a full
day's work.
For months in Wisconsin, Ohio, and States nationwide, Americans have
seen Republican Governors and legislatures attack teachers and public
servants. And we've seen these workers, union and nonunion alike,
inspire the Nation to fight back. Now Republicans have brought their
assault on working Americans to our Nation's Capitol, to the floor of
the House, claiming their actions will help the economy. But it will do
just the opposite. It will weaken our workers, our middle class, and
our families--indeed, the cornerstones of our economic prosperity, of
our middle class, and of our democracy.
The ``Outsourcers' Bill of Wrongs''--or Rights--is not about jobs;
it's about dismantling protections established specifically to
strengthen the rights of workers. We need these protections now more
than ever.
Listen to this: Last year, American companies created 1.4 million
jobs overseas--overseas--while raking in enormous profits. We must
create these jobs here at home.
Democrats will stand strong for our working men and women. We will
stay focused on jobs and economic growth.
On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, the other night I had one of the
thrills of my political lifetime. I received--such an honor for me--the
Frances Perkins Award from my colleague, Lynn Woolsey, a champion for
working families in our country.
For those of you who may not know Frances Perkins from history, she
was the first woman to serve in the Cabinet of a President of the
United States. She was the Secretary of Labor. And she was responsible
for many important initiatives: the 40-hour workweek, the ability for
workers to bargain collectively. She was a remarkable champion for
working people in our country. She was largely responsible for creating
Social Security. Imagine having that as her credentials. Imagine what a
thrill it was for me to receive an award named for her, especially
given by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a champion on the Education and
Workforce Committee.
Much of what she did, the credit was given to the President of the
United States, as is appropriate. More than 75 years ago, upon the
signing of the National Labor Relations Act, President Franklin
Roosevelt said this:
``By preventing practices which tend to destroy the independence of
labor, this law seeks, for every worker within its scope, that freedom
of choice and action which is justly his.'' I guess he could have said
his or hers.
That ``independence,'' that ``freedom of choice and action'' has
rested at the core of a growing, thriving American workforce. It has
not limited the ability of companies to move, change, or extend their
operations. It has simply ensured that companies treat their workers in
ways consistent with the laws of our land.
The independence and freedom of our workers have helped build and
expand our middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy, and
drive unprecedented prosperity for our families and for our Nation, and
it must be preserved in our time. I call upon my colleagues to do just
that, to preserve this right in our time.
I call upon my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to uphold the
value of fairness for our workforce, and to get to work putting the
American people back to work by bringing President Obama's bill, the
American Jobs Act, to committee and to the floor to again give people
hope and confidence and the dignity of a job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline)
has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation on behalf of the American public that has had enough; on
behalf of those tens of millions of people who pay their taxes, live
within their means, and give their hand to a neighbor in need, for they
have had enough; on behalf of those like Boeing, whose innovation,
entrepreneurship, and technology ensures that more moms and dads will
not have to witness a flag-draped coffin bringing their son or daughter
home from a land far away, for they, too, have had enough. I rise on
behalf of those like my dad, who fought and bled against tyranny to
make sure that the future that he gave to his children would be a
future of freedom, for those, too, have had enough.
Mr. Speaker, there is no defending the overzealous oligarchs at the
National Labor Relations Board. Their actions are a symptom of a
regulatory board gone amuck. In fact, the irony of
[[Page H6205]]
this is that if Boeing wants to escape their reach, their jurisdiction,
the only way to do so is to move overseas, which is contrary to what
any of us want when we want jobs here in America. Nowhere in America
should your government be able to tell you what you can or cannot do
just because they believe what your intentions are.
Mr. Speaker, this administration needs to stop reading minds and
start reading the Constitution. The Boeing decision is a vivid reminder
that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And we could dismiss it if it
were only an isolated case, but it is not. Americans have endured an
administration that fines American citizens for not buying a product,
raids--with guns drawn--an American guitar manufacturer for not
shipping jobs overseas, conducts aerial searches and seizures of
American businesses without their knowledge, and orders Federal
employees not to speak to Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, free enterprise is not the problem; it is the solution.
And, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the other side may say, labor is not
the enemy. Labor is the backbone of the American economy. But both
should be aware of a government that can tell you what to do just
because of what you think, and both should be aware of a government
that can tell you what to buy just because they think that's what you
need.
I pray that this legislation is the cornerstone of a renewed free
market citadel called America. The reign of the regulator is over. The
American people want their country back, and there are still patriots
in this House.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I'm sure the gentleman did not mean to imply that those of us who
take our side are not patriots. We think patriotism includes the right
to freely and collectively bargain, and we stand for it.
I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to a widely respected
advocate of the people of the State of Washington, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this outsourcing
bill and its tenor.
If you want to change what's legal or illegal, then this body should
address those issues. But this bill won't change what's legal or
illegal; it will simply stop current law from being enforced.
The NLRB is a law enforcement body. It follows an independent,
adjudicative process.
{time} 1220
If we want to change the laws it enforces, that's subject to debate,
but this bill won't do that, and that's why I'm opposing it.
I haven't taken a position on the case that brings us here today, and
I don't intend to here, but I can say this firmly: Elected officials
should not be politicizing an ongoing adjudicative process. Politics
should not interfere with justice in this or any other case.
I won't support a bill that doesn't change the underlying law but
only changes the ability of those we've charged with enforcing it with
the ability to do so. Don't allow one controversy to sully Uncle Sam's
ability for justice in this country.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for
his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill.
I want to start by making a comparison and contrasting the events
recently in the great State of South Carolina with that of my home
State of Arkansas.
In Arkansas, aerospace is one of our top exports. We have more jobs
in Arkansas affiliated with the aerospace industry than any other
sector of our manufacturing economy. With aviation manufacturers like
Hawker Beechcraft and Dassault Falcon, thousands of Arkansas families
enjoy high-paying jobs. Communities, schools, and small businesses are
all positively impacted by the aviation industry's choice to locate in
Arkansas. But, Mr. Speaker, if the NLRB had had their way, none of this
would have ever been a reality in my home State of Arkansas.
The recent action by the NLRB is a case of massive overreach,
overreach that attempts to tell a business where and when they should
locate their businesses that employ people and create jobs. You see,
Mr. Speaker, South Carolina, along with Arkansas, are right-to-work
States. Right-to-work States focus on fostering economic conditions
that allow the private sector to create jobs and prosper.
And again, not a single job was lost as a result of Boeing's decision
to open another manufacturing plant in the State of South Carolina. Yet
the NLRB chose to attack the private sector once again. And that's just
indicative of this administration's economic agenda that focuses on
growing government instead of creating jobs and growing our economy.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the NLRB decision sets a dangerous
precedent. This bill is the first step to limit the government
overreach that threatens Arkansas companies and job creators all across
the country.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a person
who understands the international implications of economic growth and
collective bargaining, my good friend from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the proponents of this legislation to look
at this fact situation:
Let's assume there was compelling evidence that an employer decided
to move a production line from one part of the country to another part
of the country because he wanted to find a workforce that was white and
not African American or not Latino, or that was much more likely not to
have women applying to work on that manufacturing line than where he
was located. Would anyone here suggest there should be a bill that,
notwithstanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, should let that
employer, with a discriminatory motive and a racist intention, move his
plant for that reason?
This is not a bill about what an employer can or cannot do. This is a
bill about motivation. The Civil Rights Act, 1964, the right of
employees to organize, form unions, bargain collectively, and to
prohibit employers from retaliating against that, 75 years ago.
If you really want to have the job creators do whatever they want, as
you like to say, get rid of the workers' right to choose, get rid of
collective bargaining, remove the protections against discrimination,
against unions, but don't pretend you're trying to do something for
reasons that disguise the motivation for the reason.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again about the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KLINE. I will inform my colleague from New Jersey that I am
expecting another speaker; so at this time I will reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a passionate
voice to fight the ravages of outsourcing in our country, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I stand in strong opposition, Mr. Speaker, to this
bill.
The National Labor Relations Board exists to ensure that companies do
not discriminate against workers who exercise their rights under
Federal law. That protection prevents the illegal offshoring of
American jobs.
In 2000, for example, a California jewelry manufacturing company took
aggressive action to discourage its employees from organizing, a right
that is protected under Federal law. When the company failed, it
announced plans to relocate its operations to Mexico. The Board was
able to prevent this from happening.
Using the authority this bill would eliminate, the Board prevented
the company from moving American jobs to Mexico. If H.R. 2587 is
enacted, companies will be able to ship jobs overseas in retaliation
against American workers exercising their rights.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2587 is part of a larger campaign to attack
workers'
[[Page H6206]]
rights. That campaign includes an investigation by the Oversight
Committee into the Board's ongoing prosecution of The Boeing Company
for allegations of illegal retaliation against workers in Washington
State for exercising their rights under the law.
A Washington Post editorial warned that the committee should not
``sabotage'' this ongoing legal process. And 34 law professors urged
the committee to let the Board do its job without interference.
Instead, the committee issued a subpoena, threatened contempt, and even
intimidated NLRB attorneys trying to do their job.
If H.R. 2587 becomes law, even if Boeing is found to have violated
workers' rights, no remedy will exist to restore those rights to
workers. Nobody interested in protecting American jobs should support
this bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2587.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute
to a gentlelady who favors job creation over outsourcing, the
gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2587 should be really called the
``Death of the Workers Rights Act.'' This amends the National Labor
Relations Act of 1935. And remember why that act was created. We were
in the Great Depression.
So why was it then passed? Because workers could join unions even
back then, but they could be fired for joining the union and for
striking. Does that sound familiar? This caused great labor unrest in
this country, a country that was struggling to get back on its feet.
Remember, we are a country of workers. Workers made this country, and
workers will continue to make us the great country that we are.
What the NLRA said was workers could organize to act in a concerted
manner for mutual aid and protection. This act basically eliminates the
remedies if that right is violated.
Now, remember, the NLRB must prove that these protected rights were
violated. They just simply can't go in and act willy-nilly. They have
to prove these allegations.
There will be no rights for these workers if this bill is allowed to
pass.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that we have two speakers, a
gentleman from Virginia and one from Texas who apparently are not going
to be able to get here on time; so I will be closing when Mr. Andrews
has exhausted his speakers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 1
minute to a gentlelady who has been a fierce advocate for jobs for New
York City but, more importantly, for all of America, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 2587. This bill, which was rammed through committee without so
much as a legislative hearing, does not create or protect jobs, in
spite of its misleading title. What this bill does is give American
workers an unfair choice: your rights or your job.
H.R. 2587 creates an open season for CEOs to punish workers for
exercising their rights. This bill allows companies to relocate or
eliminate jobs in retaliation against employees who exercise their
right to organize, strike, or engage in collective bargaining activity.
{time} 1230
This Republican-sponsored bill accomplishes this by eliminating the
National Labor Relations Board's power to order work be restored or
reinstated. In practical terms, this would mean that if a CEO wanted to
punish workers for organizing or striking, the CEO could simply choose
to relocate or eliminate the work and thereby eliminate the worker
without fear of being held accountable.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and vote it down today.
Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the back-and-forth in this debate,
there's a lot of different points and I'm sure some confusion that
flows from that. But the debate's really pretty simple, and it's about
one question: If a group of people working at a business in this
country chooses to try to organize a union and bargain collectively for
their wages and their working conditions, and the employer is
discomforted by that and the employer comes in and says, ``I don't like
the fact you're trying to form a union and bargain collectively and
assert your rights, so I'm moving to Malaysia. I'm out of here,''
should that be legal or not? We believe emphatically it should be
illegal.
To say to American workers that they dare to speak up for themselves,
they dare to assert their rights, they dare to bargain collectively,
therefore their jobs could be moved overseas is wrong. It is illegal
today to do that.
Now, in the Boeing case, a judge will decide whether or not Boeing
did that. If the judge decides that Boeing didn't, the case is over. If
the judge decides that Boeing did, then there will be remedies that
would lie against Boeing.
But this is what this case is really about, this issue is really
about, this bill is really about in the lives of daily Americans. How
many of our constituents are sick and tired of making a call about
their credit card or some other account and realize that the person in
the call center at the other end is in Asia and has no idea what
they're talking about?
If you want more outsourcing, if you think the problem in America is
that too many jobs are being created here and we do more for other
countries around the world, then this is your bill. But if you've had
it with outsourcing, if you want jobs to be created in America, what we
ought to do is defeat this bill and rapidly bring to the floor the jobs
plan the President of the United States stood in this Chamber last week
and proposed.
Let's stop creating jobs around the world and start creating jobs
around America. Let's stand up for collective bargaining, and let's
defeat this bill.
Statement of Professors From Colleges and Universities Across the
United States on HR 2587
HR 2587, currently being considered by the House of
Representatives and endorsed by a majority of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, would amend the
National Labor Relations Act to take away from the NLRB the
ability to remedy unfair labor practices involving the
removal of work or the elimination of jobs by requiring
employers to undo their unlawful actions. As scholars of law
and labor policy, we are deeply concerned about the far-
reaching impact this bill would have on employees' basic
rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to engage in
other concerted activities protected by the NLRA.
The language of the proposed amendment to the Act is
sweeping. It provides that the Board shall have no power to
order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to
restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or
equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer,
subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the
location, entity, or persons who shall be engaged in
production or other business operations. This language has
been justified by the bill's sponsors and critics of the
Board as a response to the NLRB Acting General Counsel's
actions in issuing a complaint against Boeing Corporation. As
such, it would prevent the Board and the courts from
directing Boeing to restore work to its employees in
Washington State in the event that the company is found to
have illegally moved the work in retaliation for those
workers' exercise of legally protected rights.
But that unprecedented interference with a pending legal
proceeding for the benefit of a particular employer is not
all that the bill would do. If enacted, HR 2587 will
eliminate the ability of the NLRB and the courts to
effectively remedy any discriminatorily motivated decision to
transfer work from employees or eliminate their jobs not for
legitimate business reasons, but because the employees have
engaged in union or other NLRA-protected activity. It will
also eliminate any meaningful remedy for an employer's
refusal to bargain with a union in circumstances where it is
required to do so before transferring or contracting out work
performed by workers the union represents.
The Board has long held that moving jobs from one facility
to another or shutting down a particular operation to avoid
unionization or to punish workers for engaging in protected
activity violates a basic policy of the Act, that of
insulating union activity from economic reprisal.\1\ The same
is true of discriminatorily motivated decisions to
subcontract or outsource work.\2\ The standard remedy for
such a violation, regularly affirmed by the Federal Courts of
Appeals, is an order to the employer to return the work that
has been unlawfully eliminated or removed.\3\ In the
interests of economic efficiency, however, the Board will not
require restoration of work if the employer can show that it
would be ``unduly burdensome'' to do so.\4\
An order to restore work that has been eliminated or
removed is also the standard
[[Page H6207]]
remedy in cases where the employer's actions were taken in
violation of its duty to bargain. In unionized workplaces,
employers have a legal obligation to bargain over certain
decisions affecting where and by whom bargaining unit work is
performed. If the employer acts unilaterally, without first
bargaining with the union until the parties reach agreement
or are at impasse, the Board routinely orders the employer to
rescind the unilateral action and restore the work until the
duty to bargain has been satisfied, subject again to the
``unduly burdensome'' standard.\5\
If HR 2587 becomes law, the Board will be precluded from
ordering this common-sense relief. Employers will be able to
eliminate jobs or transfer employees or work for no purpose
other than to punish employees for exercising their rights
and the Board will be powerless to direct the employer to
return the work regardless of the circumstances.
Without the ability to order a unionized employer to bring
back work that has been unilaterally transferred or
outsourced in violation of the duty to bargain, the Board
will also be unable to insure that employees, through their
union, are able to engage in meaningful bargaining over such
decisions.
We are dismayed that a single complaint, not yet tried by
an administrative law judge argued to the Board, or ruled on
by the courts, should be the basis for so fundamental a
reversal of long-standing law. The legal theory on which the
Acting General Counsel's complaint against Boeing is based is
thoroughly consistent with existing law. Contrary to the
claims of critics, the Acting General Counsel is not seeking
to dictate where Boeing assigns work, but only to insure that
such actions are not taken in retaliation for workers'
exercise of rights protected by the NLRA. In fact the
complaint itself specifically states that ``the Acting
General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from
making nondiscriminatory decisions with respect to where work
will be performed, including nondiscriminatory decisions with
respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina,
facility.''
But as we have shown, the impact of HR 2587 would go well
beyond overruling the Acting General Counsel's actions in the
Boeing case. If enacted, it will give tacit permission to
employers to punish any segment of their workforce that
chooses to unionize or to exercise the right to strike by
eliminating their jobs. It will allow unionized employers who
find it convenient to ignore their duty to bargain with the
union before transferring or eliminating bargaining unit work
to act unilaterally without concern for legal consequences.
Employers will be able to eliminate lines of work, hire
subcontractors, switch jobs to non-union facilities or
transfer them out of the country in violation of the NLRA--
secure in the knowledge that the Board will be unable to
order it to undo those actions.
In the Committee report regarding the bill, the majority
states, ``To ensure employees can continue to exercise their
rights under federal labor law, the NLRB will continue to
have more than a dozen strong remedies against unfair labor
practices to protect workers and hold unlawful employers
accountable.'' However, the report does not list those
remedies and we are at a loss to identify them. The Board's
remedial power under existing law is already severely
restrained. The Board cannot impose sanctions. It may not
seek to punish wrongdoers. It cannot impose fines; it cannot
require anything that would amount to a new contract between
the parties. If the bill passes, the Board will have no
effective response to basic unfair labor practices.
The Committee majority seeks to justify the reducing of
employee rights and Board authority by claiming that it is
merely strengthening the employer's right to make basic
business decisions, including where and how to invest its
resources. We reject the premise that restoring work to those
who would perform it were it not for the employer's unlawful
action violates an employer's basic entrepreneurial rights.
The policy of restoring victims to the position they would
have been in had it not been for unlawful conduct is common
throughout our legal system, and it represents no more than a
recognition of simple justice.
endnotes
\1\ See, for example, Frito-Lay, Inc. 232 NLRB 753 (1977)
(employer violated the Act by shutting down plant and
transferring the work to another facility in response to a
union organizing campaign); Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857
(1989) (same).
\2\ See, for example, Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730
(1987) (employer's subcontracting of trucking work violated
Act because purpose was to avoid bargaining with union). See
also Aguayao v. Quadrtech Corp., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (C.D.
Cal. 2000) (granting the Board's request for an injunction
stopping an employer from moving its California operations to
Mexico in retaliation for union organizing).
\3\ See, for example, Mid-South Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 876
F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming appropriateness of Board
order directing bottling company to reopen a distribution
facility closed because employees voted for union
representation); Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 843
F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding Board order requiring
employer to restore trucking operations transferred to
another facility after employees engaged in union organizing
campaign); Statler Industries, Inc., 644 F.2d 902 (1st Cir.
1981) (approving Board order directing employer to restore
office jobs relocated to another facility in order to
frustrate union organizing activity).
\4\ Lear Siegler, Inc., supra, 295 NLRB at 861.
\5\ The Board's authority to order such a remedy in refusal
to bargain cases was expressly affirmed by the supreme Court
in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203
(1964), which upheld a Board order directing an employer that
contracted out the work of its maintenance employees without
first bargaining with the employees' union to resume
maintenance operations and reinstate the employees. The Court
said the order restoring the status quo ante ``to insure
meaningful bargaining'' was well-designed to promote the
policies of the Act and had not been shown to impose an undue
burden on the employer. Id. at 216.
Institutions and affiliations listed for identification purposes only
SIGNED:
Julius Getman, Professor and Chair, School of Law,
University of Texas at Austin
WITH:
Richard L. Abel, Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor
of Law Emeritus, UCLA Law
David Abraham, Professor, University of Miami School of Law
Mimi Abramovitz, Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor of Social
Policy, Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College,
CUNY
Doug Allen, Visiting Professor, Labor Studies and
Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University
Sally Alvarez, Faculty, School of Industrial and Labor
relations, Cornell University
Edwin Amenta, Professor, Sociology, University of
California
Robert Angelo, Professor Emeritus, School of Management and
Labor Relations, Rutgers University
Fran Ansley, Professor of Law Emeritus, Law, University of
Tennessee College of Law
John Archer, Ph.D., Professor, English, New York University
Elisabeth Armstrong, Associate Professor, Program for the
Study of Women and Gender, Smith College
Rachel Arnow-Richman, Professor of Law & Director Workplace
Law Program, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver
Steven Ashby, Prof., Full Clinical Professor, School of
Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
James Atleson, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus,
University at Buffalo School of Law
Tom Auxter, Dr., Professor, Philosophy, University of
Florida
Rick Bales, Professor and Director of Center for Excellence
in Advocacy, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern
Kentucky University
Regina Bannan, Ph.D., College Professor, American Studies,
Temple University
Mark Barenberg, Professor, Columbia University Law School
Bill Barry, Professor, Labor Studies, Community College of
Baltimore County
Rosalyn Baxandall, Professor, American Studies, HAW
Frieda Behets, Professor, Epidemiology, University of North
Carolina
Janice R. Bellace, Samuel Blank Professor of Legal Studies,
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
David Bensman, Professor, Labor Studies and Employment
Relations, Rutgers University
Elaine Bernard, Ph.D., Executive Director, Labor and
Worklife Program, Harvard Law School
Cyrus Bina, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics,
Division of Social Sciences, University of Minnesota
Ann Blum, Professor, Department of Hispanic Studies,
University of Massachusetts Boston
Ross Borden, Teacher, English, SUNY Cortland
Eileen Boris, Professor, Feminist Studies and History,
University of California, Santa Barbara
Enobong Branch, Professor, Sociology, UMass Amherst
Renate Bridenthal, Ph.D., Professor (retired), History,
Brooklyn College, CUNY
Ralph Brill, Professor, Law, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago Kent College of Law
Peter D.G. Brown, Distinguished Service Professor, New
Paltz, SUNY New Paltz
David Brundage, Professor, History, University of
California, Santa Cruz
Robert Bussel, Associate Professor and Director, Labor
Education and Research Center, University of Oregon
Larry S. Bush, Professor Emeritus, University of
Mississippi School of Law
Susan M. Carlson, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sociology,
Western Michigan University
Kenneth M. Casebeer, Professor of Law, University of Miami
School of Law.
Ramona Caswell, Instructor, Chemistry, MNSCU
William Charland, Associate Professor, Art, Western
Michigan University
Kimberly Christensen, Ph.D., Faculty member, Economics,
Sarah Lawrence College
John W. Cioffi, Associate Professor, Political Science,
University of California
Marc Cirigliano, Professor, Arts, SUNY Empire State College
Paul Clark, Professor & Dept. Head, Labor Studies &
Employment Relations, Penn State University
Dan Clawson, Professor, Sociology, Univ of Massachusetts
Amherst
[[Page H6208]]
Peter Cole, Professor, History, Western Illinois University
Reyes Coll-Tellechea, Associate Professor, Dept of Hispanic
Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston
Dave Colnic, Associate Professor, Political Science and
Public Administration, CSU Stanislaus
Martin Comack, Ph.D., Adjunct professor, Government,
Massachusetts Bay Community College
Angela Cornell, Law Professor, Law School, Cornell
University
Marion Crain, Wiley B. Rutledge Professor and Director,
Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Work & Social
Capital, Washington University in St. Louis Law
Ellen Dannin, J.D., Professor of Law, Dickinson School of
Law, Penn State
Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, J.D., Ph.D., Willard and Margaret
Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law, Maurer School of
Law, Indiana University
Rev. Dr. E-K Daufin, Ph.D., Professor, Communications,
Alabama State University
Neill DeClercq, Professor, School for Workers, Univ.
Wisconsin--Extension
Charles Derber, Professor, Sociology Department, Boston
College
Alan Derickson, Ph.D., Professor, History, Penn State Univ.
Amy Dietz, Lecturer, LSER, Penn State University
Jan Dizard, Professor, Anthropology/Sociology, Amherst
College
Corey Dolgon, Professor and Director of Community-Based
Learning, Department of Sociology, Stonehill College
Kate Drabinski, College Teacher, Gender and Women's
Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Oliver Dreher, Management, Sales, Comex
Melvyn Dubofsky, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of History
& Sociology Emeritus, History, Binghamton University, SUNY
Michael C. Duff, Associate Professor of Law, University of
Wyoming College of Law
Lynn Duggan, Professor, Labor Studies, Indiana Univ.
Bloomington
Maxine Eichner, Professor of Law, UNC School of Law
Debra Emmelman, Professor, Department of Sociology,
Southern Connecticut State University
Cynthia Estlund, Catherine A. Rein Professor of Law, NYU
School of Law
Barbara Fick, Associate Professor of Law, University of
Notre Dame Law School
Eric Fink, Associate Professor, School of Law, Elon
University
Paula Finn, Labor Educator, Murphy Institute, CUNY
Kade Finnoff, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics,
University of Massachusetts Boston
Dr. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Krister Stendahl
Professor, Harvard Divinity School
Matthew W. Finkin, Albert J. Harno and Edward W. Cleary
Chair in Law, Center for Advanced Study Professor, University
of Illinois College of Law
Michael Fischl, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut
School of Law
Catherine Fisk, Chancellor's Professor, School of Law,
University of California--Irvine
Milton Fisk, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy, Indiana
University
William E. Forbath, Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law,
University of Texas School of Law
Miriam Frank, Ph.D., Professor, Liberal Studies, New York
University
Michael Friedman, Ph.D., Professor, English and Theatre,
University of Scranton
Mary O. Furner, Ph.D., Professor, History, University of
California, Santa Barbara
Rita Gallin, Dr., Professor Emerita, Department of
Sociology, Michigan State University
Ruben Garcia, Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of
Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Rebecca Givan, Assistant Professor, ILR School, Cornell
University
Michael J. Goldberg, Professor of Law, Widener University
School of Law
Nancy Goldfarb, Visiting Assistant Professor, English,
IUPUI
Alvin Goldman, Professor of Law Emeritus, College of Law,
University of Kentucky
George Gonos, College Professor, Sociology, SUNY at Potsdam
Colin Gordon, Professor, History, University of Iowa
Jennifer Gordon, Professor of Law, Fordham University
School of Law
Stathis Gourgouris, Ph.D., Professor, Comparative
Literature, Columbia University
Jeff Grabelsky, Mr., Labor Educator, Labor Relations,
Cornell University
Lois Gray, Professor, LLRD, Cornell University
Marc D. Greenbaum, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law
School
Joseph R. Grodin, Distinguished Emeritus Professor,
University of California Hastings College of the Law
Anthony Gronowicz, Dr., Professor, Social Science, CUNY
Lawrence Grossberg, Distinguished Professor, Communication
Studies, University of North Carolina
Marilyn Hacker, Professor Emerita, Department of French,
CUNY Graduate Center
John Hammond, Professor, Sociology, Hunter College and
Graduate Center, CUNY
Desales Harrison, Associate Professor, English, Oberlin
College
John Hess, Professor, English/American Studies, University
of Massachusetts Boston
Tobias Higbie, Associate Professor, History Department,
UCLA
Jeffrey Hirsch, Associate Professor, University of North
Carolina School of Law
Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond
School of Law
Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor and Sidney Reitman
Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law
Amy Ickowitz, Assistant Professor, Economics, Clark
University
Elizabeth M. Iglesias, Professor of Law & Director of
Center for Hispanic & Caribbean Legal Studies, University of
Miami School of Law
M. Thandabantu Iverson, Dr., Asst. Prof., Indiana
University Labor Studies Program, School of Social Work
Elizabeth Jameson, Professor, History, University of
Calgary
Jeanette Jeneault, College Instructor, Writing, Syracuse
University
Hilmar Jensen, Associate Professor, History, Bates College
Tom Juravich, Ph.D., Professor, Sociology/Labor Center,
UMass Amherst
Michelle Kaminski, Associate Professor, School of Human
Resources & Labor Relations, Michigan State University
Jonathan Karpf, Lecturer, Anthropology, San Jose State
University
Kathleen Kautzer, Associate Professor, Department of
Sociology, Regis College
Stephanie Kay, Senior Lecturer, University Writing Program,
University of California, Riverside
Patricia Keely, Faculty, Cell Biology, University of
Wisconsin
Robert Keohan, Associate Professor, English, Merrimack
College
Alexander Keyssar, Stirling Professor of History and Social
Policy Chair, Democracy, Politics, and Institutions, Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University
Assaf J. Kfoury, Professor, Computer Science Department,
Boston University
Marlene Kim, Dr., Professor, Economics, University of
Massachusetts
Lisa Klein, Professor, Materials Science & Engineering,
Rutgers University
Sherryl Kleinman, Professor, Sociology, UNC, Chapel Hill
James Korsh. Ph.D., Professor, CIS, Temple University
John Kretzschmar, Director, Institute for Labor Studies,
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Max Krochmal, Assistant Professor, History, Texas Christian
University
Gordon Lafer, Professor, Labor Education & Research Center,
University of Oregon
Joan Landes, Ferree Professor, History & Women's Studies,
Pennsylvania State University
Frederic Lee, Professor, Economics, University of
Missouri--Kansas City
David Lenson, Professor, Comparative Literature, UMass
Dan Letwin, Associate Professor, History, Penn State
University
Charles Levenstein, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Work
Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell; Adjunct
Professor of Occupational Health, Tufts University School of
Medicine
Joseph Levine, Professor, Department of Philosophy,
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Penelope Lewis, Assistant Professor, Joseph S. Murphy
Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies, City
University of New York
Alex Lichtenstein, Associate Professor, History Department,
Indiana University
Nelson Lichtenstein, MacArthur Foundation Chair in History,
Director, Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and
Democracy, University of California, Santa Barbara
Risa L. Lieberwitz, Professor of Labor and Employment Law,
School of Industrial & Labor Relations, Cornell University
John Logan, Professor and Director of Labor and Employment
Relations, College of Business, San Francisco State
University
Stephanie Luce, Associate Professor, Murphy Institute, City
University of New York
Margaret Lucia, Professor, Music & Theater, Shippensburg
Univ. of Pennsylvania
Dennis O. Lynch, Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus,
University of Miami School of Law
Catherine Lynde, Associate Professor, Economics Department,
University of Massachusetts Boston
Jon Lyon, Associate Professor, Biology, Merrimack College
Deborah Malamud, AnBryce Professor of Law, New York
University School of Law
Debbie Maranville, Professor of Law and Director, Clinical
Law Program & Unemployment Compensation Clinic, University of
Washington School of Law
Marian Marion, Ph.D., Professor, Education, Governors State
University
Gillian Mason, Lecturer in English and American Studies,
Suffolk University, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Kent Mathewson, Dr., Geographer, Geography & Anthropology,
Louisiana State University
Michael Mauer, Professor, Labor Studies, University of
Illinois at Urbana--Champaign
Joseph A. McCartin, Professor, History, Georgetown
University
John McGowan, College Professor, English, University of
North Carolina
Robert Meister, Professor, History of Consciousness,
University of California
Jack Metzgar, Professor Emeritus, Humanities, Roosevelt
University
Carlin Meyer, Professor & Director, Diane Abbey Law Center
for Children and Families, New York Law School
Peter Meyer, Professor Emeritus, Urban & Public Affairs,
Univ. of Louisville
Ruth Milkman, Professor, Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center
[[Page H6209]]
Angela Miller, Dr., Professor, Art History, Washington
University
John Mineka, Professor, Mathematics, CUNY
Susan Moir, ScD, University Researcher, CPCS, UMass Boston
Charles Morris, Professor Emeritus, Dedman School of Law,
Southern Methodist University
Tracy Mott, Associate Professor & Department Chair,
Economics, University of Denver
George Muedeking, Emeritus Professor, Sociology, CSU
Stanislaus
Chris Nagel, College Faculty, Philosophy, CSU Stanislaus
Ruth Needleman, Ph.D., Professor, Leadership & Social
Justice, Calumet College of St. Joseph
David Nikkel, Dr., Professor, Philosophy and Religion,
University of North Carolina--Pembroke
Bruce Nissen, University Professor, Center for Labor
Research and Studies, Florida International University
Carl Offner, Industry Professor of Computer Science,
Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
Colleen O'Neill, Associate Professor, History, Utah State
University
Diana Orem, Assistant Professor, Psychology, CSU Stanislaus
Michal Osterweil, Lecturer, Global Studies, UNC Chapel Hill
Henry Owen, Professor of Botany, Biological Sciences,
Eastern Illinois University
David Ozonoff, MD, MPH, Chairman Emeritus and Professor of
Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Boston
University
Frances Fox Piven, Distinguished Professor, Graduate
Center, City University of New York
Dana Polan, Professor, Cinema Studies, New York University
James Gray Pope, Professor, Rutgers University School of
Law
Laura Punnett, Professor, Department of Work Environment
and Co-Director, Center for the Promotion of Health in the
New England Workplace (CPHNEW), School of Health &
Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Gretchen Purser, Professor, Sociology, Maxwell School of
Syracuse University
Angela Melina Raab, Adjunct Professor, University of Texas
School of Law
Robert J. Rabin, Professor of Law, Syracuse University
College of Law
Liz Recko, Coordinator of Assessment and Testing and
Instructor, Psychology, Berkshire Community College
Adolph Reed, Jr., Professor, Political Science, University
of Pennsylvania
Chris Rhomberg, Associate Professor, Sociology and
Anthropology, Fordham University
Charley Richardson, Former Director, Labor Extension
Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Benjamin Robinson, Associate Professor, Germanic Studies,
Indiana University
Tom Roeper, Professor, Department of Linguistics,
University of Massachusetts South College
Brishen Rogers, Assistant Professor, Temple University
Beasley School of Law
Beth Rosenberg, ScD, MPH, Assistant Professor, Department
of Public Health & Community Medicine, Tufts University
School of Medicine
Emily Rosenberg, MS, Director, SNL, Labor Studies, DePaul
University
Robert Ross, Professor of Sociology, Clark University
Mary Russo, Ph.D., Professor, Humanities, Hampshire College
Francis Ryan, Dr., Visiting Assistant Professor, History,
Temple University
Marjorie Sanchez Walker, Dr., Professor, History,
California State University Stanislaus
Richard Savini, University Professor, Art Department,
California State University
Patrici Sawin, Associate Professor, Anthropology,
University of North Carolina
Paula Schmidt Mrs., Lecturer, English, CSU Stanislaus
Jennifer Schuberth, Professor, Religion, Portland State
University
Berger Sebastian, Dr., Professor, Economics, Dickinson
College
Karin Shapiro, Visiting Associate Professor, History, Duke
University
Jennifer Sherer, Ph.D., Director, Labor Center, University
of Iowa
Snehal Shingavi, Professor, English, The University of
Texas at Austin
Laurence Shute, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Economics,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Louise Simmons, Ph.D., Professor, School of Social Work,
University of Connecticut
Joseph E. Slater, Eugene N. Balk Professor of Law and
Values, University of Toledo College of Law
David Smith, Professor, Sociology, UC--Irvine
Betsy Smith, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of ESL, Language and
Literature Department, Cape Cod Community College
David Whitten Smith, S.T.D., S.S.L., Emeritus Professor,
Theology; Justice and Peace Studies, University of St. Thomas
Carol Smith, Dr., Retired Faculty, CCNY, Dept. of Special
Programs, CUNY
Jeffrey Spear, Professor, English, New York University
Susan J. Stabile, Robert and Marion Short Distinguished
Chair in Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Theodore J. St. Antoine, Professor Emeritus of Law, Law
School, University of Michigan Law School
Howard Stein, Professor, DAAS, University of Michigan
Joan Steinman, Distinguished Prof. of Law, Law, Chicago--
Kent College of Law, Ill. Inst. of Tech.
Katherine V.W. Stone, Arjay and Francis Miller
Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Ann Strahm, Assistant Professor, Sociology, CSU Stanislaus
Jill Strauss, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Sociology of
Conflict, John Jay College, CUNY
Mary Rose Strubbe, Professor, Law, ITT Chicago--Kent
College of Law
Stephen J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Professor, Philosophy, Edinboro
University of Pa.
April Susky, Academic Advisor/Professor, Student Success,
University of Alaska Southeast, Sitka Campus
Gerald Swanson, Dr., Professor (retired), Science, Daytona
State College
Kim Tan, Professor, Accounting & Finance, California State
University Stanislaus
Mark Tauger, Dr., Professor, History, West Virginia
University
Donald Taylor, Assistant Professor, Labor Education--School
for Workers, University of Wisconsin
Daniel Thau Teitelbaum, M.D., Adjunct Professor,
Occupational and Environmental Health, Colorado School of
Public Health, University of Colorado Denver
Paul Thompson, Professor, Associate Professor, Film and
Television, New York University
Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Professor and Chair, Sociology,
Univeristy of Massachusetts
Robert Vaden-Goad, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Mathematics,
Southern Connecticut State University
Adrienne Valdez, Faculty member, Center for Labor Education
and Research, University of Hawaii--West Oahu
Joseph Varga, Professor, Labor Studies, Indiana University
Steven Volk, Professor, History, Oberlin College
Paula Voos, Professor, School of Management and Labor
Relations, Rutgers
Katherine Walstrom, Ph.D., Professor, Div. Natural
Sciences, New College of Florida
Devra Weber, Professor, History, University of California,
Riverside
Eve Weinbaum, Director, Labor Studies, UMass Amherst Labor
Center
Marley S. Weiss, Professor of Law, University of Maryland
School of Law
Martha S. West, Professor of Law Emerita, University of
California Davis School of Law
Ahmed A. White, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for
Research, University of Colorado School of Law
Lucy Williams, Professor of Law, Northeastern University
School of Law
John Willoughby, Dr., Professor, Economics, American
University
Steve Wing, Associate Professor, Department of
Epidemiology, University of North Carolina
Michael J. Wishnie, Clinical Professor, Yale Law School
Goetz Wolff, Professor, Urban Planning, UCLA
Marty Wolfson, Director of the Higgins Labor Studies
Program, Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame
John Womack, Jr., Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin
American History and Economics, Emeritus, History Department,
Harvard University
Nan Woodruff, Professor, History, Penn State University
David Yamada, Professor of Law, Law School, Suffolk
University Law School
Alex Zukas, Professor, Social Sciences, National University
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is always an interesting debate on the floor. This has been
another example. We have some fundamental differences in how we view
the problems and, more importantly, the solutions facing our country.
Both sides recognize that we have high unemployment, historically
high, with 30 months of unemployment over 8 percent, 14 million
Americans out of work. Both sides want the economy to grow and people
to get back to work. But one side believes that more regulations--by
the last account some 219 in the pipeline coming from this
administration--more regulations, more spending money that we don't
have, more government interference will somehow get Americans back to
work; and the other side, Mr. Speaker, believes that employers, the
private sector, small businesses, entrepreneurs, middle-size businesses
and large businesses create jobs, put Americans to work.
Now, the National Labor Relations Act, as has been discussed, has
been around for a long time. Neither side is suggesting that Americans
don't have the right to organize and to bargain. I beg to differ with
my colleagues on the other side. That's not what this is about.
But what we have here is a case where the act creates a board which,
by
[[Page H6210]]
its nature, changes back and forth, depending upon who's in the White
House, so that it has more Democrats one time and more Republicans
another. And so I would argue and have argued that for some time, the
board, in enforcing the act, is causing some whipsaw of the economy.
I'll concede that.
But right now with this board, I would argue that, as one of my
colleagues on the other side said, there was an agenda over here. I
agree, there is an agenda. The board has an agenda.
There is a rainfall, a torrent of rulings coming out of this board
that strike at the heart of American job creators that create jobs. One
of those rulings--and I agree that it's an interim ruling. It's a
ruling by the acting general counsel. One guy looks at the actions that
a major American company has taken to create more jobs, to spend a
billion dollars, build a plant in South Carolina, hire over a thousand
people. One guy says, No, I don't think so. I think, says he, this is a
transfer of work and it's in retaliation; I think that.
So it's been pointed out this is an ongoing process. And one of my
colleagues in the committee said, Well, nothing bad has really happened
here. Let's let this play out.
No, no. I beg to differ.
Go to Charleston, South Carolina. Talk to those thousand employees
about their future and the uncertainty that this brings. Talk to the
companies who are looking at creating jobs, starting businesses in this
country and are looking at this ruling and the threat this poses and
reconsidering their actions.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a choice. We can stand, we can
sit, we can watch, or we can step up and try to help Americans get back
to work in America by stopping this action and the threat that it poses
to companies across America.
So I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Let's get
Americans back to work in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called ``Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.'' It's a
nice name for a bad bill.
This bill is not about protecting American jobs or American workers.
It's about protecting big businesses who want to move jobs out of
American communities without consequence. It's about forcing American
workers to accept the lowest common denominator rather than standing up
for fair pay and safer working conditions.
For more than 75 years, federal law has guaranteed employees the
right to organize without threat of retaliation. If workers decide to
form a union, the company can't punish them by moving operations down
the street or out of the country. But this bill would allow companies
to retaliate with impunity by stripping the National Labor Relations
Board of its power to enforce that law.
Today's legislation is a response to an ongoing dispute between the
NLRB and Boeing. I understand that many of my colleagues have strong
opinions on that issue, but it is not the business of this Congress to
legislate on an individual case. It is not appropriate to dismantle the
enforcement mechanism to secure a result for any party.
This bill makes sweeping changes to worker protections and would have
severe consequences. Rather than creating a single job, it would give
employers free rein to eliminate jobs or move them overseas to punish
workers for exercising their rights.
Mr. Speaker, this bill strips fundamental protections from American
workers, leaving them and their jobs less secure. It turns back the
clock on 75 years of employment law. It is the wrong direction for
America, and I urge my colleagues to reject it today.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by the bill the
Republican majority is bringing to the floor today. While I am used to
the Republicans attacking new protections for American workers, this
bill attacks and removes long-standing enforcement provisions of the
National Labor Relations Board, virtually eliminating its protection
for U.S. workers.
This bill prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from carrying
out its mandate to prevent unfair labor practices and would even allow
companies to move outside of the United States to avoid union
organizing. In other words, this bill makes it easy for companies to
outsource jobs to other countries in order to avoid paying our workers
family wages, providing health benefits, and meeting basic safety and
environmental obligations.
Under current law, it is illegal to retaliate against workers for
union activity or to threaten workers to discourage union activity. Not
only does the bill remove the power from the National Labor Relations
Board to block such retaliation or threats, but the bill even prevents
the Board from seeking such an order. Our laws may set forth strong
worker protections, but this bill prevents the exercise of those
protections, reducing those promises to empty words.
It is appalling to me that the Republican majority is considering
rolling back provisions that have protected workers for decades. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this ill-considered legislation.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2587, the misleadingly named ``Protecting Jobs From Government
Interference Act.''
This legislation, if enacted, would gut key provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act, a law which has ensured the right of
working Americans to fight for better working conditions, a better
salary, and better benefits for themselves and their families for more
than 75 years.
H.R. 2587 would strip from the National Labor Relations Board the
ability to take action against any employer that has been found to
violate the law by closing an office, relocating a plant or firing
workers in retaliation for exercising their rights to organize or
petition for fairer benefits.
Even worse, passage of this legislation would open the door for
companies to engage in the practice of illegally moving jobs overseas.
In the past, the NLRB has been able to take action against companies
that have attempted to move their operations overseas who do so with
the clear goal of punishing employees for exercising their fundamental
organizing rights.
This legislation would open the door to wholesale off-shoring of U.S.
jobs at a time when this Congress should be discouraging such behavior.
A bill of this magnitude, which would set back decades of established
labor law and precedent, should be considered in a much more
deliberative manner.
I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to vote in favor
of working Americans and to oppose this legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal opposition to H.R.
2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This
devious legislation carries on in my Republican colleagues' fine
tradition of masking hard truth with pithy and inaccurate turns of
phrase. H.R. 2587's goal is not to protect jobs, but rather to neuter
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the protections it
affords America's working men, women, and their families.
In point of fact, H.R. 2587 will prohibit the NLRB from reinstating
production lines closed as retaliation for union activities. The bill
will also prevent the Board from issuing any order that rescinds any
relocation, transfer, subcontracting, or outsourcing of work by a
company as retribution for union activities. As I have said, this bill
does nothing to offer increased protections to American workers. It
will, however, protect union-busting activities by businesses that are
still sitting on billions of dollars and asking for a tax holiday for
repatriated profits, yet all the while making precious little effort to
add new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are using a
pending dispute between the NLRB and a certain airplane manufacturer to
justify the supposed need for this abominable legislation. H.R. 2587 is
explicit proof of the Republican Party's strong desire to wipe out the
very unions that built this country's middle class and make sure
American workers have no better protections that their brethren in
third-world countries.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is critical
to prevent the National Labor Relations Board from disrupting business
and job growth by ordering an employer to relocate.
The purpose of this board is to protect workers, not to leave them in
fear that their jobs may be relocated on the whim of the Board's
members.
The NLRB has no place in telling businesses where they can operate.
Businesses create jobs, not the government.
In this economic climate, the last thing we need is for businesses to
have any more anxiety preventing them from hiring more workers.
Boeing, who the NLRB has attacked, is creating jobs in both South
Carolina and Washington.
With the attempt by NLRB to force Boeing to move the newly created
jobs in South Carolina to Washington, jobs will now be lost in South
Carolina.
Texas like South Carolina is a Right to Work State.
Businesses that operate in non-Right to Work States should not have
to be intimidated from opening up locations in Right to Work States
like South Carolina and Texas because of concerns that moving to these
states will be considered ``transferring'' work.
[[Page H6211]]
The NLRB should not have the power to force the relocation of a
business.
It has over a dozen other remedies to protect workers.
The National Labor Relations Act needs to be amended to prevent this.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which is
an attack on the fundamental rights of working men and women.
We are debating this bill at a time when roughly 13\1/2\ million
Americans are unemployed and the labor force participation rate is
still at a low--not seen in over a generation. This House should be
focused on paying our bills, creating jobs, strengthening the middle
class, and protecting workers rights. Instead, the Republican Majority
has brought a bill to the Floor that does nothing to help our economy
or create jobs, but instead makes it easier for corporations to send
American jobs overseas and allows employers to punish their employees
for exercising their rights to organize and ensure a full day's pay for
an honest day's work.
H.R. 2587 will strip the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of its
authority to enforce basic labor protections, and will allow employers
to openly discriminate against union workers. With this bill, companies
will be allowed to outsource jobs and intimidate and fire workers
without repercussions in retaliation for American workers who exercise
their rights under current U.S. law.
Mr. Speaker, the assault on union employees is happening across the
country from Wisconsin, to Ohio, and now right here in the House of
Representatives. We must not let it continue if we want to preserve our
nation's middle class which is in serious decline. There is no question
that the unions have contributed to building the middle class in this
country.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union workers are more
likely than non-union workers to be covered by health insurance, and
receive pension benefits and paid sick leave. We must not ignore the
critical role that unions have played in building America by helping
improve the wages and working conditions of union and non-union jobs
alike.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families, for a stronger
middle class, and a growing economy. For more than 75 years, federal
law has provided Americans the right to join together in unions and
bargain for fair pay and benefits and safer working conditions. I
pledge to fight to maintain those rights and protections and urge a no
vote on this harmful legislation.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This
legislation, should it become law, would destroy a pillar of America's
economic prosperity when we need it most. The bill strips the National
Labor Relations Board of its ability to sanction companies that
retaliate against employees seeking to exercise a basic constitutional
right.
The facts of the case, though often misreported or obscured by
partisan disdain for working people, are clear. Under a federal statute
that has been in force since 1935, workers at the Boeing Corporation
complained that the corporation moved a manufacturing plant to a
different state in direct retaliation for labor strikes. The National
Labor Relations Board, as is prescribed in the same statute,
investigated the case. As part of their investigation, NLRB
investigators collected evidence from both parties. The NLRB has not
yet determined whether this evidence warrants a complaint against
Boeing. In short: the process which has been in place for more than 75
years is working as designed, but it has not been completed. This bill
would halt the investigation of this legally introduced complaint, and
it would gut the statute that governs the relationship between workers
and bosses.
At a time when the President and others have correctly argued that
the U.S. government should not be assisting corporations to ship jobs
overseas, we are gutting the U.S. government's role in ensuring that
workers have a fighting chance to improve their lives, provide for
their families, and keep quality jobs.
We should all be in this together: workers, corporations, and the
federal government. We ought to be working as a team to boost U.S.
efforts to remain competitive in a tough global economy. The American
middle class today faces devastating attacks on its health care,
retirement security and real wages, while corporate profits and CEO
salaries are skyrocketing. I strongly oppose this misguided effort to
gut protections for America's workers.
The fact is that under the NLRA, a corporation may outsource jobs for
practically any reason, just not for an illegal reason. Under the law,
due process protects corporations and workers, ensuring that both sides
have their say. In fact, even if the NLRB rules that Boeing has acted
illegally, a decision would not infringe Boeing's--or any
corporation's--right to open manufacturing facilities anywhere. They
just can't do it to punish the workers they rely on to compete.
This legislation throws those critical worker protections away for
the short sighted purpose of rewarding one Fortune 500 company that has
been able to compete globally in a tough business environment by hiring
qualified workers to build the best planes in the world. Now
Republicans in the House of Representatives want to turn those workers
and their families out on the street for exercising their right to
bargain.
In order to recover from the recession, the United States needs to
address the growing disparity in wealth in our country. Despite the
recession, corporations today are bringing home more profit than ever
before. Tax rates are the lowest they have been in decades. What
corporations need is consumers, and if we don't protect the middle
class through sensible, longstanding safeguards such as those set out
by the NLRA, the economy will never recover.
Sadly, those on the other side of the aisle are desperate to return
to policies that created the recession. They want tax cuts for the
richest and deregulation across the board. We have seen this before,
and we know where it leads.
Future prosperity calls for a different approach. Collective
bargaining is part of one of the foundational rights set out in the
First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to free assembly. It has
worked for America's workers, it has been essential to the creation of
our broad middle class, and it is essential that we preserve it.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2587, or the ``Outsourcers' Bill of Rights.'' This bill would encourage
businesses to ship jobs overseas and weaken the rights of American
workers. There's never a good time for this kind of misguided
legislation, but it's hard to imagine a worse time than right now.
This bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
from directing an employer or company to restore or reinstate work that
has been unlawfully transferred, outsourced, or subcontracted away from
workers in retaliation for exercising their rights, such as organizing
a union.
Furthermore, it would apply retroactively to any complaint that has
not been resolved by the time of enactment. Its impact is dangerous and
wide-ranging. Simply put, this bill strips away the authority of the
NLRB to effectively remedy unlawful practices against workers.
This ill-timed legislation would effectively encourage companies to
outsource their jobs overseas. In 2000, the National Labor Relations
Board was able to force a company to bring jobs back to the U.S. from
Mexico, as the company was charged with shipping jobs to that country
in retaliation against workers seeking to organize a union. If this
bill passes, American workers would lose this critical protection.
For more than 75 years, federal law has provided Americans the right
to join together in unions and bargain for fair wages and safe working
conditions. As President Obama stated earlier this month, when it comes
to labor relations, ``we shouldn't be in a race to the bottom . . .
America should be in a race to the top.''
Mr. Speaker, the priority of Congress should be to raise the living
standards of the middle class and working families in America. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this bill and join the race to the top.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
2587, which is a misguided attempt to intervene in an ongoing labor
case and which has much broader and serious consequences for American
workers and American jobs.
Last April, the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued
a complaint in response to a petition alleging that Boeing Corporation
had located an aircraft production line in South Carolina. The charge
is that Boeing made the move to retaliate against Washington state
union workers who had exercised their legally-protected rights.
The April complaint didn't result in a final outcome--it just sent
the case to an independent administrative law judge who is now
considering arguments and evidence from both sides in the dispute. Even
if the judge finds that Boeing did discriminate against workers for
exercising their legal rights, Boeing could still argue that it would
have made this business decision anyway or that moving production back
to Washington state would impose an undue burden.
The bill before us is a response to a case that has not even been
decided and where the burden of proof is high. Congress--which passed
the laws under which the case is being adjudicated--should not
intervene to determine the outcome of this ongoing judicial proceeding.
More than that, Congress should not pass a bill with impacts that would
go far beyond the Boeing case and allow companies to ignore labor laws
by shipping jobs not just to another state but to another country.
[[Page H6212]]
In the past, the National Labor Relations Board has acted to prevent
companies from shipping jobs to countries like Mexico in order to avoid
legal organizing efforts by American workers. Such actions would be
impossible if this legislation were to become law. Union workers who
want to use legally-protected rights to improve workplace safety or to
maintain middle-class wages and decent benefits could see their jobs
shipped overseas--away from an American economy that is in desperate
need of more jobs, not fewer.
By creating these disincentives, H.R. 2587 would encourage a ``race
to the bottom.'' Even the threat of a plant shutdown would be a
significant disincentive to workers, who would have no remedy to ensure
enforcement of their legal rights. Workers could face a Hobson's
choice--either exercise legally-protected rights and risk their jobs
being shipped overseas, or forgo those rights and accept jobs that may
come with low wages, inadequate benefits, and dangerous working
conditions.
Rights are not rights unless they are enforceable. Workers will not
have a voice at work if any time they seek to speak out, they can see
their jobs disappear to another country.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this legislation. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
said about the National Labor Relations Act, which created the National
Labor Relations Board, that ``by preventing practices which tend to
destroy the independence of labor, it seeks, for every worker within
its scope, that freedom of choice and action which is justly his.''
This legislation today would seek to undermine that freedom of choice
and action by giving employers the ability to penalize workers who
choose to exercise their right to organize and encouraging companies to
move their jobs overseas. Make no mistake, the majority is using a
disagreement with one decision made by the NLRB as an opportunity to
make sweeping changes at the expense of the rights of workers across
the country. This is not what the American people want and is not the
direction we should be heading as a country.
Instead the opportunity we must take advantage of is the mandate that
the American public has given us which is to work together to ensure
that we are doing everything we can to create jobs and get our economy
going again. This divisive piece of legislation will only hinder that
effort to work in a bipartisan manner to reach the goal of reducing the
unemployment rate and thus reducing the deficit. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill and to get to work on creating jobs and growing our
economy.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2587, the
misnamed Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.
This bill dismantles key functions of the National Labor Relations
Board and guts more than 70 years of established labor law in our
country. If this legislation becomes law, it would eliminate nearly all
worker protections when companies illegally fire workers and close or
move plants in retaliation for union activities.
The proponents of this legislation claim that it will create jobs,
but it does no such thing. Instead, it creates a race to the bottom
with regard to workers' rights. This bill sends a message that we've
abandoned the American worker.
H.R. 2587 will encourage employers to move jobs to states with less
worker protections. It will also make it easier to outsource jobs to
other countries. In my district, we've seen plants close, thousands of
workers lose their jobs, and communities hurting as a result. We should
be creating good jobs in this country and ensuring that hard working
Americans don't have to give up their rights when they go to work in
the morning. One way we can do that is by voting against this misguided
bill and demonstrating that many of us in Congress still stand with the
American worker.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2587. In Hawaii, we believe in fairness and respect. We believe that
working men and women should be able to come together to have a voice
in their workplace, to be able to negotiate fair wages and benefits.
This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across the
nation.
Right now what working men and women most need are champions in their
corner: champions who are fighting for jobs. Instead, this bill aims
its fire at our working families. It's another direct assault on
workers' rights.
Because companies today can move their business operations for any
business reason at all, except an illegal one. Retaliating against
workers who want to join a union is illegal. This bill changes that.
It says companies can go ahead and move jobs to other states or even
other countries to punish their workers. This would have a chilling
effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the bargaining
table. And that's just wrong.
Working men and women have already taken a big hit in their paychecks
and retirements over the last few years. We shouldn't be making it
easier for businesses to game the system.
I urge my colleagues to stand with working men and women to fight
this bill and end these attacks on workers' rights.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago the National Labor Relations Act
was passed to give workers a say in the workplace--the right to
organize and bargain collectively. It was a key to the building of the
American middle class: a decent wage, health care, a pension.
The Republicans want to repeal the legislation of the last half of
the 20th century--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And now with
the bill before the House, the majority party begins to repeal the
National Labor Relations Act.
This bill's scope is monstrous. It prohibits the National Labor
Relations Board, in cases where an employer illegally acts against an
employee's right to organize, to ``rescind any relocation, transfer,
subcontracting, outsourcing'' anywhere.
This bill is part of the Republican effort to destroy the rights of
workers to be represented in the workplace. It is an open invitation to
the further outsourcing of jobs. It is vital to defeat this dangerous
piece of legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
strong opposition to H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government
Interference Act. This legislation does absolutely nothing to protect
jobs; in fact, it puts them at risk. A more accurate title for this
bill would be the Outsourcer's Bill of Rights.
This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 2587 guts
the National Labor Relations Act, renders the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for
worker's rights.
The National Labor Relations Act provides workers with essential
protections; protections that have resulted in a strong middle class.
This law prevents companies from retaliating against workers who
exercise their rights, such as the right to strike, petition for better
pay, demand safer working conditions, and form a union.
It is the National Labor Relations Act that prevents companies from
outsourcing or transferring, subcontracting or relocating jobs for
discriminatory reasons. The Act protects jobs by prohibiting employers
from taking work away from anyone--union or non-union--because they
have exercised their rights. Current law does not dictate where
companies can and cannot run their businesses; it merely ensures that
companies are not permitted to relocate to another state or to another
country in order to pay workers lower wages.
The National Labor Relations Acts protects the rights of American
workers, and keeps American jobs from being shipped overseas, so long
as the Act has an effective enforcement mechanism. The Protecting Jobs
from Government Interference Act strips that mechanism, the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of its ability to enforce the law by
ensuring jobs that are unlawfully outsourced are returned to America.
The NLRB, for example, was able to order jobs back to America from
Mexico in 2000, when the jobs were relocated overseas to prevent
workers from unionizing.
H.R. 2587 would not only prevent the NLRB from protecting jobs from
illegal outsourcing, it would also allow companies to subcontract work
away from unionized workers, and eliminate jobs done by pro-union
employees.
This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that
prevent employers from discriminating against workers that exercise
their rights to competitive wages, benefits, and safe working
environments.
I am extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to
create an atmosphere that forces hard working Americans to compete for
jobs based on who will accept the lowest wages, worst benefits, and
harshest working conditions. This bill creates a race to the bottom
that is simply not worthy of a great nation, and certainly not worthy
of America.
Time after time, throughout the 20th century, the nation turned to
the labor community to build infrastructure, supply the Armed Forces,
and manufacture the materials that constructed our great American
cities, and time after time, hard working Americans answered the call
and made this country great.
It appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
decided to repay the American workforce by forcing them to choose
between their rights and their jobs. The Protecting Jobs from
Government Interference Act protects nothing but special interest and
corporate profits by undermining the law that prevents discrimination
against Americans who simply want to exercise their rights.
This bill forces Americans to compete for lower wages instead of
strengthening the middle class by providing employees with competitive
wages, fair benefits and safe working conditions. I will fight, as I
have throughout my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by
protecting American jobs.
My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs,
and the Protecting
[[Page H6213]]
Jobs from Government Interference Act is no exception. In fact, this
reckless legislation threatens American jobs and undermines workers'
rights while safeguarding special interest. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this harmful legislation, and instead focus our efforts on a
bipartisan jobs bill that will foster a new age of American ingenuity
and prosperity.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2587.
H.R. 2587 would severely undermine the intent of the National Labor
Relations Act, which is to give workers and their employers a fair and
level playing field, and it is another flagrant attack on the
fundamental rights of the American worker. If this bill becomes law,
the National Labor Relations Board will be unable to impose a
meaningful penalty on an employer who violates the law by moving work
elsewhere solely to avoid employees who exercise their rights. This
bill sends a signal to American workers that the rights of
multinational corporations to outsource their jobs are more important
than their fundamental right to organize.
Mr. Speaker, the American Middle Class made this country great, but
predictions for its future are dire. We have had forty years of wage
stagnation for Americans, coupled with record corporate profits. Yet,
over 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past decade,
and since the start of the Recession alone, we have lost more than 7
million jobs. American workers today are already more vulnerable to
being fired without cause, more vulnerable to not getting severance,
and more vulnerable to being part of a mass layoff with little notice
than any worker in any other comparable western country--countries like
the UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, France and Germany.
This legislation will make the situation worse. This goal of this
bill is to snuff out the right of the American worker to seek justice
when their fundamental rights are trampled upon.
Do not be fooled. This bill is not about some lofty economic
principle of ``free movement of capital to invest where it sees fit.''
This is not about ``big government interfering with job creation.'' No,
this bill is about destroying unions and about interfering with an
ongoing legal proceeding brought by an independent agency tasked by the
United States Congress with protecting both employees and employers
against violations of our nation's labor laws. If you care about the
future of the American middle class and American workers, I urge you to
reject this bill.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 2587, the ``Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.''
This bill is before us because of an ongoing dispute between the
International Association of Machinists and the Boeing Company that
stems from an issue involving my district in Washington State.
The case is proceeding through a well-established process where the
facts of the case and the application of the law to those facts will be
determined by an Administrative Law Judge, the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB), and possibly the federal courts.
This case should be determined based on the facts and the law--not on
politics.
For this bill to come to the floor while this case is ongoing is
troublesome and threatens the independence of the NLRB.
Congress should not be attempting to influence the NLRB process for
political gains.
The NLRB is an independent adjudicatory agency.
We need to protect the independence of the NLRB and allow it to do
its job.
Instead of playing politics we should instead be focused on creating
jobs and getting our economy back on track.
Last week, the President challenged this Congress to put aside
partisanship and get to work on creating jobs.
The single biggest action Congress could take to save and create jobs
is make significant investment in our transportation infrastructure
that will create private sector construction jobs, invest in the repair
and maintenance of highways, roads, bridges and transit, and set the
foundation for future economic growth.
This is what we should be talking about today. Not attacking an
independent agency that is simply doing its job.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and allow the NLRB to
determine this case based on the facts and law--not on politics.
And let's get back to work doing what the American public wants us to
do--creating jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 372, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bishop of New York moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
2587, to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with
instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 4. PROTECTING U.S. JOBS FROM OVERSEAS OUTSOURCING.
Nothing in this Act or the amendment made by this Act shall
limit the National Labor Relations Board's authority to order
an employer to maintain or restore jobs within the United
States that have been or will otherwise be outsourced to a
foreign country in violation of the National Labor Relations
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would
prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer
to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance. Any
circumstance? What about jobs that are illegally outsourced to foreign
countries like China, India, and the Philippines?
Under the Republican bill, if a company sends an American job
overseas illegally, the NLRB is stripped of its authority to do
anything about it.
Why would any Member of this House intentionally want to allow
corporations to ship American jobs to China in violation of the law
amid the largest American jobs crisis in a generation?
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple, and it does not kill the
underlying bill. This final amendment simply maintains the National
Labor Relations Board's ability to go after corporations that illegally
outsource jobs overseas.
{time} 1240
This is just good old-fashioned common sense.
Again I ask, why would we say to corporations, ``Go ahead. Violate
the law. Ship good jobs to India and China. We'll just turn our heads
the other way''? That doesn't make any sense, and it would certainly
kill jobs here in America. Yet section 2 of the bill clearly states
that the board shall have no power to order an employer to restore or
reinstate any work product, production line, or equipment to rescind
any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, or outsourcing.
Let me say that again, ``or outsourcing.''
The bill makes no exception for violations of the law. Why would we
want to undermine enforcement of the law rather than address violations
of the law?
Chairman Kline just said that we have some fundamental differences.
He's right. We do. But if we can agree on nothing else, we should be
able to agree that outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries like
China and India is a scourge on our current efforts to create jobs here
at home and that we should do everything in our power to stop
outsourcing.
Mr. Speaker, outsourcing is a real problem for our economy. The
relentless pursuit of a less expensive workforce to the detriment of
the American worker is deplorable. Corporations all over the country
are moving the jobs of hardworking Americans overseas. Estimates
indicate that American jobs are being sent overseas at a rate of 12,000
to 15,000 jobs per month.
According to a study by Duke University, more than 50 percent of
companies have offshoring strategies in place, up from 22 percent in
2005. Furthermore, 60 percent of companies currently offshoring say
they have plans to aggressively expand outsourcing activities.
Finally, the Commerce Department tells us that the American companies
cut their workforces in the U.S. by 2.9 million workers over the last
decade while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.
Mr. Speaker, this final amendment does not kill the bill. It simply
allows
[[Page H6214]]
the cops to go after the robbers. It allows the NLRB to enforce the law
when someone violates the law. The amendment does nothing to prevent
private businesses from making decisions about where their operations
are best located as long as that activity is not in violation of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Again, this is just common sense. A vote for this final amendment is
a vote to protect American jobs from outsourcing. I urge my colleagues
to join me in protecting American jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KLINE. I appreciate the words of my colleague from New York, but
if he and others on the other side of the aisle are looking for a way
to stop jobs from going overseas, I've got really good news for him.
H.R. 2587 is a step in the right direction.
Right now, the National Labor Relations Board is exercising an
extreme remedy that has a chilling effect on job creators here and
potential job creators who would like to come here from abroad. And
right now, Members of Congress have an opportunity to say, ``Stop.''
But don't take my word for it. Listen to the employers, themselves.
Recently, the National Association of Manufacturers asked thousands
of American manufacturers a simple question about the Boeing complaint,
which was: Could this NLRB complaint negatively impact your decisions
on hiring or workforce expansion plans?
Sixty-nine percent of those manufacturers who responded to the survey
said, yes, this complaint could negatively impact decisions to grow
their businesses and hire new workers.
At a recent hearing of the Education and the Workforce Committee,
former NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber described an encounter with 60
Canadian business leaders. Mr. Schaumber told us, ``A few with whom I
had an opportunity to speak with afterwards expressed real concern
about doing business in the United States as a result of the agency's
complaint against the Boeing Company.''
Thanks to the NLRB's actions, efforts by manufacturers to hire
workers are being undermined, and international employers are concerned
about doing business here in the United States. This is the hostile
environment to new jobs and economic growth that is created by this
decision, and it must end.
So, as I noted earlier today, we can stand by or sit by, or we can
stand up and do something about it. My friends had ample opportunities
to offer amendments in committee. They chose not to do that. It was a
procedural step. I understand that. It doesn't go to fix the hostile
environment that has been brought forward by this activist NLRB.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 235, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 710]
YEAS--189
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
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
Duncan (TN)
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
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
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NAYS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
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)
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
Gosar
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
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
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
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachmann
Barletta
Capuano
Giffords
Lewis (GA)
Marino
Nadler
Waxman
Webster
{time} 1312
Messrs. CARTER, TERRY, MULVANEY, AMODEI, BILIRAKIS, TURNER of Ohio,
LoBIONDO, and RUNYAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, CONYERS, GARAMENDI,
and OLVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to yea.''
[[Page H6215]]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 186, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 711]
YEAS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barrow
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
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
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
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
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 (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--186
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
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
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
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.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
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
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachmann
Barletta
Capuano
Giffords
Lewis (GA)
Marino
Nadler
Waxman
Webster
{time} 1322
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 711, I was attending a
memorial service in Florida. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________