[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13667-13685]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 13668]]

  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.
  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 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

[[Page 13669]]

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 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

[[Page 13670]]

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. 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. 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.

                              {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. 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. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

[[Page 13671]]


  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 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

[[Page 13672]]

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 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.

[[Page 13673]]


  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 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

[[Page 13674]]

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 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

[[Page 13675]]

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. 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' 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.

[[Page 13676]]


  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 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

[[Page 13677]]

     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
       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

[[Page 13678]]

       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

[[Page 13679]]

       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
       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

[[Page 13680]]

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 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

[[Page 13681]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 13682]]

  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.
  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.
  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.

[[Page 13683]]

  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 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. 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.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, once again this Tea Party Republican 
majority is determined to ignore the jobs crisis in this country and 
instead focus the energy and efforts of Congress on busting unions and 
attacking the federally protected rights of workers to organize. This 
legislation is a direct assault on workers' rights in order to protect 
the profits of one corporation--Boeing. This legislation essentially 
tells 14 million unemployed Americans that their needs are irrelevant 
as long as there is a CEO in America who wants to crush a union.
  The National Labor Relations Act, a Federal law, prohibits a company 
from taking actions, such as firing an employee or relocating a 
factory, against workers for exercising federally protected rights that 
include forming a union or striking. The National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB) filed a complaint against Boeing in April 2011, accusing the 
airline manufacturer of building a plant in South Carolina as 
retaliation against union employees in Washington State who have 
engaged in strikes. The Seattle Times quoted one Boeing executive as 
saying that the main factor for putting the new plant in Charleston, SC 
was ``. . . that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, 
every three years.''
  The legislation on the floor of the U.S. House today, H.R. 2587, is 
the Tea Party Republican attempt to reward a corporation that breaks 
the law in order to bust union workers. Rather than negotiate with 
union workers to reach contract agreements, Boeing built a new $750 
million facility in South Carolina. This legislation in essence 
sanctions any company in America to move their operations to any low-
wage location where workers' rights are ignored, whether inside or 
outside the U.S.
  Tea Party Republicans have titled this bill the Protecting Jobs from 
Government Interference Act, but it really should be called the Busting 
Unions and Outsourcing Jobs to Protect Corporate Profits Act. It is 
remarkable that Members of Congress can vote to sanction the export of 
U.S. jobs to other countries just to ensure corporate friends can 
squeeze every dollar of profit available out of their low-wage workers. 
This legislation is truly a betrayal of the American people, but it 
fits into the alarming trend advocated by Tea Party Republican 
legislators at the State and Federal level to eliminate worker rights 
and protections. If their goal is to return to the days of sweatshops 
and the abuse of workers they are certainly moving in that direction.
  I truly hope that every Minnesotan who is a member of a union, 
retired from a union, or has a loved-one in a union is paying attention 
to what is happening in America. The corporate elites and the 
legislators their secret money have paid to elect are destroying 
workers rights. This U.S. House of Representatives, once known as the 
People's House, now appears to be owned by corporations. Our democracy 
is at risk along with the rights of workers and the wages of every 
middle class American.
  This legislation is a harbinger of the battle working people, regular 
Americans, face as corporations dictate to elected leaders. I oppose 
H.R. 2587 and I oppose the union busting, anti-working American agenda 
it represents.
  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.''

[[Page 13684]]

  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 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

[[Page 13685]]


     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.''
  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.''

                          ____________________