Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act

Madam 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. 3094.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legislation we are considering today is straightforward. It reaffirms workforce protections that have been in place for decades.

Across the country, the American people are asking: How can we get this economy moving again? What will it take to finally put people back to work? And Washington is responding with a number of answers. Some think we should support more spending, more taxes, and more regulations. In essence, they are asking the country to double down on the same failed policies of the past.

My Republican colleagues and I believe we should chart a different course, one that includes removing regulatory roadblocks to job creation. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is part of that effort. The legislation says we shouldn't allow unelected bureaucrats to dictate policies that make our workplaces less competitive.

In June the National Labor Relations Board proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing union elections. Under the board's radical scheme, employers would have just 7 days to find an attorney and navigate a host of complicated legal issues before confronting an NLRB election official. Employees will have as little as 10 days to decide whether they want to join a union, denying them an opportunity to gain valuable information and make an informed decision.

The NLRB is already telling employers like Boeing where they can and cannot create jobs. Now the board wants to take away a worker's right to make a fully informed decision in a union election. This proposal largely prohibits employers from raising additional legal concerns, denies answers to questions that can influence the vote, and turns over to union leaders even more personal employee information.

Let's get something straight: The board's scheme isn't about modernizing the election process. This is a draconian effort to stifle employer speech and ambush workers with a union election. Less debate, less information, and less opposition--that's Big Labor's approach to workers' free choice, and it is being rapidly implemented by the activist NLRB.

For 4 years Democrats controlled this Congress. To my knowledge, not once did they try to streamline the union election process. Not once. They did champion a failed effort to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot, but they didn't bother to offer any solutions to the alleged problems they now say plague the election process.

Today, union elections take place in an average of 31 days, giving workers a month to consider the monumental

question of whether or not to join a union. One month. Are there cases where delays have occurred? Yes. But without a doubt, these are the exceptions to the rule. And former and current members of the NLRB have cited partisan shifts on the board as the leading cause of such delay. A broken board is no excuse for trampling on the rights of American workers.

I'm aware the board recently revised--recently being yesterday--its earlier proposal and set aside some of the more egregious provisions. However, the latest iteration still denies employers access to a fair election process, still deprives workers of the opportunity to make a fully informed decision, and still perpetuates the threat of more punitive measures in the future. The board seems utterly determined to finalize a flawed proposal, regardless of the damage to the integrity of the board and our workplaces. We must act now.

The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act reaffirms workforce protections our Nation has enjoyed for decades. Employers currently have a fair opportunity to prepare for a preelection hearing. The bill ensures employers have at least 14 days--2 weeks--a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing. Employers and unions can currently seek board review of issues raised before the election. The bill preserves their right to seek board review before the election. Workers currently have an average of 31 days to decide their vote. The bill guarantees workers at least 35 days.

Before the board's reckless Specialty Healthcare decision, a commonsense standard determined which employees would participate in the election. Once again, H.R. 3094 takes steps to restore a traditional standard, ensuring employees continue to have freedom and opportunities in the workplace and employers can effectively manage their labor costs.

Despite the heated rhetoric we will hear from opponents today, the bill is a responsible effort to set in law, Mr. Chairman, protections workers and employers have long enjoyed. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady just said that we should be addressing legislation to create jobs. That's exactly what we are doing today.

At this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record this letter from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, with 243 associations and organizations in support of this legislation.

Coalition for a

Democratic Workplace,

November 29, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of millions of job creators

concerned with mounting threats to the basic tenets of free

enterprise, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace urges

you to support H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and

Fairness Act. Congress needs to immediately pass this much-

needed legislation. The bill directly addresses recent and

economically crippling actions of the National Labor

Relations Board (Board or NLRB). Specifically, the bill would

block the Board from moving forward with its ambush election

proposal. If left unchecked, the proposal will effectively

deny employees' access to critical information about unions

and strip employers of free speech and due process rights.

H.R. 3094 also would reverse the Board's recent decision in

Specialty Healthcare, which poses an immediate and direct

threat to our economy by opening the door to swarms of micro-

unions.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of more

than 600 organizations, has been united in its opposition to

the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' (EFCA) and EFCA

alternatives that pose a similar threat to workers,

businesses and the U.S. economy. Thanks to the elected

officials who stood firm against this damaging legislation,

the threat of EFCA is less immediate this Congress.

Politically powerful labor unions, other EFCA supporters, and

their allies in government are not backing down, however.

Having failed to achieve their goals through legislation,

they are now coordinating with the Board and the Department

of Labor (DOL) in what appears to be an all-out attack on

job-creators and an effort to enact EFCA through

administrative rulings and regulations.

While the Board's actions have gained recent notoriety from

the unprecedented attempt by the agency's Acting General

Counsel to mandate where and how one company--Boeing--can

operate and expand its business, the Boeing case is just the

tip of the iceberg. During the last few years, the Board and

DOL have issued a barrage of anti-business and anti-worker

decisions and rules, which collectively amount to the

greatest upheaval in U.S. labor law in over 50 years. The

Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act directly remedies ambush

elections and micro-unions (Specialty Healthcare), which are

two of the Board's most damaging and outrageous actions.

On June 21, the Board proposed a rule on ``ambush

elections.'' According to Board Member Brian Hayes, these new

procedures could result in union representation elections

held in as few as 10 days after the filing of a union

petition. The NLRB's own statistics reveal that in 2010, the

average time to election was 31 days, with over 95 percent of

elections occurring within 56 days. The current election time

frames are not only reasonable, but permit employees time to

hear from both the union and the employer and make an

informed decision, which would not be possible under the

proposed timetables. In fact, the reduced time frame would

leave employers barely enough time to secure legal counsel,

with little to no opportunity to talk with employees about

union representation or respond to promises union organizers

may have made to secure union support, even though many of

those promises may be completely unrealistic. Given that

union organizers typically lobby employees for months outside

the workplace without an employer's knowledge, these

``ambush'' elections would often result in employees'

receiving only half the story. They would hear promises of

raises and benefits that unions have no way of guaranteeing,

without an opportunity for the employer to explain its

position and the possible inaccuracies put forward by the

union. Ambush elections would be particularly damaging to

small businesses as the proposed changes would effectively

eliminate any measure of due process by forcing elections

before most employers could even understand what was

happening or even obtain legal advice and representation.

The proposal also tramples over employer due process

rights. As Member Hayes noted, the proposed rule will

``substantially limit the opportunity for full evidentiary

hearing or Board review on contested issues involving, among

other things, appropriate unit, voter eligibility and

election misconduct.'' The proposal would require that all

pre-election hearings occur within seven days of the

petition. Businesses must file a statement within those seven

days setting forth their position on all relevant legal

issues. Any issues not identified in the statement would be

waived forever. These unnecessary time limits put enormous

pressure on all businesses, but like the NLRB's ambush

election proposal, the impact will be especially damaging to

small business, who will have enough problems finding counsel

within these time frames, let alone obtaining any meaningful

understanding of their rights and obligations under this

complex law.

In Specialty Healthcare, the NLRB paved the way for the

formation of ``micro-unions,'' which make it easier for

unions to organize by permitting them to form smaller

bargaining units that often exclude those similarly situated

employees who oppose unionization. This effectively

disenfranchises them. Prior to the decision, bargaining units

had to include employees who share a ``community of

interest.'' Smaller units were only permissible where the

employees in the proposed unit had interests that were

``sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to

warrant the establishment of a separate unit.'' This

prevented swarms of small, ``fractured units,'' of similarly

situated employees. As a result of the Board's decision,

businesses now face the possibility of having to manage

multiple, small units of similarly situated employees with

increased chances of work stoppages, as well as potentially

different pay scales, benefits, work rules and bargaining

schedules. This will greatly limit an employer's ability to

cross-train and meet customer and client demands via lean,

flexible staffing because employees will no longer be able to

perform work assigned to other units. Employees also will

suffer from reduced job opportunities, as promotions and

transfers will be hindered by organizational unit

barriers.

Again, we urge you to support passage of H.R. 3094, the

Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If left unchecked, the

actions of the NLRB will fuel economic uncertainty and have

serious negative ramifications for millions of employers,

U.S. workers they have hired or would like to hire, and

consumers.

The Coalition For A Democratic Workplace

National Organizations (118)

60 Plus Association;

Aeronautical Repair Station Association;

Agricultural Retailers Association;

AIADA, American International Automobile Dealers

Association;

Alliance for Worker Freedom;

American Apparel & Footwear Association;

American Bakers Association;

American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association;

American Council of Engineering Companies;

American Feed Industry Association;

American Fire Sprinkler Association;

American Foundry Society;

American Frozen Food Institute;

American Health Care Association;

American Hospital Association;

American Hotel and Lodging Association;

American Meat Institute;

American Nursery & Landscape Association;

American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE);

American Pipeline Contractors Association;

American Rental Association;

American Seniors Housing Association;

American Staffing Association;

American Supply Association;

American Trucking Associations;

American Wholesale Marketers Association;

Americans for Tax Reform;

AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology;

Asian American Hotel Owners Association;

Assisted Living Federation of America;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.;

Associated Equipment Distributors;

Associated General Contractors of America;

Association of Equipment Manufacturers;

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association;

Brick Industry Association;

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

International;

Center for Individual Freedom;

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund;

Coalition of Franchisee Associations;

College and University Professional Association for Human

Resources;

Consumer Electronics Association;

Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association;

Environmental Industry Associations;

Fashion Accessories Shippers Association;

Food Marketing Institute;

Forging Industry Association;

Franchise Management Advisory Council (FRANMAC);

Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors

International (HARDI);

HR Policy Association;

IEC National;

INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry;

Independent Women's Voice;

Industrial Fasteners Institute;

International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses;

International Council of Shopping Centers;

International Foodservice Distributors Association;

International Franchise Association;

International Sign Association;

International Warehouse Logistics Association;

Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association;

LeadingAge;

Metals Service Center Institute;

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association;

NAHAD--The Association for Hose and Accessories

Distribution;

National Apartment Association;

National Armored Car Association;

National Association of Chemical Distributors;

National Association of Convenience Stores;

National Association of Electrical Distributors;

National Association of Home Builders;

National Association of Manufacturers;

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;

National Club Association;

National Council of Chain Restaurants;

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;

National Council of Investigators and Security Services

(NCISS);

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO);

National Federation of Independent Business;

National Franchisee Association;

National Grocers Association;

National Mining Association;

National Multi Housing Council;

National Pest Management Association;

National Precast Concrete Association;

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;

National Restaurant Association;

National Retail Federation;

National Roofing Contractors Association;

National School Transportation Association;

National Small Business Association;

National Solid Wastes Management Association;

National Systems Contractors Association;

National Tank Truck Carriers;

National Tooling and Machining Association;

National Utility Contractors Association;

NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops;

North American Die Casting Association;

North American Equipment Dealers Association;

Petroleum Marketers Association of America;

Precision Machined Products Association;

Precision Metalforming Association;

Printing Industries of America;

Professional Beauty Association;

Retail Industry Leaders Association;

Snack Food Association;

Society for Human Resource Management;

Society of American Florists;

SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association;

Steel Manufacturers Association;

Textile Care Allied Trades Association;

Textile Rental Services Association;

The Real Estate Roundtable;

Truck Renting and Leasing Association;

U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

United Fresh Produce Association;

United Motorcoach Association;

Western Growers Association.

State and Local Organizations (125)

A & K Earthmovers, Inc.;

American Society of Employers (Michigan);

Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Associated Industries of

Arkansas;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. California

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Central Florida

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Central

Pennsylvania Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Chesapeake Shores

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Delaware Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Eastern

Pennsylvania Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Florida East

Coast Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Florida Gulf

Coast Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Hawaii Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Heart of America

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Indiana Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Inland Pacific

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Iowa Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Keystone Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Massachusetts

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Mississippi

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Nevada Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. New Mexico

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. New Orleans/Bayou

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Ohio Valley

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Oklahoma Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Pacific Northwest

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Rhode Island

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Rocky Mountain

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. South East Texas

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. South Texas

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Western Michigan

Chapter;

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Western

Washington Chapter;

Associated Industries of Massachusetts;

Builders Association of Northern Nevada;

CA/NV/AZ Automotive Wholesalers Association (CAWA);

CAI-Capital Associated Industries Inc. (Raleigh, NC);

California Delivery Association;

Carson City Chamber of Commerce, Carson City, NV;

CenTex Chapter IEC;

Central Alabama Chapter IEC;

Central Indiana IEC;

Central Missouri IEC;

Central Ohio AEC/IEC;

Central Pennsylvania Chapter IEC;

Central Washington IEC;

Centre County IEC;

Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce;

Eastern Washington IEC;

El Paso Chapter IEC, Inc.;

Employers Coalition of North Carolina (Raleigh, NC);

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce;

Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce;

Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce;

Greater Montana IEC:

IEC Atlanta;

IEC Chesapeake;

IEC Dakotas, Inc.;

IEC Dallas Chapter;

IEC Florida West Coast;

IEC Fort Worth/Tarrant County;

IEC Georgia;

IEC Greater St. Louis;

IEC Hampton Roads Chapter;

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let's clear up a few things today we've heard in this debate. It's very interesting. We clearly have a different view, there's no question about it.

We've heard repeatedly that this bill strips workers of their rights. Sometimes my colleagues confuse workers with Big Labor leaders. This bill in fact protects workers' rights--union workers' rights, nonunion workers' rights. The proposed regulations--which apparently are under modification, as we speak, from the NLRB--were in fact an attack on workers' rights, a demand that more personal information be provided union organizers whether or not the workers approved of that, and shrinking the amount of time that workers might have to make a decision on one of the most important aspects in their life to as little as 10 days. This bill protects workers' rights and makes sure they have time to make this important decision.

We've heard today that bargaining units would be gerrymandered by employers. In fact, this bill puts us back to the standards that have been in place for decades to make sure that workplaces aren't fractured and fragmented and you have worker against worker, worker against employer, making it harder for employers to run an effective business, making it harder for them to have confidence to hire Americans.

We've been told that we're wasting time today and that we ought to be having a jobs bill, which apparently means spending more borrowed money. We're already borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, Mr. Chairman, that we're spending now, and yet apparently you can't create a job in this country unless government does it with borrowed money. Well, we disagree.

We think, we believe that we have been moving legislation in this House which will in fact help American job creators put Americans back to work. One of the obstacles is confusion. It's uncertainty. It's worry about the regulatory climate and what is coming down the path.

The President of the United States has said this economy needs a jolt, Mr. Chairman. I disagree. It needs certainty. It needs predictability. Employers, employees, and consumers need confidence in the future. They don't need to be jerked.

The distinguished minority whip said the NLRB ought to be fair. He said employers and employees ought to get a fair election. I couldn't agree more. Employers and employees ought to have a fair shake. They ought to get a fair election. And that's what this bill does.

So the choice today is pretty simple. If you support an employer's right to speak to his or her employees during an organizing campaign, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support a worker's right to make an informed decision in a union election, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support giving workers a say in the personal information, Mr. Chairman, available to union leaders, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. And if you support reining in an activist NLRB and reaffirming Congress' responsibility to write the law, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.

I urge my colleagues to stand by our workers and their employers by supporting this simple, commonsense legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's kind of ironic sometimes, but this Occupy Wall Street sort of inspired amendment is an effort to dismantle a successful union election process and deny workers an opportunity to make an informed decision. Under the guise of fighting greed on Wall Street, this amendment will actually punish workers if their company executives receive bonuses deemed too big by officials in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, while most of the time, employer and unions can agree to the terms of the union elections, often a preelection hearing convened by an NLRB official is needed to address questions and concerns raised by both sides. The preelection hearing ensures all relevant and material preelection issues may be addressed before a worker is required to cast his or her ballot in the election, providing workers an opportunity to make an informed decision in the union election.

Forcing a vote before these issues can be addressed at the preelection hearing will severely undermine an employee's free choice. This is the workers, the employees we're talking about here. In fact, this amendment may lead to needless delay in the election process. The courts have overturned the results of elections because important issues were not properly addressed at the preelection hearing.

No worker should be denied a fair union election process because of the bonuses paid to company executives. Yet that is precisely what this amendment would do.

Congress should not be picking winners and losers here, determining that some workers deserve greater protections than other workers. They all deserve protection. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act reaffirms longstanding protections for all workers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and Americans across the country, can get pretty angry when some officials, corporate officials receive extraordinarily high salaries. I'm not here to defend that.

What I'm talking about here is, why would you punish the workers because the employers are paying themselves too much money? I don't think we should do that, and that's what this amendment does. It denies workers the opportunity to make an informed decision. We shouldn't be punishing those workers because executives have paid themselves too much money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for his service. He, like me, made an early mistake and chose to fly and, even worse, to fly helicopters. He just perhaps was better at it than some of us.

But this amendment is going in the wrong direction. It's not the percentage. How many percent? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000 percent more money that an executive makes--I don't want to defend that either. And I don't want to defend the leader who eats before his troops. I don't want to defend the leader who thinks he can get it done without the troops.

But this amendment takes away the rights and the protections of the employees and the workers. We shouldn't punish the workers because we're mad at the executives. We shouldn't punish the troops because we're mad at the colonels. I agree with the gentleman on that.

Let's don't punish the workers. Let's defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Of course I always hate to oppose something presented by my Minnesota delegation colleague, a veteran himself, but again I think we have a misguided amendment here.

In the last amendment, we were sort of taking an Occupy Wall Street moment to express our outrage at the salaries or bonuses or compensation for executives, and we were going to punish workers because of our outrage. Unfortunately, we're sort of doing the same thing here.

If you're a veteran and your employer has harmed any number of your rights under Federal labor law, they've broken the law and action ought to be taken against them. But now with this amendment, this would give this activist NLRB an excuse to undermine the free choice of your coworkers in a union election. I don't think we want to do that. We want to support the rights of all workers.

As the distinguished minority whip said, employers and employees ought to get a fair election. We want a fair election for employers and employees, for workers--whether they are veterans or not veterans. I, having spent some time in uniform myself, have a special place for veterans. I want to make sure they get everything, everything that's coming to them. We owe them so much. But this amendment, unfortunately, would end up punishing them and their coworkers in, I think, a misguided effort to help them. We shouldn't do that.

Let's support the underlying legislation and oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again may I inquire as to how much time remains on either side.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think there is some confusion here. The other gentleman from Minnesota says that these are talking about veterans who have chosen to have a union. The point is we don't know if they've chosen to have a union. We don't know that. That's what the election is for. And they deserve the time and the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, hear from all sides and make an informed decision.

What the underlying bill does, it says you get at least 35 days. And I would remind my colleagues that the current mean time, average time, is 31 days and the median time is 38 days. It's not out of line. But we think a month, 5 weeks, ought to be time for workers to be able to receive the information, ask the questions, challenge information from the employer and from the union organizer, and then make an informed decision.

While it's true, certainly, sometimes in combat that you have to make split-second decisions to save your life or the lives of colleagues or to achieve the mission, you shouldn't be required to do that here in making this decision for you and your families. You ought to have time to do it.

Because an employer has misbehaved, in the example of this amendment, the employer should be punished for that if he's a broken law, but the employees should not be deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision, and that's what this amendment would do. So, again, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for keeping track of the Minnesotans here as well.

I'm sorry, but again we just have a fundamental difference here. If an employer is liable, has made mistakes, has broken the law, they should be punished under the law, whichever law they have violated in violating the rights of employees, veterans or not.

But this amendment is an attempt to dismantle a successful union election process that is fair to veterans and nonveterans, to employees and to employers. This amendment, in an attempt to punish employers who have misbehaved, who ought to be punished under the law under another law, is simply going to deny the rights of workers to have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

I oppose this amendment and support the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, this clearly, in fact, in the language of the motion, is designed to kill the bill. I understand the gentlelady doesn't like the bill, but the characterization of it is incorrect. We heard today on this floor some distinguished Members of the other party say that the NLRB ought to be fair, that employers and employees ought to get a fair election. We agree with that.

We have heard today that the majority party has done nothing to improve the economy and help job creators create jobs. Clearly we disagree. Member after Member has stood up here and said we have a plan, we've been advancing legislation, we continue to advance legislation, we have over 20 bills passed by this House sitting over in the Senate waiting for Majority Leader Reid to take them up, jobs that will clear the way for job creators, the private sector, to put Americans back to work.

Clearly there is a blizzard of regulations that is descending on the workplace. The Speaker got a letter back from the administration some 2 weeks ago that said there were some 219 regulations in the pipeline, each of which would have an impact on the economy of over $100 million, and I think seven that would have an impact of over a billion dollars, regulations coming from every direction. My colleagues pointed out that even the President of the United States said we shouldn't be having more regulations that don't directly affect the safety and security of the American people, or words close to that effect.

The gentlelady, my friend from Wisconsin, said that there was an unfolding plot. Well, I agree, there does seem to be an unfolding plot. It's coming from the administration through the NLRB to advance the special interest of Big Labor bosses. We don't think that's right. That's not giving employers and employees a fair election; that's advancing the special interest of big union bosses.

It's not protecting the rights of workers, whether they're in a union or not.

Employees and employers ought to get a fair election. The NLRB should not be slanting it, handing it to Big Labor bosses.

So this is an effort to kill the bill. I believe it is a good bill that restores practices that have been in place providing fair elections for decades. I would encourage my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and vote against this motion to kill the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the points of order.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is similar to amendments we have seen earlier today. We had an amendment sort of trying to capitalize on the Occupy Wall Street movement and limit workers' rights because of behavior of executives.

This motion attempts to rewrite existing rules regarding union access to employer property. Mr. Speaker, the point is the current system has been providing fair elections, as the distinguished minority whip said, for employers and employees. The NLRB's job is to see that employers and employees have fair union-organizing elections.

At a time when millions of Americans are searching for work, the Democrats have introduced yet another proposal that will make it more difficult for job creators, employers, to put Americans back to work. Rather than promoting a balanced election process, this motion to recommit will further tilt the playing field in favor of Big Labor bosses.

It's time for the Democrats here to stop standing in the way of the Nation's job creators and work on commonsense solutions that will allow job creators to put Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill protects employers' free speech and employees' opportunity to make an informed decision.

This motion to recommit undoes that. We need to defeat this motion to recommit for what it is and support the underlying legislation. Let's vote ``no'' on this motion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank Chairman Kline not only for yielding but also for his leadership on this and on so many other issues on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our fellow citizens want nothing more than to be able to meet their familial obligations and their obligations to the community, when so many of our fellow Americans want nothing more than the most fundamental of all family values, which is a job, and when they look and they see that America is increasingly competing with other countries for work, it is no longer just competition among the States. We are competing with other countries for work.

The NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda, thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of NLRB overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of a job being lost in Washington State, despite not a single example of a worker losing a single benefit or right in Washington State, the NLRB sued Boeing, seeking to have Boeing close its South Carolina facility, mothballing a $1 billion facility, displacing 1,000 workers and returning the work to Washington State.

Then they had the unmitigated temerity, as we recently learned, to joke about it in emails, to joke about a competitor called Airbus, which is Boeing's number one competitor. Wanting work and not getting it is not a laughing matter. Boeing is exhibit A among the evidentiary reasons that the NLRB has overreached its statutory mission, but it is not the only piece of evidence, Mr. Chairman. Currently, union elections take place, on average, within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election.

But that's not good enough. The NLRB wants more.

So they proposed sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further towards unions seeking employees by promoting rush elections and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 7 to 10 days. The Board severely limits the opportunities for workers to hear all sides of an issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would only have 7 days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of Federal labor law before presenting their cases before an NLRB hearing officer.

So Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to simply level the playing field. This legislation requires that no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision. H.R. 3094 acknowledges that full and complete information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will vote.

Ironically, some unions have already endorsed President Obama in an election that is well nigh a year off; but somehow 31 days is too long for employers in an election that's every bit as important to them. The hypocrisy and blind advocacy has to stop.

The purpose of the NLRA is to balance the rights of employers, employees, and the general public. The NLRA is not calculated to drive up union membership, because they're a loyal constituency for the Democrat Party. Because the NLRB through its filings and proposed rules and regulations has lost all pretense of objectivity in labor issues, fair, even-handed pieces of legislation, such as this one, are necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first thank Mr. Bishop for raising the important issue of frivolous, vexatious litigation. I am thrilled almost beyond words--not quite--almost beyond words that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the deleterious impact that frivolous, vexatious litigation has on our economy.

We very much support, Mr. Chairman, a more effective use of rule 2011. We have consistently supported tort reform that correctly sanctions frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. So, again, I thank our colleague from the other side of the aisle for bringing attention once again to the impact frivolous litigation has on our economy.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right vehicle for a number of reasons.

The purpose of the underlying bill is to correct the misguided effort of the NLRB to have quick elections, which means the time is compressed for litigants, especially those caught off guard by the legal filing, to respond. What do litigants and their counsel do when they're given an inadequate time to prepare for litigation? They over-plead, they over-answer, they throw everything they can into the answer because to do otherwise is to risk missing an issue and being sued for illegal malpractice or, worse yet, failing to adequately represent your client. So in a very counterintuitive way, the NLRB's rush to have elections is more likely to result in over-pleading than the status quo would be.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment also gives increased power to the very agency that we are trying to rein in. That, too, is counterintuitive. To reward an activist, agenda-driven executive branch entity with even more power to wield incorrectly is an invitation we are loathe to accept.

This amendment does not even provide all the safeguards of rule 11 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And I heard my colleague and friend on the other side of the aisle make reference to rule 11. If this were simply rule 11, we may very well be standing up to join in support. It's not rule 11. It doesn't provide notice and a reasonable chance to respond. It doesn't provide an appeal procedure. It denies an opportunity to withdraw the frivolous matter before sanctions are imposed. Even current NLRB provisions require due notice and an opportunity for a hearing in allegations of misconduct cases.

This amendment, I am sure--I am convinced--is well intended, to root out frivolous filings and pleadings; but it has to be done in an evenhanded, fair manner, not one calculated to skew the balance even more in favor of those seeking unionization and away from job creators.

Other than union membership being at a historic low, Mr. Chairman, why the rush to change the rules? Is 31 days too long? Is a 70 percent success rate in elections not good enough? I appreciate the motive behind the amendment, but I must oppose it because of the mechanism; and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

I just find it instructive again--and we need to give pause and reflect on why we're here. We're not here because Chairman Kline had an idea out of the blue. We're here because an activist, agenda-driven NLRB is dissatisfied with 31 days to have an election. They're dissatisfied with a 70 percent success rate. So what Mr. Kline has done--and smartly so--in this bill is try to get us back to the status quo ante and have a level playing field where employees can have enough information to make what may be one of the most important decisions of their lives.

And again I will say to my colleague, rule 11 has built-in procedural safeguards. And we had a very civil, constructive, I thought, conversation about this amendment in committee, and I commend our friend for that. And I commend him for bringing up frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. And I'm happy to work with him on how to get it done. This vehicle, while well intended, is not the vehicle to get it done.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would strike provisions of the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act that ensure employers have at least 14 days to find legal counsel and prepare their cases for the preelection hearings. Additionally, it would strike the provisions that ensure employers have 35 days to educate their workers and that employees have 35 days to determine whether they wish to join a union.

Information is power, and I, frankly, don't understand the antagonism towards information. I don't understand the antagonism towards employers. We give garden-variety, common-criminal shoplifters 180 days to find lawyers--180 days for a shoplifter to find a lawyer--but we can't give employers 2 weeks? Is 2 weeks really too much to ask to find a lawyer?

There have been unions, Mr. Chairman, that have already endorsed this President and his reelection bid. Already, 360-something days out, was the first one I noted. So they need 365 days to prepare for an election, but we can't give employers 35 days? You can check out a library book for longer than you want to give employers the ability to prepare for an election.

This is an important decision, not only in the lives of the employees but of the employers, many of whom are small business owners. They've got to negotiate the legal labyrinth that is our Federal labor law, and you're going to give them 35 days and 14 to get lawyers.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restrict employers' free speech and will undermine workers' free choice. Information is power. Sometimes that takes time. I don't think 35 days under anyone's calculus is too much time to prepare for an election. If we can give a shoplifter or a speeder or a drunk driver 180 days to hire a lawyer, surely to goodness we can give a small business job creator a couple of weeks.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My first job was delivering newspapers. My job after that was bagging groceries at a local grocery store. My job after that was working at a tobacco warehouse.

I don't recall ever being hired by an employee.

I don't understand the antagonism towards employers. I don't understand the antagonism towards people who are willing to invest their fortunes and have the unmitigated temerity to want to be successful and hire other people. I don't understand the antagonism towards job creators.

Mr. Chairman, I will say it again: We give 180 days to someone who shoplifts from a store to go find a lawyer, but we can't give 14 days to the small business owner who wants to defend against a suit--to negotiate the legal labyrinth that many of the lawyers in this body don't understand, present company included. There are experts in labor law; but unless you have corporate counsel hired, you're going to have to go find a lawyer and educate him on your issues.

Mr. Kline gives them a whopping 2 weeks. Fourteen days is eminently reasonable, and 35 days for something as potentially transformative as an election is not too much to ask for, and there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says otherwise.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would invite my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in addressing what I hear from every small business owner back in South Carolina, which is fix the regulatory apparatus, fix the tax structure, fix the litigation structure, quit spending money you don't have.

Mr. Chairman, the President, who was standing not 3 feet in front of you, said we should have no more regulation than is necessary for the health, safety, and security of the American people. That's not a Republican that said that; it's the President of the United States.

So I would ask the NLRB, what part of health, safety, and security are you trying to fix with quick elections, the placing of posters in the workplace, and other regulations that do nothing except punish job creators?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The question to my colleagues is whether workers come as Republicans or Democrats or if they come simply as Americans operating under a constitutional provision that we all celebrate, and that is the First Amendment.

The First Amendment clearly allows the American people to petition, to have freedom of expression and, in essence, freedom to assemble. We also recognize that, in the course of power, there is the worker and there is the employer. The employer, in many instances, intimidates, and the National Labor Relations Board recognized the unevenness of power. Whether they are returning troops and veterans or whether they are single mothers and working families who want to better their lives, they understand that there needs to be fairness in order for this little, small book, the Constitution, to actually operate.

My amendment is very simple. My amendment attempts to make an even playing field. It takes away the power of the underlying legislation, which is to limit how long the election may go on--in fact, delay the election, if you will. This amendment strikes the provision that deals with the timeframe in which the election can go on and in which the employer can interfere with that election. Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time to use the timeframe to delay the election.

It's a simple premise that you win or lose elections; but if you allow employers to use the hand of intimidation and to stop the election, you take away some of the privileges of being an American.

I, frankly, believe that in this time that we're on the floor we really should be debating the extension of the unemployment benefits, and I believe that we should be discussing the passage of the American Jobs Act. We're not doing that. We're here to limit the rights of Americans. So I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment that stops employers from delaying the rights of Americans by participating in delaying litigation, raising their power while limiting the power of the worker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 3094, ``The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.'' My amendment eliminates the provisions in this bill that would allow employers to unnecessarily delay an election. The bill in its current form rolls back decades of earned collective rights for workers and prevents workers from simply voting in workplace elections.

This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 3094 is designed to delay and ultimately prevent union representation elections, rendering the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for worker's rights.

In order to prevent needless delays in conducting elections I propose my amendment which simply strikes the text which requires that an election must be delayed for at least 35 days from the date the petition was filed. This amendment would restore current law.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed focused on the NLRB decision and their claim to minimum delays, there is no provision in H.R. 3904 to limit the time that an election can be delayed. This would ensure that an election would be conducted as soon as practicable following the pre-election hearing, consistent with the facts determined by the Regional Director.

By setting a floor that an election will always be held at least 35 days from the filing of a petition, H.R. 3094 imposes delay for delays sake, even if an election could practically be scheduled before 35 days from the filing of a petition. A witness testified before the Education and Workforce Committee's that: ``This [35 day delay] would apply even where the union and employer are willing to stipulate to an earlier date. Other than facilitating an employer in ramping up an antiunion campaign, it does not appear to have any meaningful purpose.''

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.

H.R. 3094 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define how the National Labor Relations Board should determine a unit for purposes of collective bargaining. In addition, it allows an election to occur sooner than 35 days after the filing of a petition. However, there is no limit on how long an election may be delayed. Delay would provide employers more time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure employees into abandoning their organizing efforts.

This legislation would perpetuate undue delays in union elections, a blatant attempt to undermine American worker's right to organize to protect their rights. This bill is an attack on collective bargaining, and on the American workforce as a whole.

Delaying elections grants employers the necessary time to use legal and illegal means to discourage employees' interests in forming unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill encourages legal but frivolous appeal litigation, further delaying elections for several months or years. The measure will severely cripple and undermine elections process. A procedure intended to empower workers.

Consequently union voters lose zeal for elections and unscrupulous employers are able to manipulate elections for their desired outcome, stalling the plight of workers' advancement.

Further, The bill misconstrues the procedure for deciding who is a bargaining unit. What effect will this have on the progress union workers have made over the last 75 years?

Employers will use this disruption to gerrymander elections, induce uncertainty regarding elections, thus being able to manipulate workers and flood the ballot boxes with voters not engage in the organizing drive.

For 75 years union workers have fought for basic rights to maintain improved and safer workplace environments. How does this measure effect these achievements?

After the bill's implementation will workers view their workplace favorably? Will their wages match the growth rate of the company and economy? And will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival?

This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that prevent employers from gerrymander elections when employees consider whether or not to form a union. Employees have a right to unionize. They have the right to exercise their rights collectively bargain for competitive wages, benefits, and safe working environments. I am extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to create an atmosphere that forces the voice of hard working Americans to be diluted by their employers. In many cases employees would have to settle for accepting 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. I will fight, as I have throughout my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by protecting their right to vote in any capacity.

My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs, and this bill is no exception. In fact, this reckless legislation threatens American jobs and undermines worker's 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Very briefly, in listening to my good friend from South Carolina, it's time to take out the white hanky and begin to cry for the employers against these deafening and deadly workers, some of them veterans and single parents.

Hear me very clearly: there are 35 days for the filing of a petition, but there is no limit to the amount of time the employer can delay the election through litigation. If that isn't an imbalance against the vulnerable worker--the worker who is behind a cashier, the worker who is manufacturing a made-in-America trinket of some kind, the textile worker, the returning soldier on the battlefield--then what is?

God bless the employers with their constitutional rights. I applaud them. But what this bill is doing and what this section is doing is taking a spear and going on and on and on with dilatory litigation tactics to disallow the organizing that is protected under the Constitution and the due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Go ahead, employers, get your lawyers. Move on.

But the question is, how long is too long?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I say to my good friend from South Carolina is that I have the greatest respect for employers. I'd like the gentleman to join me in passing the American Jobs Act to give them payroll tax relief and to give them tax credits for hiring new employees. But you have to ask the question:

After this bill's implementation, will workers view their workplaces more favorably? Will their wages match the growth rates of the companies and economy? Will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival?

This legislation, frankly, undermines the American workers. Can we all get along? Can we find a way to address the concerns of making sure that we are fair to the employer but not have delay after delay after delay to deny someone his constitutional right of organizing freedom of expression? I think we can.

The elimination of the provisions that I have spoken of is a dilatory upper hand of employers to get the better hand of our employees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In my hand I have H.R. 3094 and in this hand I have the Constitution. I don't know who you would stand with. Support my amendment, support the Constitution, provide workers the opportunity for freedom and the right to organize.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a member of the Rules Committee.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, during the depths of the Great Depression, Congress gave the American worker the right to ban together with coworkers and to bargain for a better life. For more than 75 years, the National Labor Relations Act has vested the ultimate decision on whether or not to form or belong to a union with the workers themselves. The principle underlying this law is that when workers decide they want to have a union, they should get a union.

These rights and this law have served this country well. They built the middle class. They brought us the 40-hour

workweek. They brought us safer workplaces. The exercise of these rights ensured economically secure families and the prospect that our children could build an even better life. These rights have been an unqualified success. They helped to create an economic engine unparalleled in the history of the world.

But especially this year, forces have gathered that will do anything to take away those rights from American workers, from American families. These forces subscribe to the perverse ideology that says workers should just accept whatever the powerful decides is good enough for them, and that's the end of the discussion. They use real crises as an excuse to gain more power. We've seen them try it in Wisconsin and in Ohio and all across the country, where the real goal was to take away the rights of workers, not to solve the economic problems of those States; where the real goal was to constrain workers in the collective bargaining process, not to deal with the economic problems of those States; and where they don't control the statehouses and State legislatures, they have come to the Congress of the United States.

This bill today is part of that scheme. This bill is part of a national effort by the Republican Party, by the Chamber of Commerce, and much of the business community in this country to strip workers of their rights at work; to take ordinary working men and women and tell them they will have no rights to join a union; they will not be able to gather for an election because this legislation prevents that election from happening.

How does it do that? It does that, one, by having the employer decide who will be in the bargaining unit, not the employees as is dictated under the law and as affirmed by this Congress over and over again that decision belongs to them.

How does it do that? So it stuffs the ballot box at the outset, and the employer making up the bargaining unit as opposed to the employee. Then they throw in the ability to have whatever frivolous appeals, whatever frivolous issues you want to raise, no matter how frivolous, they must be raised before this time, before the election, and all of the appeals must be decided. So while they talk about how this gives you a tight time frame, in fact what we see is endless delays. It's the endless running up of legal costs of attorneys on both sides, all in the idea of buying time for the employer to intimidate the employees from joining a union, to constantly hold businesses and the workplace-- face to face, businesses to advocate against the union so that they can turn around the decision that the employees essentially have made when they say, We want to go to an election; we want to have a union; this is our bargaining unit. And that's the goal here is to destroy the ability of this law to function.

You cannot have a situation where that exists in this country, because this law is not only important to employees in the workplace. It's important to millions of Americans who are in the middle class in this economy today. These are people who are there because of the collective bargaining rights of people over the last 75 years in this country to bring the benefits, to bring the wages, to bring the job security, to bring the health care benefits, to bring the pension benefits and the protections to middle class families.

We have seen, as the unions have declined, so have the wages, so have the benefits of workers to their own productivity. The American worker continues to increase their productivity. They are the most productive workers in almost every sector of our economy in the world, and yet more and more of their productivity is being syphoned off by the 1 percent, if you will, by the employers that decide they need more bonuses, by the employers that decide they need bigger paychecks, by the employers that decide they need more shareholder dividends, by the employers that decide that they need more golden parachutes, they need more arrangements to get rid of people at the elite level.

That's what this is about. It's about stealing from the American workers and not giving them a right to continue to bargain for the benefit of their families and their communities, and we ought to reject this bill today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a ranking subcommittee member of the committee.

I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

If anybody thinks that this is just a technical change, let's understand what has gone on since the Republicans have taken control of the House. The first effort was they cut $50 million out of the NLRB account. Then there was an amendment on this floor to try and zero out the money for the NLRB. Then they passed a rule that said that you could retaliate against workers and you could move work away from those workers. You could outsource it, and they enshrined the right to outsource work to retaliate against workers. And now we have the effort to try and prevent elections from taking place. This is a systematic effort joined in by a number of States and the Republicans in this Congress to take away the rights of workers at the workplace in America, the basic rights that have built the middle class.

And while they've continued this campaign against the NLRB, thank God the NLRB has continued to work because we see today that a settlement has been reached in the Boeing case, and you don't get to retaliate against workers. The new 737 work will go to Washington; the 787 will continue to go to South Carolina. The NLRB worked that agreement out between employer and employee. And let's remember, Boeing is on the record they didn't support the legislation that was put on in behalf of their name. So that worked out.

And just a few minutes ago, the NLRB apparently voted on a compromise rule dealing with elections. And so that compromise rule hopefully will now become a permanent rule and that will go forward. That's what the NLRB does: It works out these arrangements between employers and employees over these issues about how the American workplace will be managed, but it does not strip away the basic rights of workers to choose to join a union. It does not allow you to retaliate against the union.

It does not allow you to delay elections to such a point that you finally beat the union into submission or people give up, they get dispirited and move away. It doesn't allow that. That's the basic labor law of this country.

So today the NLRB, working with employers and employees, has reaffirmed that principle. Today in this House, they continue the effort to try to strip workers of their rights. They continue the effort in light of the evidence that these things get worked out in the workplace. Yes, these are contentious. They're big issues. But we have a vehicle that's 75 years old that has worked well on behalf of this economy. Not only did it build the middle

class in this country, it also built one of the largest economies. Why? Because we have the most productive workers in the history of the world industry after industry after industry, however you measure it.

Why aren't our steelworkers competitive with China? Because our plants are cost competitive on ton of steel, but when you manipulate the currency, our people can't win. But our workers continue to be there every day. And now, thank you to the work of the NLRB working out these arrangements, the NLRB will continue to be there every day for employers and employees to settle their differences.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, with this rule and underlying bill, Congress continues months of inaction on job growth, months of ignoring real solutions, choosing instead to use our economic struggles as an excuse to push partisan and ideological legislation.

The American people deserve jobs now rather than bills aimed only at stoking the rhetorical fires and antagonizing political opponents. It's time to stop the games and seek compromise for the betterment of our Nation.

A middle class tax increase is looming. With the extension of the payroll tax, many middle class families earning $70,000 to $80,000 a year will be forced to pay over a $1,000 a year more in taxes. Apparently, the Republicans believe that the government knows how to spend their money better than American families.

As a businessman and an entrepreneur, I'm proud to have created many jobs and many businesses. I meet with the businesses in my district on a regular basis. Not a single business has raised this issue as any kind of impediment to job growth, any kind of impediment to getting the economy growing again. This is simply a non-related subject that pursues a longtime agenda to destroy the ability of workers to organize.

This bill represents the Ohio-ization of America. Just as Republicans attempted in the State of Ohio, House Republicans are simply union busting. But we saw what happened in Ohio, where Ohioans across the ideological spectrum overwhelmingly said ``no'' to this kind of anti- worker agenda. And the American people reject it as well.

This bill's singular goal is to shut down workplace elections. It would overturn the proposed National Labor Relations Board rule, it would modernize the union election process and avoid delays. But instead of creating efficiency in government, the workplace election prevention actually mandates inefficiency; it makes inefficiency the norm rather than the exception. The bill puts in place 35-day delays in holding elections after filing petitions. The bill includes no limit on how long the elections can be delayed.

In the case of workplace elections, delay is a critical issue. The intent of delaying an election is to give anti-union employers a chance to prevent workers from organizing. Despite Republicans' professed outrage over frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and many other areas, H.R. 3094 incentivizes a mountain of litigation for the sole purpose of stalling workplace elections. This creates a massive backlog of cases, including frivolous ones, all on the taxpayers' dime. Republicans don't seem to have a problem with trial lawyers as long as they're suing unions.

This bill even allows managers to stuff the ballot boxes of employer elections.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure many of us in this body here are following our State redistricting processes to see how various districts across the country are gerrymandered. What this bill would allow employers to do is effectively gerrymander what the negotiating unit is at the company. If there's a group of employees that's interested in forming a union, it would give the employer the ability to say, no, that's actually not a valid group; it needs to include this other group or this other group, and decide on what the electoral body is, what is the electorate, choosing their own electorate, as too many Members of Congress attempt to do through the redistricting process, choosing their electorate to try to rig the election against the workers.

This bill is just the latest assault on workers' rights and it's, again, typical of this do-nothing Congress. The Republicans have been fixated on attacking the National Labor Relations Board, the board that is in place to strike a balance between labor and employers by cutting the agency's funding, by holding up new appointments and, now, by reversing a rule on notice-posting to inform employees of their rights.

Mr. Speaker, the people are wise to see what's going on here in Congress. Every week we're in session, we see a parade of special interest bills paraded on the House floor, while taxes for middle class families risk going up because the Republicans believe that government knows how to spend their money better than the American people. The big energy companies have got numerous exemptions from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The rest of us got pollution, asthma, and other illness.

Look, is it possible to create jobs by lowering standards? It is. If you want to remove workplace safety standards you can create jobs, unsafe jobs. If you want to reduce the minimum wage to $2 an hour, you can create jobs, $2-an-hour jobs.

Is that the America we want? Is that the America we want for our children and grandchildren? We can do better, and we must do better.

Why are we here? When will Americans get the jobs bill that we desperately need to the floor of the House of Representatives?

If you've got some ideas to create jobs, let's get them out, put them in front of us and discuss them. Let's start by preventing the payroll taxes from going up for middle class Americans.

It's obvious why this body has an approval rating that's actually lower than communism now, and even lower than President Nixon when he resigned. It's time for this Congress to get to work to provide solutions to help get this economy going, or it's going to be time to get a new Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I did yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I will inquire of the gentlelady if she has any additional speakers.

Very well.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the middle class of this country doesn't need a higher payroll tax, more dirty air, dirty water, fewer workers' rights; and they certainly don't need more partisan gridlock in this do-nothing Congress. Yet that is what is being offered here today.

The American people and the American economy need jobs, need optimism. Our Nation needs to know that we're working to ensure American competitiveness and access to hope and

opportunity, to work to ensure that kids get the best education in the world so we can drive the economic engine of today and tomorrow, invent new technologies, propel future generations of American ingenuity and leadership.

This kind of political gridlock in this do-nothing Congress does not help America move forward. This bill's singular goal is to delay and ultimately prevent workers from voting in workplace elections. These rights have helped to create the American middle class in the last century. In recent decades, the erosion of these rights has lowered paychecks for families, led to jobs outsourcing overseas, and widened the income disparities in our society.

Are environmental and workplace laws, which have been around for decades, the reason the economy is lagging? Of course not. Yet these are the types of so-called solutions that are being put forward in bill after bill after bill.

Let's talk about preventing a looming increase on taxes in the middle class. I encourage the supercommittee and, if it need be, standalone legislation to ensure that we can keep payroll taxes at their current level. It's time for Congress to take up the President's Jobs Act, which includes extending the middle class tax cut. The American Jobs Act, which Republicans still refuse to consider, includes job-creating proposals, including rebuilding our schools, tax breaks for small businesses to create jobs, and modernizing our air traffic control system.

It's time for this Congress to stand up for the American people, to offer solutions, to get serious about getting our economy back on track instead of just scoring political points that appeal to the base.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.