Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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.

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. 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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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).

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. 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).

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.

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. 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. 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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I'm sure the gentleman did not mean to imply that those of us who take our side are not patriots. We think patriotism includes the right to freely and collectively bargain, and we stand for it.

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to a widely respected advocate of the people of the State of Washington, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. 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).

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. 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).

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).

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 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

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

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this yet another closed rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill.

The difference between the two parties could not be any clearer. While Democrats continue to push for legislation that will create American jobs, Republicans continue to attack American workers.

After more than 250 days, the majority, House Republicans, have no jobs agenda, nothing. Instead, they have brought forth job-destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs, and they have voted to end Medicare, cut Social Security and slash Medicaid.

Today, sadly, is no different. Instead of bringing the American Jobs Act to the floor, the Republican leadership gives us H.R. 2587, the ``GOP Job Outsourcers' Bill of Rights.''

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my Republican colleagues detest the National Labor Relations Board. They have made that crystal clear in the past few months with their amendments to cut the NLRB's funding and undermine its authority.

But today they have sunk to a new low. The bill before us guts the very fundamental rights of American workers to fight for better wages and working conditions, and it makes it easier for companies to outsource American jobs overseas.

Not a single hearing was held on this bill, not one. No objective assessments were done by the GAO or the Congressional Research Service, not even any evaluation on the impact on wages or job security of the millions of American workers who will be touched by this legislation.

If this is the Republicans' idea of a job-creation plan, they are even further off base than I thought.

I would like to think that my Republican colleagues haven't thought through the wide-ranging repercussions of this bill. So let me take a moment to educate them.

Companies in the United States are free to move their operations as they see fit, as long as it's not in retaliation for workers exercising their right to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, or to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work.

And the plain fact is, if a company is allowed to retaliate against its workers simply for exercising their lawful rights, every worker in every other State, including South Carolina, will lose some of their fundamental rights. A year from now, if Boeing decides to move production from South Carolina to China, to retaliate against workers who try to organize a union, the NLRB would have no power to order those jobs to be kept or transferred back to the United States. For many American workers today, the NLRB's authority to restore or reinstate work that has been unlawfully transferred, outsourced, or subcontracted away from workers exercising their lawful rights is the only remedy they have to keep their jobs.

By eliminating the power of the NLRB to order work be restored or reinstated, a CEO may simply eliminate the work and thereby the worker. That CEO may even explain to the workforce that he eliminated the work because it was pro-union. Even worse, H.R. 2587 would apply retroactively to any complaint that has not been resolved by the time of enactment, including the Boeing case.

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent. Congress has no business sticking its nose into an ongoing legal proceeding. We have no business changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

Republicans have sent a clear message: if you aren't a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you shouldn't have any rights in the workplace. For the millions of hardworking middle class workers who are struggling to support their families and pay their bills, H.R. 2587 is a slap in the face.

Democrats will not stand idly by as this Republican Congress tries to dismantle the rights of American workers. American workers have fought hard and earned these rights. They have sweated and bled and sometimes died to secure them. I am proud to stand with those workers and their families.

I find it sad that this Republican leadership, a leadership that routinely fights to protect tax loopholes for corporations that shift jobs overseas, is now bringing this horrible anti-worker bill to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to reject this far-reaching legislation and get back to work to bring real and meaningful job creation bills to the floor. Stop this assault against American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to clarify a few points. I would remind my friend from South Carolina that he and every single Republican in this House voted for the Republican line budget, which basically destroys Medicare as we know it, voucherizing the entire system.

I also will remind him that it is his party's leading Presidential candidate right now who is advocating eliminating Social Security. And now we have a bill on the floor that my Republican friends are supporting that will make it easier and more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

Stop the assault on American workers.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to make it crystal clear that this Republican bill does not protect or create jobs. What it does is it forces American workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their legal rights and underbidding each other. This is about a race to the bottom.

The problem I have with my Republican friends is their economic policies are all about lowering the standard of living for working families in this country. We should be trying to increase the living standards for American workers.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Rather than bringing up a bill that makes it easier and more likely for U.S. corporations to send U.S. jobs overseas, they ought to be bringing to the floor the President's jobs bill that he talked about here in the United States Congress about putting people back to work. He came up with a series of bipartisan initiatives that will help stimulate and jump-start this economy. Rather than doing that, which will put people back to work, we're debating an anti-worker bill that's going to make it more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

It is wrong, and I would urge my Republican friends to stop your assault on American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), who believes that it is wrong for the Republicans to pass legislation to make it easier for U.S. corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The Republican bill creates open season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising their basic rights.

My friends on the other side fight tooth and nail to protect all these corporate tax loopholes that actually encourage companies to move their jobs overseas. We can't touch them. They fight with passion on the floor to protect them.

But when it comes to protecting American workers, they're AWOL. I don't know what it is that they have against American workers, but this bill undermines the rights of American workers to be able to stand up and ask for a decent wage for an honest day's work. It undermines their ability to ask for benefits like a good retirement benefit. This is about taking away rights and powers of workers.

Granted, these workers don't give big PAC checks. They're not the leaders of the Fortune 500 companies. But these people are the backbone of our economy. We should be standing up for American workers in this Congress. We should be fighting to protect American jobs to keep them in the United States.

This bill makes it easier, in fact, more likely that corporations and companies will retaliate against workers who stand up for their rights by sending their jobs overseas to places like China. Why in the world are we doing this?

We should be trying to find a way to empower workers in this country. It shouldn't be about a race to the bottom. And it shouldn't be about States competing for existing jobs.

This is a bad bill. This is a bad precedent. And quite frankly, again, it is typical of what the Republican agenda is all about when it comes to the economy. It's about a race to the bottom. It's about lowering the standard of living for American workers while protecting the big CEOs, the heads of the Fortune 500 companies. Their rights are always protected. But when it comes to the little guy, my Republican friends are on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it's September. When are you going to bring a jobs bill to the floor? When are you going to bring legislation that's going to help put people back to work during this difficult economy?

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we should be talking here on the floor and debating and considering an infrastructure bill to put people back to work. We should be taking up the entirety of the President's jobs proposal that he delivered in a speech a week ago. We should be taking up things that will actually help this economy and put people back to work. Instead, we are dealing with a bill that will make it easier and more likely for U.S. corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas. And this is a bill that creates a new race to the bottom for American workers' rights, wages, benefits, and working conditions, and it is bad for this economy.

Why do my Republican friends continue to insist that the only way to deal with our economic problems is to lower the standard of living and the quality of life for American workers? Why are all the tough choices being made on the backs of American workers?

We can do much better in this country. We need to be focusing on jobs, not on this stuff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about creating a healthy business climate. I don't know how we're creating a healthy business climate by passing a bill that makes it easier and more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

After more than 200 days in the majority, House Republicans have passed no bills, none, no bills to create jobs, moving instead on job destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs, with more to come.

This week, to make matters worse, we're taking up this legislation that will encourage the shipping of jobs overseas and a bill that will weaken the middle class. Instead of creating jobs and strengthening the middle class and protecting workers' rights, the Republicans are making it easier for corporations to send American jobs overseas. And it allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their rights to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, and to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. I mean, that's what this bill does.

You know, in 2000, the National Labor Relations Board was able to force a company to bring jobs back to the United States from Mexico, as the company was charged with shipping jobs to Mexico in retaliation against workers seeking to organize a union. Under this Republican bill, American workers would lose this protection.

Again, their plan for the economy is all about lowering the standard of living, lessening the quality of life for American workers, while protecting those who are most fortunate in this country, those who head up the big companies.

We should be debating on this floor today the President's job bill. If my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they don't have to; but that's the legislation that should be brought before the Members of this Congress today, not this bill, a bill that punishes American workers. Enough. You've been punishing American workers since you took the majority. Enough is enough.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Then I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that this bill is not a retaliation against right-to-work States. I'm not a big fan of right- to-work States in terms of how they treat workers and those who want to organize unions; but this bill is really about protecting workers from corporations that retaliate against them simply for demanding their rights and organizing for their rights.

The Republican bill changes the rules mid-trial to benefit a particular Fortune 500 company, Boeing; but this bill has wide-ranging repercussions for American workers. This bill does not protect or create jobs. It just doesn't. It forces American workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their rights and underbidding each other. It's a race to the bottom.

The Republican bill makes it easier to ship U.S. jobs overseas. There's no question about that. And the Republican bill creates an open season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising their rights. Again, this is a further assault on the rights and protections that workers have fought so hard for for so many decades, and this bill undermines the duty to bargain in good faith. This is an anti-union bill--there is no question--among other things.

The bill also encourages law-breaking and intimidation by employers. It removes a key disincentive against employers who unlawfully threaten employees with job loss during organizing drives.

The Republican bill creates a new race to the bottom for American workers' rights, wages, benefits, and working conditions. We're going in the wrong direction with this bill.

This bill is one more assault on American workers, on the American middle class. Time after time after time the Republican leadership has stood up for Big Business and against the American middle class. Higher gas prices--Republicans protect Big Oil tax breaks and do nothing to help the average consumer. Health care coverage for

our kids through the age of 25--Republicans side with the health care companies that put profits over patients.

With this bill, Republicans are promoting job creation overseas by allowing companies to move overseas in retaliation of workers who are exercising their own legal rights. Not only that, this bill goes back in time and applies this bill retroactively. This is just like changing the value of a touchdown in the middle of the Super Bowl simply because you don't like the score of the game. This bill would be a joke if it weren't so serious.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not about protecting right-to-work States. Really, this is not even about unions. This is about the rights of workers in this country. This is about protecting American jobs. This is about urging companies to invest in the United States and not making it easier for them to create jobs overseas.

We're in a difficult economy right now, Mr. Speaker. We should be debating on this floor the President's job bill. Every day we should be doing something about jobs. And, instead, here we are in September. My Republican colleagues have done nothing. They've done nothing except continue an assault on middle class families.

Today, it's workers. They're going after Medicare in the Ryan budget. Their leading Republican Presidential candidate is talking about eliminating Social Security. All the protections, all the rights that middle class families have fought for and have won that are essential to a decent quality of life they're trying to take away. Enough.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm just curious. When are we going to debate a bill on this floor that helps create jobs? Why don't you bring the President's plan to the floor and let's have it out?

Mr. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2587, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act is a commonsense proposal that will prevent the National Labor Relations Board from dictating where an employer can and cannot create work. Upon the date of enactment, this limitation will apply to all cases that have not reached final adjudication by the full Board.

Now, more than ever, the American people are looking for leadership out of Washington and some common sense. They want to know their elected officials are willing to take on the tough issues and make the difficult decisions needed to get this economy moving again. They need to believe Congress has the courage to tear down old barriers to new jobs, regardless of the political cost. After 31 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, we cannot afford to cling to the status quo any longer.

This legislation represents an important step in the fight to get our economy back on track. It tells job creators they don't have to fear an activist NLRB reversing important decisions about where to locate a business. It offers workers peace of mind by ensuring no Federal labor board can force an employer to ship their jobs across the country. And it tells the American people we are serious about getting government out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs who are desperately trying to do what they do best, create jobs and opportunities for our Nation's workers.

On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board sent a shock wave across our struggling economy. In a complaint filed against the Boeing Company, the NLRB demanded that this private company relocate work already underway in South Carolina to Washington State. The Board has more than a dozen remedies available to protect workers and hold employers accountable. Regrettably, the Obama NLRB exercised the most extreme remedy and, as a result, put the livelihoods of thousands of South Carolina workers on the line. Equally troubling, countless workers across the country now fear they could be subject to a similar attack in the future.

Make no mistake. Every worker deserves strong protections that ensure they are free to exercise their rights under the law. This legislation preserves a number of tough remedies for the Board to punish illegal activity. This Republican bill simply says that forcing a business to close its doors and relocate to another part of the country is an unacceptable remedy for today's workforce.

If the NLRB is allowed to exercise this radical authority, it will have a chilling effect on our economy. Businesses, at home and abroad, will reconsider their decision to invest in our country and create jobs for American workers. We have already heard stories of Canadian business leaders doing just that. No doubt, these difficult choices are being discussed on shop floors and boardrooms across the country and outside our borders.

Last month, this Board unloaded a barrage of activist decisions that undermine workers' rights and weaken our workforce. If the President will not hold the Board accountable for its job-destroying agenda, Congress will. It is time we forced the NLRB to change course. This is a sensible reform that will encourage businesses to create jobs right here at home.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. 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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again about the time remaining?

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. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is always an interesting debate on the floor. This has been another example. We have some fundamental differences in how we view the problems and, more importantly, the solutions facing our country.

Both sides recognize that we have high unemployment, historically high, with 30 months of unemployment over 8 percent, 14 million Americans out of work. Both sides want the economy to grow and people to get back to work. But one side believes that more regulations--by the last account some 219 in the pipeline coming from this administration--more regulations, more spending money that we don't have, more government interference will somehow get Americans back to work; and the other side, Mr. Speaker, believes that employers, the private sector, small businesses, entrepreneurs, middle-size businesses and large businesses create jobs, put Americans to work.

Now, the National Labor Relations Act, as has been discussed, has been around for a long time. Neither side is suggesting that Americans don't have the right to organize and to bargain. I beg to differ with my colleagues on the other side. That's not what this is about.

But what we have here is a case where the act creates a board which, by

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Because the one Republican amendment submitted to the Rules Committee was not germane and because the Democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, House Resolution 372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. Since the NLRB filed suit against Boeing, I have been reminded of an old saying: ``A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.''

What you see now is exactly that, Big Government killing jobs under the guise of protecting workers. Let me be clear. Despite what opponents will say, this is not a union issue. This is a classic example of government overreach which will, in the end, destroy American jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and an economy which is best described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford this action. Plain and simple, my legislation will remove the NLRB's ability to kill jobs.

The government, especially an unelected board, does not need to be involved in the business decisions of the private sector. In fact, it cannot be. We already live in a country where our corporate tax structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another strike against us.

Today, the NLRB's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my hometown of north Charleston. Let me say that again: 1,100 jobs already created and filled. Who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company from looking to expand, not just in South Carolina, a State where our unemployment rate is at 10.9 percent, but anywhere in the country. This instability is the last thing our job creators need right now.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This commonsense solution will help spur job creation and, more importantly, it will remove impediments to job creation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

There are a couple of comments I would like to make on my good friend's comments.

For one thing, not a single union employee, not a single employee in Washington State--Puget Sound, Washington State--has lost their job because of the new line of work being done in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Another comment that my good friend made had to do with Medicare and what the Republicans are doing to Medicare. Let us not forget the fact that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact on Medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national health care plan passed by the Democrats where they stripped $500 billion, $500 billion, out of Medicare to pay for the debacle known as national health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Joe Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Phil Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly love to hear a single case, a single specific comment, a single specific fact to undergird your comments, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, John Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would just say to my good friend, Mr. McGovern, that there's no doubt about it that the President's jobs plan does one thing. And it's consistent with what the NLRB would do as well. It doesn't simply ship American jobs overseas. It ships American companies overseas so they do not have to play in the quagmire pit called the regulations that this President and the Federal Government have imposed on businesses.

To quote from the conservative Chicago Tribune: The NLRB's worst decision, however, is its unprovoked ``hit'' job on Boeing. There's no question that whether you're a conservative, a liberal; whether you are a passionate believer in the future of this Nation and this world, here's one thing we all have in common: the decision for the NLRB to attack America's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and indefensible.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

My good friends on the left continue to talk about shipping jobs out of America. I want to make sure that everyone still recognizes the fact that the great State of South Carolina is still a part of the United States of America. In fact, when you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the Washington State employees now

have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant in North Charleston. In fact, if you're talking about creating American jobs in American States--U.S. States--South Carolina--you would simply look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in North Charleston. You would think about the fact that the compounding impact of those jobs in North Charleston could create up to 12,000 new American jobs in our States.

So the fallacy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mike Pompeo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Steve Palazzo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robert Hurt.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have no remaining speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts continues to talk about the President's jobs plan that is nothing more than a brand spanking new stimulus plan spending $467 billion by increasing taxes on everyone, including the middle class. I cannot find it in my heart to say to Mr. McGovern that the President's plan has any opportunity of passing in this House, because the bottom line is simply this: we ought to spend our time focused on the things that we have in common. It is time for the games to stop.

We should look at the President's plan and pick out those parts of the plan that we agree with. We should start by talking about having an opportunity to work on corporate tax reduction, flattening the tax rate for corporations. We have the second highest tax rate in all of the world, and this environment creates an unlevel playing field for America's job creators.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Our President wants an up-or-down vote on this one package.

We believe that the fastest and most effective way to show the American people that partisan politics is over and that we're now focused on the American people, we will take those parts, those aspects of the President's bill that we agree with, like regulatory reform like we're doing today, and simply say to the American people that we're listening. We will take, without any question, an opportunity to debate the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make America's corporations more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the games which so often sidetrack things in Washington and pass this important legislation here today.

This is not a question of pro-union--I agree with you--or anti-union. It is a question of right versus wrong.

The NLRB has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and hold employers accountable for unlawful labor practices. There is simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where a private business can establish its workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his tremendous leadership on behalf of America's workers. Thank you, Mr. Andrews, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, Americans of every political party and every background--Democrats, Republicans, independents, and others--agree that our Nation's top priority must be the creation of jobs and economic growth and security. Yet for more than 250 days, the Republican majority in the House has refused to listen to them. They, the Republicans, have failed to enact a single jobs bill. And the American people do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for Congress to act to create jobs.

The President has proposed the American Jobs Act. He's called upon us to pass the bill now. We support that, as do the Democratic Members of the House. But today, instead of passing a jobs bill, we are wasting the time of the Congress by attacking workers instead of strengthening them. We are debating a bill to undermine the foundation of our middle class instead of fighting to put people to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, railways, broadband lines, schools, airports, and water systems. We are voting on a measure to send jobs overseas instead of focusing on how to keep jobs here at home through our Make it in America initiative advanced by our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer. Make it in America--how to strengthen our economy and our national security by stopping the erosion of our manufacturing base, indeed, by strengthening our manufacturing and industrial base.

I want to recognize my colleague, Congressman George Miller, the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his leadership, his knowledge, and not only his intellect but his passion and tireless advocacy on the subject of America's workers. As Congressman Miller has said, our Republican colleagues have proposed the so-called outsourcers' bill of rights or as I prefer to call it, the Outsourcers' Bill of Wrongs--because this legislation has the wrong priorities for America's economy and for American workers.

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.