H.Res. 477

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend 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

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 477 is a structured rule for the consideration of three bills: H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act; H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act; and H.R. 3463, a measure to terminate the Election Assistance Commission and end taxpayer financing of presidential elections and campaigns.

Not only do these bills show this House's commitment to small businesses, but they also demand that agency rulemaking be held accountable, reclaiming that authority that is vested here in this House.

H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, requires agencies to analyze the impact that a new regulation would have on small businesses before the regulation is adopted. By requiring all Federal agencies to obtain input and develop and conduct regular regulatory reviews of existing regulations, this bill, I believe, complements and codifies President Barack Obama's commitment in Executive Order 13563 that directs agencies to review their regulations and solicit public input.

H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, makes further positive changes. It reforms and modernizes the Administrative Procedure Act. It makes agencies more accountable and regulations more cost effective. In a recent study, Madam Speaker, that the Small Business Administration commissioned, they estimated the cost of the U.S. Federal regulatory burden at $1.75 trillion. Now, that's not to say there aren't benefits that outweigh that burden; but when the burden is that substantial, Madam Speaker, we have to have a process in place that balances those benefits and those burdens, and that's all H.R. 3010 asks to do.

Madam Speaker, time and time again the American people have demanded more accountability from their Congress, more accountability from their government. This collection of bills today not only provides that accountability of Congress, but requires that accountability of our executive branch agencies.

As we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, it's important to note that these bills are paid for by terminating the Election Assistance Commission. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that was a commission created in 2002 that was supposed to sunset by 2005 and yet has continued even until today. That commission was set up in the aftermath of the hanging chads of the 2000 Presidential election to help States implement election reforms, to help States make sure the integrity of their electoral process was preserved. And yet today, 6 years after the expected sunset of that commission, we hear from our Secretaries of State that they no longer need that commission, that that commission is not providing useful benefits to them. By terminating that, we're going to save the American taxpayer more than $600 million over the next decade.

Madam Speaker, taken together, these three measures, H.R. 527, H.R. 3010, and H.R. 3463, help small businesses, increase agency transparency, and increase public participation in the entire regulatory process. They save money for hardworking American taxpayers and are positive reforms that this Congress can pass in a bipartisan way.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these underlying measures, and I hope they will support this rule so that we may consider them today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I look at the clock above your head. I think it's been about 11 minutes since my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz called for a toning down of the rhetoric and focusing more on policy. I don't think we were able to make it to minute 15.

I will quote my friend as he referred to Republicans: Either they don't care about the economy, or they are just acting for political gain.

Is that all there is? Either folks don't care, or they're just acting for political gain. It could be that their principles are different. It could be that their principles are different, but I don't actually believe that. I believe our principles are the same, because what these bills do is one thing and one thing only. Let's balance the regulatory burden with the benefits that it provides.

Madam Speaker, who is it in America that does not believe that balance is important in what we do here in Congress? I hear it back home all the time: Rob, balance. I want you to get things done, but I don't want you to get things done that are the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. I want you to come together and work on these issues.

Who is it, Madam Speaker, that does not believe that regulation to protect health and safety is important? I do. I come from one of the farthest right districts in the country. I believe health and safety are important things to regulate, but I believe we should balance those regulations.

When we doubled the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency between 2008 and 2009, where do you think that money went, Madam Speaker? The environment that I live in in Georgia was clean and thriving in 2008. But when you double the amount of money that you give to regulators, they have only one thing that they can do with it, and that's regulate more, regulate more.

We need balance, and that's all these bills are asking for. I have all the committee reports here, Madam Speaker, if any of my colleagues would like to come and look at them. There is not a line in any of these pages that says: Thou shalt not regulate. Not one. What they say is: Thou shalt regulate with balance--with balance.

A friend of mine was walking through the Occupy Atlanta protest the other day, Madam Speaker. A fellow came up and shook his fist at him. One of the protesters shook his fist at my friend and said, It's all about jobs. And my friend looked him in the eye and said, You know, you're exactly right. You should go out and hire somebody. You should go out and hire somebody. The fellow said, I'm not talking about providing jobs. I'm talking about I want a job myself.

Well, that's right. Every single bill that this Congress considers that helps job creators helps jobs.

We've got to end the rhetoric of loving jobs and hating job creators, Madam Speaker. There's only one opportunity that we, as Americans, have for employment, and that is finding an employer. And line after line after line of these bills say, before you punish American industry, make sure the balance is there, because, let's be clear, Madam Speaker, it's not that these jobs don't have to be performed.

Time and time again I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that we're not creating jobs. I, too, bemoan the fact that this administration has not created jobs. But that's not our only problem. Our problem is jobs that are leaving this country, Madam Speaker. Our problem is destroying even more jobs.

Industry is going to continue to operate around this planet. We can either embrace it here in this country in a balanced way or we can run them all overseas.

There's something that I believe we sometimes do disagree about here in this Congress, and that is that government cannot create jobs. Government can create an environment in which job creators can create jobs.

I cannot pass a bill in this Congress, no matter how hard I try, Madam Speaker, no matter how hard I work, that will make everybody in this country rich. I cannot do it. But this Congress has succeeded all too often at passing bills that can make everybody poor.

Balance, Madam Speaker, is what these bills contain. What this rule does--and it's important because it's a new operation that we're doing here in this House; and I'm very proud of it, and I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle are proud.

This is not an open rule today. I don't want to claim that it is. It's not on open rule. What we did, though, as the Rules Committee, is we asked all of our colleagues, anyone who has a proposal that they believe will make these bills better, send those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. Anybody--Democrat, Republican--send those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. This is what we did in the Rules Committee.

We received six Democratic amendments for H.R. 527, six ideas from the 435 Members in this House, six ideas for making these bills better. They all came from the Democratic side of the aisle, and we made every single one of those ideas available for debate here on the House floor today. You didn't used to see that. You didn't used to see it under Republican administrations. You didn't used to see it under Democrat administrations. That's what we're doing here today in a bipartisan way.

H.R. 3010, sent out a notice to the entire Congress, Send your ideas for making H.R. 3010 better. Send them to the Rules Committee so that we can consider them for consideration on the House floor. There were 12 ideas that were submitted, Madam Speaker--one Republican idea, 11 Democrat ideas. Three of those Democrat ideas were later withdrawn, said, We don't want to bring those ideas to the floor. So that leaves us with eight, and we brought all but one.

My colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), his amendment was not made in order because my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson) had an amendment that was substantially similar, and knowing that time is valuable on the House floor, we wanted to consider all ideas, but not all ideas from everybody, each idea only once.

Seven Democratic amendments, one Republican amendment made in order because we invited the entire United States House into this process.

This is the time on the rule, Madam Speaker. I'm not here to debate the underlying provisions. We've provided time to do that. But I do want to defend this rule as an example of what we ought to do.

Is it a little more convoluted than I would have liked? Yes, it is.

Is it a little outside of my issue areas? Yes, it is.

But does it make in order all of the amendments that our colleagues want to submit? It provides for time for debate on every single idea submitted.

That's an important change in this House, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful that we've been able to do it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Even though I'm a freshman in this body, I have been working hard to try to find metrics by which I can judge what's happening here because this body is not like so much that happens back home. The metric that I have found while we're debating a rule is that the less folks are talking about the rule, I think the better job we did crafting it. I think that's right. Because if it was an awful rule, we'd spend our time talking about what an awful rule it is. When it's a pretty good rule, we spend our time talking about other issues on the floor.

I happen to agree with my friend from New Jersey. A thousand dollars for a family earning $50,000, that's real money. Now, I would say, though, to my friend from Massachusetts that if you take that $1.75 trillion burden that the Small Business Administration tells us is upon the American people because of regulations, that's actually $5,000 per person. That's $15,000 per a three-member family. And so yes, I agree with my friend from New Jersey that we should absolutely cooperate on focusing on those burdens. The burden we're focusing on today? Even larger, by orders of magnitude.

I'd be happy to yield.

My friend flatters me by thinking I have the answer to that information as a young freshman on the House floor, but I'll tell you this. I'll tell you that two things are true, and it is a puzzler for me on the payroll tax holiday that's gone on this year.

On the one hand I will tell you that Republicans are absolutely the party of lower taxes and not higher taxes and that actually speaks to this issue. We're also the party of making sure that we're paying for those commitments that we're making. Social Security is different from any other tax, and when I go and talk to my grandfather, he'll say, ``Rob, I want that Social Security. I paid into it all my life.''

Well, we're not paying into it right now. The proposal is not to pay into it next year, the proposal was not to pay into it last year. I'd be interested to ask my friend if he's prepared to support lowering those Social Security benefits because, again, this is something we're paying into.

I would say to my friend that the majority, again speaking out of school as a young freshman here on the House floor, but I know enough about my leadership to know the majority is absolutely committed to protecting and preserving Social Security not just for this generation but the next generation and beyond. And the question is going to be can we find a proposal, because the one that was passed last year was not a proposal that both lowered tax burdens and protected the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

We must be sure not to further bankrupt a program that we all agree is already going bankrupt. I look forward to that debate, Madam Speaker, between now and the end of the year.

And it's not just that tax that's expiring. I know my friend is also concerned about the Bush-Obama tax cuts that were extended in December of 2010 and wants to be sure that those will be extended in 2011 on into 2013.

I'll be happy to yield.

I would say to my friend that I happen to support up- down votes on all sorts of things. I'm an open rules guy, and I'm very proud of our Speaker who believes that the House works best when the House works its will. That's really one of the changes that I understand we've seen in this year that we haven't seen in years past.

I think that's important, Madam Speaker, for us to be able to bring those votes to the floor.

But it's also important to make sure that folks have all of the information in the same way that folks might be tempted to mischaracterize these balancing provisions that we're bringing forth today as some sort of Republican chicanery.

Folks might also be tempted to characterize something that is going to hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as being something that has no consequence at all. There really are consequences to this decision. And to say to my friend I look forward to a robust debate on that because it's an important issue for American families.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that on H.R. 527, six Democratic amendments offered, six Democrat amendments made in order. The House works best when the House works its will. The rule today is providing that opportunity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker, to say I'm always happy to find things that I agree on with those across the aisle.

I'll say to my friend from California that we're both new in this House and that I spent my Saturday doing those very same things. My small business owners told me that very same thing, though they told me one more thing.

They said, Do get the foot of government off the throat of my small business. They did say, Rob, you cannot help me by doing more, but you can help me by doing less. You can help me by getting out of the way and by letting me do what I do.

The question then becomes how we get those customers in that store, and there are absolutely two visions for making that happen. We can either try to dispense more favors from Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker. We can try to pump more money that we don't have out of Washington, DC, money that we're borrowing from our children and grandchildren; or we can try to get folks higher- and better-paying jobs--more jobs--which is what this rule is about today.

We are running jobs out of this country. We are forcing jobs out of this country. The new report came out of over 150 nations, Mr. Speaker. We are number 69 in how easy it is for businesses to comply with their tax burdens, for example. Number 69. We should be the best place on Earth to do business.

What is it that raises salaries?

Sometimes my friend on the left suggests that we could just raise the minimum wage and just guarantee everybody money, but I don't believe we can. What we can do is give folks an opportunity to increase their productivity. No worker on the planet works harder than the American worker. No worker on the planet has more productivity than the American worker, and regulation after regulation after regulation slows the American worker down. If you want to put more money in the American worker's pocket, you let the American worker be more productive by providing some balance.

Again, nothing we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker, says thou shalt not regulate. We know we're going to regulate. What we're saying is, let's regulate with balance. Then my friend's small businesses and my small businesses will have those customers that they need to get this economy moving again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I could likely go back and forth all day long with my friend from Massachusetts believing that he loves workers more, with my believing that I love workers more and with his believing that to define ``loving of workers'' means we have to regulate them differently from Washington, D.C. For me, ``loving workers'' means we're going to free them to do those things that they do best, which is to produce.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I'm proud to be here with you today, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, that's why I came to Congress, and that is exactly what we're talking about in this rule today. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, you have seen with great concern what I have seen here today, and that is a complete disconnect, it appears, with my colleagues on the other side with the understanding that increasing regulation, needlessly increasing regulation, burdens the American worker, undermines the American economy, thwarts jobs. And I say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those things on which if we disagree we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it is as clear to me as it is that the sky is blue that when you increase the regulatory burden you make the American family poorer for it.

I know I can't ask for a show of hands here, Mr. Speaker, but if I did and said, Who is it, who wants dirtier drinking water back home in their district? Who is it that doesn't drink from the same spigot as the rest of us? Who is it that doesn't shop at the same grocery stores as the rest of us? Who is it who doesn't drive on the same roads as the rest of us? We're all in this boat together. We're all this boat together, Mr. Speaker.

I come from the Deep South, and whenever we start talking about environmental issues, it always gets me so pumped up, because, dad gum it, nobody spends more time outside than I do. Nobody cares more about the environment than I do. And yet time and time again you hear that characterization that somehow asking for a balanced regulatory environment, a balanced regulatory environment, is somehow anti- environment or anti-American.

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, these bills before us today, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, that's why I came to Congress. That is why I came to Congress.

We cannot make everybody rich, but we can make everybody poor. And when we regulate without regard to the benefits of that regulation, without regard to the burdens of that regulation, that's exactly what we do.

My friend quoted the OMB, talking about the values of regulations. I don't dispute that at all. I'm absolutely certain there are some regulatory initiatives that do, in fact, produce a benefit. All I'm asking for is that we balance that benefit with whatever burden it causes, because--and this is a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, but do folks honestly believe that the regulatory burden should exist irrespective of the benefits that it provides. That's what we do. In these two pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we ask regulatory agencies to examine those benefits and burdens.

Now, as my friend from Massachusetts talks about partisan politics, I come from a district that was a proud ``no'' vote on both the ridiculous stimulus bill from the Bush administration and the ridiculous stimulus bill from the Obama administration.

We are equal opportunity ``no'' votes on ridiculousness. And that is what we have here as we try to reclaim some regulatory authority from the executive branch agencies.

I'll be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Congress went a little light on President Bush. And I certainly believe the last 2 years of the Democratic Congress went a little light on President Obama. I think we have a constitutional duty to defend our legislative prerogative to make the rules that this Nation abides by, not an unelected bureaucrat downtown, but elected officials right here in Washington, D.C., here in the people's House, those of us who have to go home and subject ourselves to voters every 2 years. This is where that authority belongs. And we should have those votes. Yes and no, we should have those votes on whether or not that's our shared vision of America.

Now I'm going to get a little off topic, Mr. Speaker. It's clear to me that we're going to be talking about the payroll tax over the next week or 10 days. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to understand that's not a free discussion. Every penny that you choose not to deposit in the Social Security trust fund is a penny closer to bankruptcy the Social Security trust fund comes.

It's easy to say you're going to get something for nothing, but we're not. $15 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker; $15 trillion. We've already been giving away something for nothing for far too long. The question is how can we both help the middle class taxpayer with their tax burden and preserve Social Security for generations to come. It's not a freebie, Mr. Speaker. These are tough questions that require serious answers, not on a motion to recommit, not on a motion to instruct, but in thoughtful committee consideration.

I'll get back to the rule now because this has had thoughtful committee consideration. Both the underlying provision and the rule itself have gone through regular order. Mr. Speaker, there's no need to rush these bills to the floor. We can take them through the process to make sure that they are thoughtfully examined line by line by line. And these bills have been.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, that's all these bills are asking of our administrative branch agencies--that the regulations that they're promulgating be examined line by line by line to make certain that the benefits outweigh the burdens.

It's a surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's even something that we're arguing about today. I would have thought that this is common sense. Certainly in my district it's common sense. Perhaps other constituencies feel differently--balancing the benefits with the burdens. Don't let folks tell you, Mr. Speaker, that regulations come without a burden. I'll give you an example. I have a cardboard box manufacturer in my district, manufactures cardboard boxes. It may not be glamorous work, but it's important work. I was visiting the plant the other day. They said: Rob, when they were talking about the ethanol regulations, did they ever talk about the impact the ethanol regulations would have on cardboard box manufacturers?

I said I wasn't in Congress then, but I never heard about it.

They said when you decided that you were going to insert ethanol in every gallon of gasoline, you also decided you were going to raise the price of corn. And we use corn starch in the glue that holds our boxes together, and we use corn starch with our fiber to make our boxes stronger. And every time you pass a regulation that increases the use of ethanol and decreases the availability of corn to other sources, you raise the price of our boxes. You can produce boxes anywhere in the world; and if we can't stay competitive, we're going to lose this business overseas.

Mr. Speaker, there are unintended consequences to the work of this body every single day, and the arrogance to believe we can foresee them all astonishes me. We must understand our fallibility. We must understand that we cannot foresee all of those consequences.

So every time we have an opportunity to measure, Mr. Speaker, every time we have an opportunity to look at the pros and the cons to ensure that we're getting it right, Mr. Speaker, every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from someone somewhere. Understand that. Every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from somebody somewhere.

Our government is a social contract where we agree to give up individual liberty so we can exist collectively. We have public services for safety and fire, on and on and on. But every single one of those comes at the expense of personal liberty. But we have decided that the expense is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, these bills do that today: balance benefits and burdens, provide that information to the American voter, and let's make sure that what we're doing is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of how one ought to do a rule, how one ought to open up the process, how one ought to encourage debate on all of the ideas that are brought to this House floor. I encourage strong support for this rule. I encourage strong support for the underlying legislation.

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.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule--and

not only restrictive, but a very convoluted rule--and I rise in opposition to the three bills that would be made in order by this rule.

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the Big Business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. Those aren't my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul.

Think about what Mr. Bartlett is saying in his last sentence: ``Republicans would rather play political games instead of putting people back to work. They would rather fiddle while Rome burns instead of putting out the fire.'' And look at the Republican track record since the start of the 112th Congress: no jobs bills, not one. But we've found time to debate bills defunding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. There's no extension of the payroll tax cut or unemployment insurance, but we can spend hours debating the need to allow unsafe people the right to carry concealed weapons from State to State. No effort to take away tax breaks for oil companies who continue to make billions of dollars in profits each month, but we can find time to make our air dirtier and our water less safe by dismantling the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Seriously, Madam Speaker, the agenda of the far right continues to dominate this House leadership, and that agenda is out of touch with the needs of the American people. We have a jobs crisis in this country. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling. Yet the Republicans continue to side with the people who don't need any help. They killed the supercommittee because they would rather protect tax cuts for millionaires instead of dealing with the deficit. They are refusing to take up the extension of the payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year because they don't want their millionaire friends to pay just a little bit more.

Just look at what we're doing this week. We're going to consider anti-regulatory bills that will make our country less safe and our citizens less healthy. We're going to consider a bill that actually promotes putting more corporate money into the political system. And we're going to debate a bill that makes it harder for workers to organize. Not one of these bills will put people back to work. Not one of these bills will help struggling families keep their heat on during the winter. Not one of these bills will help repair our aging infrastructure.

To quote Mr. Bartlett again: ``People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.'' And that's the truth, Madam Speaker. Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer.

The President proposed--and I have cosponsored--the American Jobs Act. It's a proposal that would help put Americans back to work, would extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, would help repair our aging infrastructure, and would provide aid to cities and States so they don't have to lay off more teachers and more police officers and more firefighters.

It's a bill that is paid for. It doesn't add one cent to the deficit. And it's made up of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. Let me repeat that: what the President has proposed is a series of measures that Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. The idea that a program was good under President Bush but not under President Obama doesn't make much sense to me, but that seems to be the thought process that passes for governing under this Republican leadership.

So where's the Republican plan? They don't have one. It's not enough to cross our fingers and hope that our economy improves. It's not enough to close our eyes and wish that more people would find a job. Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear by the Republican leadership's actions that they don't care about the economy. Either that, or they are making a conscious decision not to act simply for political gain. Either way, Americans are hurting because of their inaction.

Madam Speaker, our economy is not where it needs to be. There are still too many unemployed people in this country. There are still too many people struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their bills and to put food on the table. But this notion that red tape is what's keeping our economy from getting off the ground and that thoughtful regulations are preventing people from getting jobs is just untrue.

We don't need to waste time debating bills that make our air and water dirtier and less safe. We don't need to waste our time with bills defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. We don't need to waste our time debating bills to reaffirm our national motto. What we need to do is to get this economy moving. What we need to do is create jobs.

Republicans have been in charge now for 330 days. That's 330 days without a jobs bill. It's not enough to call something a ``jobs'' bill if it doesn't put someone back to work. No, Madam Speaker, we need a real jobs bill. We need definitive action that shows the American people that we care about their well-being, that we understand what they're going through, and that we're here to help--in short, that we're on their side. The bills we will be considering this week just don't get the job done.

It's been 330 days, and Republicans still don't get it. I can't say that I'm surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want my colleagues to understand that one of the amendments they didn't make in order was the amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Johnson, which basically stated that if the experts conclude that a rule would result in a net job creation, the rule shouldn't be delayed and blocked by all the stuff that's in this bill because we need jobs right now. It's interesting that that's the one that my Republican friends chose to block because it has to do with jobs.

Another amendment that they blocked was one that I had offered. I've offered it many, many times in the Rules Committee, and that is to basically bring to the floor an amendment that would allow us to vote to strip big oil companies of taxpayer-funded giveaways--subsidies is what I call them. And I've tried to bring it up on the floor a gazillion different times in a gazillion different ways, and I'm always told that there's a germaneness issue. But yet what does the Rules Committee do? Oftentimes, it waives all the rules so that sometimes nongermane amendments can come to the floor.

I mean, when you talk about balance, the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing big oil companies that made over $100 billion in profit last year, that we're going to somehow continue taxpayer subsidies to these big oil companies, yet, when you look at the Republican budget that they passed, they find ways to balance the budget on every single program that impacts middle-income and low-income people in this country.

What they do is they choose to balance the budget by lowering the quality of life and the standard of living for everyday people and for those struggling to get in the middle. There's no balance here. There's no balance here.

And in terms of bipartisanship, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and he gave a speech in which he outlined his jobs bill, which included a number of initiatives, all of which had in the past enjoyed bipartisan support. But I guess because he's the President, he's a Democrat, Republican leadership doesn't want to have those debates here on the floor, give him any victories, because that might not be politically advantageous to them.

Let's be frank about what's going on here. In my opinion, this is about political opportunism. This is about the leadership of this House blocking important legislation to put people back to work just because they can, just because it's been proposed by the President of the United States.

We need to focus on jobs in this Congress. We need to be focused on helping people get back to work. I don't care what part of the country you're from, people are hurting, people are struggling, and they're looking for us to do something, something meaningful, not to bring bills to the floor like this that, in the scheme of things, mean nothing or to have these great debates over reaffirming our national motto or on bills that make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from State to State.

That we're debating those things when there are millions of people that are out of work, I think, is outrageous.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to 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 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said that his party likes to pay for things. That statement startled me a little bit because they didn't think it was important to pay for the Bush tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which have now bankrupted us. They didn't think it was important to pay for the Medicare prescription drug bill, which was a lot more expensive than they had promised and was not paid for. They don't think about paying for the two wars that we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We had balanced budgets when Bill Clinton left office. It was after that that everything got out of whack, and it was because of these tax cuts, which were mostly for the wealthy, and it was because of a prescription drug bill and two wars, all of which were not paid for. So I hope my friends on the other side have finally gotten religion on this issue in that it is important to try to pay for things as you go along and to embrace PAYGO as Democrats have done.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

I just want my colleagues to understand that, if we were to extend the payroll tax cut, according to Mark Zandi, who is a Republican economist who advised John McCain in his Presidential campaign, it would create 750,000 jobs. He also says that we're likely to go into a recession if the payroll tax cut expires, if my Republican friends don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it. I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an up-or-down vote on this and so that people will have an opportunity to make their views on this issue known.

The other thing is we've heard all this talk about what the cost of regulation is. Again, some of the numbers that have been touted here I question very seriously. OMB's calculations demonstrate that regulation has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. In 2008, the Bush administration's OMB estimated that regulatory costs for major rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion and that the benefits of those regulations were between $122 billion and $656 billion.

So it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is what we should be doing on this floor today--debating a bill to put people back to work. We should be extending the payroll tax cut. We should also be talking about initiatives that the President put forward, these bipartisan initiatives. We should be doing things that will make a real difference in people's lives.

My friend talks about the American worker. There is no Congress, no Republican leadership in my lifetime that has been more hostile to the American worker than the leadership that runs this House right now, bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor to take away the rights of workers at every single level.

Do you want to know what one of the problems is with jobs moving overseas? It's that some of the incentives in our

tax laws have made it easier and even attractive for companies to pack up and go overseas and hire cheaper labor.

One of the problems with these series of bills that we're dealing with here today is that it will result in a rush to the bottom in terms of regulation--the lowest common denominator in terms of clean water and clean air standards--because, among other things, this legislation says that we should take into consideration the standards in other countries.

So China is going to now set our clean water and our clean air standards? Give me a break. Let's get real. Let's bring something to the floor that will make a difference in the lives of the American people, especially those who are unemployed. Let's bring a real jobs bill to the floor. Let's do something meaningful.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee whose amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which is opposed to this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3010--Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011

(Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 36 cosponsors, Nov. 29, 2011)

The Administration is committed to ensuring that

regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored

to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and

efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty.

Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House

passage of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. The

Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unprecedented

procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them

from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would

also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and

increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and

local governments, and further impede the implementation of

commonsense protections for the American public.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unnecessary

new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation.

When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must

already adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is

implementing. In many cases, the Congress has mandated that

the agency issue the particular rule or regulation, and it

often prescribes the process the agency must follow. Agencies

must also adhere to the robust and well understood procedural

requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and major

rules are subject to the requirements of other Federal

statutes such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In

addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by

Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of

both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to

promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination

that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs, to

consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory

flexibility. Lastly, final regulations are subject to review

by the Federal courts to ensure that agencies satisfy the

substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable

statutes and consider input from the relevant stakeholders.

Passage of H.R. 3010 would replace this time-honored

framework with layers of additional procedural requirements

that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to

execute their statutory mandates. It would require cumbersome

``formal'' rulemaking for a new category of rules, for which

agencies would have to conduct quasi-adjudicatory

proceedings. It would impose unnecessary new evidentiary

standards as a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the

regulatory process to unneeded rounds of litigation. Finally,

the Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine the

Executive Branch's ability to adapt regulatory review to

changing circumstances.

In these ways and others, the Regulatory Accountability Act

would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public

with basic protections, and create needless confusion and

delay that would prove disruptive for businesses, as well as

for state, tribal and local governments.

If the President were presented with the Regulatory

Accountability Act, his senior advisors would recommend that

he veto the bill.

Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we should be focusing on today--not guns, not abortion, not reaffirming our national motto-- jobs. We need to put people back to work. But that doesn't seem to be part of the Republican agenda, and it's hurting our country.

At the end of this year, as you have already heard during this debate, the payroll tax cuts signed into law by President Obama will expire. Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go up by a thousand dollars next year. Without action, GDP growth will fall by half a percent and will cost the economy 400,000 jobs according to the economic forecasting group Macroeconomic Advisers. Extending this tax cut is not just good for American families, it's good for the American economy. According to Ameriprise Financial, extending the payroll tax cut could add more than 1 million jobs to the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation that we need to be debating, not right-wing, hot-button social issues or bills that, when you add it all up, don't mean anything to anybody in this country.

But where is this extension of the payroll tax? It's not in this rule? It's not in the majority leader's schedule. In fact, the Republicans seem to be ignoring this issue.

It's sad. It's sad that the Republican leadership would rather raise taxes on middle class Americans basically to protect tax breaks of millionaires. If there was a vote right now on a bill that was going to cut one penny, it was going to cost Donald Trump one penny more in taxes, the other side would be overfilled with speakers. But we're talking about middle-income Americans, struggling Americans, that if we don't act by the end of this year they will see a $1,000 increase in their taxes.

Now, we can change all that here today. We can change that here today and actually bring to the floor something that is meaningful. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year. If we don't pass an extension, all working Americans will get a little less in their paychecks beginning in January.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can make sure that working families do not see their payroll taxes go up while we're still struggling to recover from a recession. This is exactly the type of action that people all over the country are hoping this Congress will move on.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 477, I call up the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission, 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 to include materials on H.R. 3463.

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

To begin, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for his continued assistance in ensuring these important matters are considered by the House. He has been a helpful partner.

Mr. Speaker, we live in uncertain times--with job creation stifled by crushing debt. But there are two things I am certain of: the necessity of cutting unnecessary spending and the fact that H.R. 3463 is a simple and straightforward way to do just that. H.R. 3463 cuts unnecessary spending in two ways:

First, it ends the taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions, a program growing

less and less popular for both taxpayers and candidates. Second, H.R. 3463 terminates the Election Assistance Commission, an obsolete government agency originally intended to sunset in 2005.

Every Federal program, including these, is there because someone thinks it is a good idea; but if we do not eliminate some programs, then a $15 trillion debt will just be the starting point of our decline into a European-style fiscal crisis. Everyone talks about tough choices, and we have to make them. Frankly, these choices aren't even very tough. They are about as easy as we're going to find.

Since 1976 American taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion in funding Presidential primary campaigns, Presidential election campaigns, and national party conventions. My colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has been a leader in trying to end those campaign subsidies, and I am pleased to work with him today to continue that effort.

When the taxpayer financing of political campaigns and conventions was adopted, proponents said it would improve the public's trust in their government, clean up our politics, and increase the competitiveness of political campaigns. Sadly, it has failed on all counts. Now we find that more and more candidates are opting out of the system altogether. The Federal Election Commission has just this week confirmed that no Presidential candidate to date has opted to participate for the 2012 election.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about eliminating a program that literally no candidate is currently using or preparing to use at this point. That includes President Obama, who in 2008 famously became the first Presidential candidate ever to decline to participate in both the primary and general election phases of the program.

It's not just the candidates who don't like it. As this chart indicates, support from Americans overall is dramatically low for this program. Since peaking in 1980, the percentage of taxpayers opting to participate has declined from a high of 28.7 percent to 7 percent.

It's obviously something that needs to be done away with. That means that 93 percent of American taxpayers choose not to participate. They refuse to subsidize political campaigns. Who can blame them? It's bad enough that they have to watch campaign commercials, but they shouldn't have to pay for them with taxpayer dollars as well. The money designated by a check-off on tax returns is diverted from those taxpayers' payments into this program so that every other taxpayer has to make up the difference in revenue to the Treasury. The 93 percent of taxpayers who do not participate have to make up for the money spent by the current 7 percent who do.

Mr. Speaker, eliminating this system will save taxpayers an estimated $447 million over 5 years and will immediately return nearly $200 million to the Treasury. This is sensible and long overdue.

Also long overdue is the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC, created in 2002, as this chart indicates, was expected to sunset in 2005. Instead, as you see on the chart, despite its dwindling services, Mr. Speaker, this agency has more than doubled its employee size in 3 years. This is clearly an abuse of what should have taken place.

The EAC was established for a noble purpose: to allocate Federal grants for State voting systems upgrades, to conduct research, and to test and certify voting equipment. Aside from the certification services, which can be carried out by another agency, the EAC has fulfilled its purpose.

Over $3 billion has been sent to States over the years to help them modernize their voting equipment. Now, the EAC has allocated all of its remaining election grants and even zeroed out its request for additional grant funds in its last three annual budget requests.

The National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, the direct beneficiary of the EAC's dwindling services, has passed not one but two resolutions calling for the EAC's dissolution. As this chart indicates, the EAC's FY12 budget request devotes 51.7 percent of its budget to management and overhead costs--more than half. Under this plan, the agency would use $5.4 million to manage programs totaling $3.5 million.

This bill would transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its voting system testing and certification program, to an existing agency instead of paying the overhead costs of a complete agency just to operate that program. Like its predecessor bill, H.R. 672, this bill maintains an advisory system to give State and local election officials input into the testing and certification program.

Mr. Speaker, since December of 2010, the Election Assistance Commission has not had a quorum. That means it has not been able to make policy decisions requiring approval by the Commissioners. Has anyone even noticed? Compared to the real crises facing our country, has there been harm caused to justify keeping an obsolete agency?

The EAC is not merely obsolete, it's also wasteful. I have spoken to this House before about the two hiring discrimination lawsuits against the EAC. Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more problems come to light. Just recently we learned that a former EAC Commissioner, who continued serving for a year after the end of the term and then resigned, has been collecting unemployment benefits. Neither the Commissioner's resignation letter nor any facts that we know of indicate the departure was anything other than voluntary.

When we have millions of people in this country struggling to make ends meet, how can a senior government official who leaves a job voluntarily collect unemployment benefits? When we have an agency that is not needed and produces scandal after scandal, misperformance after misperformance, it is time for this agency to go.

According to the CBO, dissolving the EAC will save taxpayers $33 million over the next 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have a $15 trillion debt. We have to start somewhere. We now have annual deficits over a trillion dollars. H.R. 3463 eliminates one government program that virtually no one uses and shuts down an agency that has completed the task that it was assigned. Amazingly, we've had proposals not to shrink these programs but to expand them. Only in Washington is the answer to dysfunction expansion.

This bill will not cure all of the problems that we have on its own, but it is one of many steps we are going to have to take; otherwise, we will sink deeper and deeper into debt and trap our children and our grandchildren down into a downward spiral. Today is the time to act, and this agency and this program are the place to start.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3463, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, November 30, 2011.

Hon. Daniel E. Lungren,

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Lungren: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 3463 (to reduce Federal spending and

the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential

election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating

the Election Assistance Commission) introduced on November

17, 2011.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further

consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any

provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is

conditional upon our mutual understanding that agreeing to

waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as

waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Additionally,

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly

reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference

that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I

ask for your commitment to support any request by the

Committee for conferees on H.R. 3463 as well as any similar

or related legislation.

I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be

placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of

H.R. 3463 on the House floor.

I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual

concern.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

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

It is clear that what has happened here is that there has been no response to many of the allegations of mismanagement that we've heard so far. It is clear from the things that have happened that the EAC, in particular, it is time for this to come to a conclusion. It is an agency whose average salary for its employees--and the employee size has more than doubled since 2007--the average salary is $106,000 for this agency. Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing on earth to eternal life is a temporary government program. This was supposed to last for a period of 3 years.

The National Association of Secretaries of State in 2005 did a resolution, a bipartisan group, they did a resolution saying bring this to an end. They renewed that resolution again in 2010, and yet it remains. If we cannot get rid of an agency like the EAC, then we're never going to be able to get rid of anything up here.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is amazing that there is a reference to the need that we need to focus on jobs instead of doing something like this. If that's the case, we've passed about 25 bills this year out of the Republican-led House that dealt with jobs and dealt with the economy. We have done our job on that, and now they're sitting over in the Senate who knows where or why awaiting action. So we have been doing those things, the tough decisions, the things that will create jobs if the Senate and the White House would join with us on those things. So that is simply not accurate to say that we haven't been focusing on jobs because we have done that since we started this year, and we will continue to do so and encourage and urge our colleagues over in the Senate to bring these matters up. They include things that will help on overburdensome EPA regs, with things that will deal with permitting and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and things that will have a direct impact on our economy and jobs.

You know, it is clear, particularly on the EAC, which was created in 2002 after HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, after the Bush-Gore recount so that we wouldn't have another hanging chad or butterfly ballot situation, and this agency administered over $3 billion worth of grants to the States for machines. When it was passed, it was designed to be a 3-year agency and program. We're 9 years into this. And instead of trying to say, okay, and we showed the chart a minute ago with $5.4 million worth of management costs, and yet only a little over $3 million in program costs. And the grants for the machines, Mr. Speaker, are now gone and they are not there.

We have the letter from the National Association of Secretaries of State which restates their position on the resolution to eliminate the EAC done in 2005, and again in 2010. Again on the EAC, we have reports from different agencies. We have an IG report criticizing the management practices of the EAC. This report was done in March of 2010.

We have a report from the EAC's financial records back in November of 2008 which I dealt with when I first got on the Committee on House Administration in early 2009. This report is an audit of the Election Assistance Commission fiscal year 2008 financial statements. The records were so mismanaged, this agency that the other side wants to keep instead of trying to make us more efficient, it was so bad that the agency couldn't be audited. The records were too bad to tell them how bad it was. So that lengthy report is available to anyone who cares to read it.

Then we have a report from the Office of Special Counsel that was done in 2009. The Office of Special Counsel talks about having to settle a political discrimination case. An agency that is supposed to talk about fairness and helping in elections themselves get sued for political discrimination. And one of those that created that problem is the one that voluntarily resigned and received unemployment benefits for a voluntary resignation.

We have the organizational chart that shows that the EAC included a special assistant to a vacant position. I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, on the mismanagement of the EAC. It is clearly time to say-- and I understand that there are some things that we need to keep. We are saying that the essential functions of this group, send them over to the FEC, and we can take care of those situations on testing and certification, make the process more efficient, and we'll save money for the taxpayers.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

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.