Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 803.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, the SKILLS Act, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Despite an increase in hiring last month, our Nation is still experiencing a jobs crisis. Twelve million Americans are searching for work. Nearly 5 million of these unemployed workers have been without a job for 6 months or longer. For many Americans, the hope of a new job grows more desperate the longer they are unemployed.

Jack Walerius has not had full-time work for more than 3 years and has lost count of the number of times he has applied for a job. He recently told CBS News:

From my perspective, from my eyes, I still see that we're

in a deep recession.

Today, we have an opportunity to advance reforms that will give workers like Jack a better chance to succeed. Our economy is extremely competitive and constantly changing. Unfortunately, the workforce training system has failed to keep up. It's not surprising when you consider the size of the bureaucracy that now exists.

This chart is a snapshot of the current job training system. It includes more than 50 programs spread across nine Federal agencies. President Obama described it as a ``maze of confusing training programs.'' I completely agree.

The current system is inefficient and ineffective. For individuals served through the Workforce Investment Act, less than one in five completed training. Fewer than half of those who received employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work.

To make matters worse, Federal mandates stifle the engagement and innovation of employers and State and local leaders. Onerous rules prevent workers from accessing the training they need when they need it. And taxpayer dollars are being spent with little accountability.

A bloated bureaucracy is standing between workers and the support they need. We've tried the Washington-knows-best approach, and it isn't working. It's time to move in a new direction. It is time for a workforce training system that empowers job creators to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. It is time to give State and local leaders greater freedom to serve their communities. It is time for a workforce training system that spends taxpayer money wisely. It is time to invest less

in bureaucracy and more in workers and training.

The SKILLS Act will help us reach these goals. The legislation replaces 35 ineffective and duplicative programs with a new Workforce Investment Fund. No more maze of programs. Instead, workers will get help through one simple and flexible source of employment support.

The bill strengthens the role of job creators, as well as State and local leaders, who know best the needs of their workforce. Doing so will ensure the skills workers receive can be applied to the jobs of today and the future, not the past.

The legislation also makes sure our most vulnerable workers-- including veterans, disadvantaged youth and individuals with disabilities--are being served. Finally, the SKILLS Act provides accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars. If a program demonstrates a pattern of failure, then taxpayers will know about it.

Madam Chair, for 10 years, Congress has talked about job training reform but has failed to make reform a reality. It is time to fix the broken job training system and help put more Americans back to work.

I urge my colleagues to support the SKILLS Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'm very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Roe.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Dr. Heck.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee on the committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, at this time I'm very pleased and honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished House majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Chair, can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the committee.

I see our last speaker hasn't arrived on the floor, and I don't know that he will. So in the interest of keeping this moving, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We believe that the SKILLS Act is genuine, commonsense reform addressing a real problem that our Nation has faced for years. This authorization expired in 2003; and so under Republicans and Democrats, we've been unable to get legislation passed into law through the committee, through the House, and move it forward. There have been all sorts of reasons for this. Sometimes it was just recognized that it's too hard; but in any case, we haven't been able to move it. And that includes, frankly, under 4 years when the other side had the majority, chaired this committee, and in fact had a majority in the House and the Senate and the White House and were unable to move legislation forward.

So I appreciate the calls for bipartisanship. I'm not entirely sure why walking out of a markup engenders further bipartisan support. Nevertheless, that's what we're faced with.

This legislation was thoughtfully developed after the committee convened multiple hearings over the last 3 years, examined the testimony of dozens of witnesses, including Governors and State and local workforce investment leaders. This ongoing debate has been open and fair.

When we had this bill in the committee last year, amendments were offered by Republicans and Democrats. Amendments passed, as offered by Republicans and Democrats. We have to move this legislation forward. We can no longer afford the failed status quo that wastes taxpayer dollars and prevents people from getting the skills they need to get the jobs that are available today.

The SKILLS Act will strengthen the workforce training system, make our Nation more competitive in the 21st century, and help put Americans back to work.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 803, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the involvement of the gentleman. He's brought forward a good amendment. It will help veterans translate and hone their wartime skills to civilian use in an important and growing sector. A focus on advanced manufacturing training for veterans will allow our Nation's heroes to get relevant and important training while increasing their earnings potential, so we support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing forward this very solid amendment.

We know that, under Republican administrations and Democrat administrations, departments are required by law to submit all kinds of reports, but there are no consequences, so they don't do it, and we have to do our job in the dark. I appreciate his recognizing this shortfall and for taking this step, and I support the amendment.

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

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

Despite the extraordinary mischaracterization of the bill and some pretty amazing straw men that have been put forward today, let's look at what we really have here. This chart shows the situation that we've got today. This myriad of programs, I would call this bureaucracy run amok. I might call it red tape, as one of the colleagues from the other side suggested I might call it. It is confusing at best.

And this is what the President had to say about it. He said: It's a maze of confusing training programs. He said that last year. I thought he meant it. I'm not sure about his statement today. Maybe he has changed his mind, but he called it a maze.

So what are we going to do about this maze, this red tape, this bureaucracy? We recommend simplifying it, making it easier to use, helping people get the training they need, not the bureaucracy for them to wade through. So we took the information from the Government Accountability Office. We looked at the statements coming from the administration and departments. We looked at programs that even the administration had recommended to stop funding, and we said: Let's make this simple. Let's make this easier. Let's let the local workforce boards who know their communities, with the employers in their communities, make it easier for people to get work, and we put together a bill that has one workforce investment fund. Not a maze, not confusing, less red tape, easier to use, something that the people who need work can use so that you don't have less than one in five who show up to that maze actually getting the training they need.

And what have the Democrats proposed? Well, let's take a look at that chart. They took the current system and they boldly eliminated one program that hasn't been funded since 2003, and they added six more. I don't see how that helps us get where we need to go. I don't see how that helps get the millions of unemployed back to work. I don't see how that helps employers who have 3.6 million openings get those jobs filled.

We need action here. That's what we believe our bill does. This is what their bill does. I recommend that we support the SKILLS Act and reject this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the author of the SKILLS Act.

Mr. Chairman, can I now inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire: The gentleman from Massachusetts has no other speakers and has the right to close?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, interesting discussion today about what constitutes bipartisanship. I would just note, for the record, that when we attempted to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act in the last Congress and we moved it through committee, amendments were offered by Republicans and Democrats, and amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats were included. In fact, some of those Democrat amendments are included in the underlying bill today.

Look, there have been accusations all morning about how the SKILLS Act is going to stop training for all sorts of people, and we had various straw men here. It was women and people with disabilities and all manner of things that we were just going to shut out.

But as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, sometimes it's helpful to actually read the language. And so in the SKILLS Act, in the underlying bill, it insists that State and local boards put together a plan that has a description of how the local area and the State ``will serve the employment and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including recipients of public assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), long-term unemployed individuals (including individuals who have exhausted entitlement to State and Federal unemployment compensation), English learners, homeless individuals, individuals training for nontraditional employment, youth (including out-of-school youth and at-risk youth), older workers, ex-offenders, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, refugee and entrants, veterans (including disabled veterans and homeless veterans), and Native Americans.''

It's in the bill. We believe that we have a choice in front of us today. We brought forth a bill that says we need to address these needs with this program. It's simple and straightforward, allowing these people the opportunity to go and directly get the training they need, to get rid of that confusing maze, to get rid of red tape, and allow people to get the training they need, including all these people.

What has been proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts to address these needs is this program--the current program, minus one, and six new programs. More complicated, bigger maze, more red tape, harder to use. It serves these very people poorly.

So I ask my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the passion of my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee, on this and on so many issues.

It's no doubt personal incomes have been flat in recent years and unemployment remains high: 12 million Americans unemployed, some 22 million Americans underemployed. Unemployment among youth is extraordinarily high. People are trying to get into the workforce, and they can't get in. We need jobs out there.

The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation's job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for publication the attached copy of the rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the U.S. House of Rerpresentatives for the 113th Congress:

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 833 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to briefly offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of Newtown, Connecticut. What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday is simply unspeakable, and we as a Nation are devastated by the loss of so many innocent lives. In the face of such tragedy, it is our duty to join together and honor the memory of the victims. Let us stand united in offering our prayers to their families and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. KLINE: Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R.

4297. A bill to reform and strengthen the workforce

investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work

and make the United States more competitive in the 21st

Century, with an amendment; Rept. 112-699, Pt. 1; referred to

the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for a period ending not

later than December 14, 2012, for consideration of such

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the

jurisdication of that committee pursuant to clause 1(s), rule

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

I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 118, a resolution disapproving the Obama administration's attempt to roll back successful welfare reforms. The resolution we are considering today is quite simple. It preserves bipartisan policies that serve low-income families, and it reins in this latest example of executive overreach by this administration.

In 1996, a Republican Congress worked with a Democratic President to fix a broken welfare system. By promoting work as a central focus of helping individuals achieve self-sufficiency, this bipartisan achievement reduced poverty and strengthened the income security of millions of needy families. The success of the law is a testament to the power of work and personal responsibility as well as what we can achieve when both sides work together in good faith. Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit of welfare reform has been tarnished by the Obama administration's decision to waive the historic work requirements, ending welfare reform as we know it.

While this action is troubling, it isn't surprising. The President has a track record of weakening work requirements in other Federal programs, including with unemployment benefits and food stamps. The results have been disappointing. A memo by the Congressional Research Service notes the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled-- that's right, doubled--after the President suspended the program's work requirement, and now we are supposed to believe a similar experiment will help families on welfare.

This is also not the first time the President has been guilty of executive overreach. The Obama administration has coerced States to adopt its education agenda through conditional waivers, ignoring congressional efforts to reauthorize the law. Now States and schools face more uncertainty than ever about the future of our Nation's education system, and they remain tied to a broken law. Additionally, the President has announced which immigration laws he will and will not enforce, and has installed unconstitutional, nonrecess recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

Despite all of these heavy-handed attempts to advance the President's agenda, 23 million workers are still searching for a full-time job, and 46 million Americans are still living in poverty. Too many of our fellow citizens are unemployed and trapped in poverty, not because of failed welfare policies but because of President Obama's failed leadership. If the President had ideas for enhancing flexibility in welfare policies, he must submit those proposals to Congress and work with us to change the law. He has not done that. Instead, he has chosen to adopt a controversial waiver scheme that rewrites law through executive fiat.

The good news is we have an opportunity today to tell the President: Stop. Stop rewriting Federal law behind closed doors. Stop promoting schemes that undermine personal responsibility and that encourage government dependency. Stop advancing failed policies, and start working with Congress on positive solutions that will grow our economy and great jobs. The American people desperately need and expect as much from their elected leaders.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 118 and to take a stand against the President's effort to roll back reforms that continue to lift families out of the poverty.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the subcommittee chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from east Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have got a number of issues to address here. We've heard so much in a relatively short period of time here.

We heard from some of our colleagues that we haven't brought a jobs

bill. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know very well that we have brought many jobs bills. In fact, over 30 of them have passed this House--most of them in a bipartisan way--and are sitting in the Senate. We just don't happen to believe that trillions more of borrowed money to jump-start the economy is a jobs bill. That's been proven to fail. This, in fact, is a jobs bill because we want people on welfare to get to work.

And so we've heard that, no, this information memorandum, which has been now correctly determined to be a rule--an information memorandum designed to bypass Congress--will in fact weaken the work requirements. And so how do we draw that conclusion? From a number of things.

One, we're very concerned about the definition of ``work.'' We've heard the number, 20 percent increase. It actually means instead of 1.5 percent of people leaving with a ``job'' that we still haven't quite defined, apparently, we'd have 1.8 percent. Not an overwhelming number. And then we have the nonpartisan, ever-present Congressional Budget Office that has joined us with this opinion. Under the memorandum:

CBO expects the penalties for States that don't meet the

work requirements specified in the Social Security Act would

be reduced.

It sounds like waiving work requirements to me. And they go on:

Thus, CBO estimates that enacting Resolution 118 would

reduce direct spending by $59 million over the 2012-2022

period, as some States would pay increased penalties to the

Federal Government for failing to meet the work requirements.

The work requirements in section 407, which the Congress explicitly said may not be waived.

And we heard from the other side that Republicans in the committee, including the chairman, voted for the Workforce Investment Improvement Act, which waives all work requirements. We disagree with that. We disagree with that. Even the CRS concedes that the purpose of the provision in that bill is to reduce administrative inefficiencies, not to gut welfare reform.

But we have some disagreement. It could be controversial. In an open system, an open process, we can address that question when it comes to the floor of the House; and if there is confusion, we can make it crystal clear that we do not want to waive work requirements that have been so important to the success of welfare reform. We're here today because the President decided he would exercise power he does not have in order to waive welfare work requirements Congress has said must not be waived.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on June 28 the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the American people. In a sharply divided opinion, the Court upheld the President's decision to tax individuals who don't purchase government-approved health insurance. If Washington can dictate that private citizens must buy health insurance and impose higher taxes when they fail to do so, it is difficult to conceive of any limit on Federal power.

While I disagree with the Court's ruling, that is not the focus of our debate today. We are here instead to overturn a flawed and failed law. The government takeover of health care is destroying jobs. It is raising health care costs. It is the wrong prescription for an ailing economy. It must be repealed. We promised the American people no less, and we owe it to them to keep our promise.

The need for repeal has grown more urgent in light of Friday's disappointing jobs report, which marked the 41st consecutive month of unemployment greater than 8 percent. A close examination of the health care law explains how it's contributing to the jobs crisis facing this Nation. Hundreds of additional boards and bureaucracies, thousands of pages of complex regulations, billions of dollars in tax hikes, and trillions of dollars in new government spending, these are the burdens the health care law has piled on the backs of working families and job creators.

For more than 2 years, the law has crippled our economy and undermined employers' ability to grow their businesses and hire new workers. This is not just my opinion. We see evidence from job creators across the country.

Gail Johnson, an employer from Virginia, said the law will ``ultimately slow or stall the growth of small and midsized businesses as we struggle with the costly new requirements.''

Speaking of the law's draconian tax on medical devices, Denis Johnson, vice president of a medical device manufacturing facility in Indiana, said it will ``undoubtedly force us to cut critical R&D funding and inhibit job creation and retention.''

And Will Knetch, president of a family-owned manufacturing company in Pennsylvania, testified that ``the sheer monstrous size of the law intimidates most Americans and provides so many unknowns for the business community, it is scary.''

Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, Americans are concerned about getting this economy moving and putting people back to work. As these and other employers have accurately described, one of the greatest obstacles standing in the way of economic growth and prosperity is the President's health care law.

Through his government takeover of health care, the President has created a destructive roadblock to lowering health care costs and private sector job creation, and he has disrupted the careful balance of power between the people and their government.

Whether at congressional hearings, in public forums, or at the ballot box, the American people have spoken. They want their elected leaders to repeal ObamaCare so we can pave the way to private sector job growth and lower health care costs.

I urge my colleagues to stop defending a broken law and start standing by the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6079, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

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

I appreciate my friend having me do that, and we're glad to comply, Mr. Speaker. So at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the very distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We've heard a couple of times today from my distinguished friend and colleague from New Jersey and again from the well about how small employers aren't affected by this. If you have 50 or fewer employees, you have to do absolutely nothing. But of course if you have 51, if you hire just one more employee, you have to pay $42,000 in penalties, I mean taxes, or whatever that is after the Supreme Court ruling.

It's having an impact on our employers. There's a reason why they're not hiring. There's a reason why they're scared, and there's a reason, frankly, why they want us to repeal this awful piece of law.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a physician, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire again as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the distinguished gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, an emergency room physician, the very distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Do I understand that the gentleman from New Jersey is the last and only speaker remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I have two more speakers and myself.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Is the gentleman ready to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of the same debate, the same rhetoric we have heard before this bill was turned into law, passed on Christmas Eve, jammed through Congress. Now we have had a chance to look at the results of that law. The reality includes higher health care costs, fewer jobs, and even more government meddling in health care decisions of private citizens.

We have now had over 12,000 pages of regulations and it is still writing. It's no wonder that America, American employers, American employees, American families are afraid of what's next.

We have heard on this floor today a suggestion that everybody should be in Medicare. No wonder they are afraid. We have heard about millions of new jobs added, and yet we're in the most anemic recovery since World War II.

We need jobs. We need to get Americans back to work. And we believe that the first important step to helping those employers put Americans back to work is to repeal this awful law.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on repeal of ObamaCare so we can stop debating a failed law and start advancing real commonsense health care reforms.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the gentleman's amendment and impress upon my colleagues the importance of the short takeoff vertical landing capability of the F 35B and its contribution to the continued success of the United States Marine Corps.

Mr. Chairman, so many years ago, as a young marine and a young marine pilot, I remember watching a jump jet--a Harrier--hovering over the ground. That Harrier, that AV 8A, went from being a novelty to growing and maturing to becoming an essential, integral part of the Marine air- ground team. That Harrier today is old and getting outdated and needs to be replaced.

Similarly, I've watched the magic of the FA 18, a fantastic, top-of the-line, frontline fighter. Terrific aircraft. It can't take off and land vertically. It doesn't have the capability. And we need those capabilities that the ranking member, Mr. Smith, talked about--the stealth capability, the advanced capability--to become that integral part of the Marine air-ground team.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the continued development of the F 35B and oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 2012 as the one hundred year anniversary of United States Marine Corps Aviation. The Marine Corps stands as a symbol of America's strength and honor, and its history serves as a reminder of the commitment and sacrifice so many Americans have made in defense of this nation.

What began in 1912 when Marine Corps 1st Lt Alfred A. Cunningham reported for flight training has extended through the ongoing operations around the world. A program that started with less than 40 men now consists of hundreds of skilled pilots, expert engineers, and experienced ground crews. In support of their brothers and sisters on the ground, they have flown over the hedgerows of Europe, the jungles of East Asia, the deserts of the Middle East, and every ocean in between. From transportation of the President, to air-to-ground fire support, to medical evacuation on the battlefield, the capabilities of Marine Corps Aviation are second to none.

In honor of Marine Aviators past and present, I have introduced H.R. 1621, legislation that pays tribute to Marine Corps Aviation with a commemorative coin. These coins will serve as a tribute to the capabilities pioneered by our earliest Marine aviators, and refined over the years to make the Marine Corps a force capable of protecting our nation ``in any clime and place.'' As a helicopter pilot and 25- year Marine veteran, I am proud to have borne the title--Marine Aviator--and stand here today to honor one hundred years of Marine Corps Aviation. Semper Fidelis.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4045) to modify the Department of Defense Program Guidance relating to the award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence administrative absence days to members of the reserve components to exempt any member whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, and continued on or after that date, from the changes to the program guidance that took effect on that date, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today in support of the bill, H.R. 4045, legislation that would ensure members of the National Guard and Reserve--including members of Minnesota's famed Red Bulls--receive the benefits they have earned.

Simply put, this legislation ensures that promises made are promises kept. The bill will grandfather the Minnesota National Guard and more than 49,000 other servicemembers around the country who mobilized and deployed under the Pentagon's original Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program policy, providing them the benefits they were promised prior to deployment.

Since September 11, 2011, members of the Reserve component have been uniquely affected by long deployments, leaving their families and careers to answer their Nation's call. In January of 2007, the Department of Defense instituted the PDMRA program to allow servicemembers the opportunity to spend more time with their families and readjust after multiple deployments in excess of 12 to 24 months. I would ask my colleagues to reflect on that number, 12 to 24 months. That is 1 to 2 years away from their families and their homes, putting their own lives on hold to protect and defend our families and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, last year, after more than 2,000 Minnesota soldiers were deployed, the Pentagon changed the PDMRA program, significantly reducing the leave available to the Red Bulls and many others across the Nation. With little notice, many soldiers and their families were forced to cope with unexpected financial challenges, less time at home with loved ones, and an increased urgency to find employment.

H.R. 4045, as amended, provides the Pentagon the authority to grandfather members of the National Guard and Reserve whose mobilization and deployment commenced before the Pentagon's PDMRA reduction policy took effect in October of last year. The legislation does three things:

First, for servicemembers still on active duty, the bill provides DOD the authority to immediately restore their PDMRA leave days lost and gives them the option of selling their leave in lieu of taking the PDMRA day if they determine that that is in their best interest;

Second, for servicemembers still in the service but off active duty, the bill provides DOD the authority to award a leave payment in lieu of the days they would have received for their service during the change; and

Finally, the former servicemembers who have left the military altogether but were affected during the PDMRA policy change, the bill provides DOD the authority to reward a leave payment in lieu of the PDMRA days they would have received for there service during the change.

In short, we're making these soldiers whole again and keeping our promises. The legislation is critical to ensuring our sons and daughters in uniform receive the benefits they were promised and have rightfully earned.

Sergeant Matthew Hite recently returned home to Minnesota after his third deployment with the Minnesota National Guard. While he's been in Kuwait the past 11 months, his 7-year-old son, Charles, has learned to play T-ball. Sergeant Hite wasn't there to see Charles get his first hit or make his first catch. ``It's frustrating'' Sergeant Hite told the Star Tribune, ``frustrating that the time we thought we had to spend with family is being taken away.''

Every day, members of the reserve component are stepping off planes, beginning the process of reintegration, and returning to their civilian lives.

Every day, units are receiving their final orders specifying an end date to their mobilization. I am hopeful that this commonsense effort to do right by our men and women in uniform will become law.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4045, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, a naval officer, another helicopter pilot, and a member of the Minnesota delegation, Mr. Cravaack.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Minnesota delegation, Mr. Paulsen.

I have no further requests for time, and I'm going to close by thanking Members on both sides of the aisle. You've heard from members of the Minnesota delegation here tonight, my good friends, the Democrats Mr. Walz and Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cravaack, and Mr. Paulsen. This legislation affects members of the Guard and Reserve all over the country.

I'm especially pleased that my friend and fellow committee member and fellow traveler, Ms. Bordallo, was managing the debate on the other side of the aisle. She and I have traveled to some fairly remote corners of Iraq and Afghanistan and places like that over the years, and I must say I've never been anywhere where our Nation was at conflict and where we had men and women serving in uniform that we didn't come across somebody from the Guam National Guard. So I really want to thank her for her support on this legislation and the support of men and women in uniform everywhere. I know from the reaction I see from those soldiers that when they see Ms. Bordallo, there is great affection and respect there--both ways.

Again, I want to thank all who weighed in on this. It was clearly an injustice. It needed to be fixed, and this is one of those times when we've come together as Democrats and Republicans working together. We have Senators, Republicans and Democrats, in the Senate working the other body to move this through. Speed counts here. Every day that this is delayed, another soldier loses the opportunity to take advantage of this paid leave.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time, and for introducing this legislation.

I rise in support of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. We seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. We've got an unemployment rate above 8 percent now for over 3 years. We've got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job--half of them can't get a job or get the right job. They're underemployed or unemployed.

And we've got, by law, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford student loans going from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, by law, a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

It was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. We were going to get to the point where interest rates were going to double. Nevertheless, it's the law.

And so what do we do about it?

It seems to me--and I think that we get some agreement on this--we ought to have a long-term fix so we're not doing this again next year and the next year and the next year, making a political decision. We need a long-term fix.

So, today, we're trying to step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates, as they go into this shaky economy. So we're moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4 percent for 1 more year.

I look at this as the opportunity for us to then get together and make a long-term fix, a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or by an election year. We need a long-term fix. This is going to give us the opportunity to do that.

There has been a lot of discussion here about the pay-for, and the words ``cynical'' and ``cynicism'' have been used. We have got proposals from the other side of the aisle, from our friends in the Senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in such trouble. Then there are other proposals that say let's tax oil companies, let's drive up the price of gas.

You can talk about cynicism. What we're talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the Secretary to spend as she sees fit, and that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. What a surprise in this election year.

There are multiple sources of funding of programs that can address women's needs. I think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly given.

The President himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. This is the way to go. Let's address the immediate needs of our students and then work together on a long-term solution.

I thank the gentlelady, Ms. Foxx, for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

The legislation before us today is driven by a simple goal: to ensure Washington isn't adding to the burden of rising college costs by imposing burdensome regulations.

Last year, tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities increased over 8 percent. The average 4-year public college student now graduates with roughly $22,000 in debt.

Helping more students realize the dream of an affordable higher education is a shared goal. However, solving a problem like rising college costs starts with recognizing that, as is so often the case, Washington is part of the problem.

Each year, the average higher education institution spends a significant amount of time and money complying with Federal regulations and reporting requirements, costs that can trickle down to students' tuitions and fees.

H.R. 2117 will eliminate two unnecessarily burdensome regulations advanced by the Department of Education in late 2010. The credit-hour and State authorization regulations were part of a so-called ``program integrity'' package that significantly increased Federal intrusion in academic affairs.

The credit-hour regulation attempts to measure student learning at the Federal level, and restricts colleges from offering outside coursework and creative learning opportunities that could help students save money and graduate early.

The State authorization regulation is even more troubling as it will lead to thousands of dollars in additional costs for colleges and universities across the Nation. In my home State of Minnesota, schools must spend between $2,000 and $3,500 per program, depending on the level of degree offered, to comply with this extreme regulation.

In order to best prepare today's students to join tomorrow's workforce, we must not overwhelm schools with poorly conceived regulations that lead to wasted time and money. H.R. 2117 will repeal two particularly problematic regulations, protecting academic institutions and prospective students from significant financial and bureaucratic burdens.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer the following Managers' Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on H.R. 2465, the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act, which I also offer on behalf of the Senior Democratic Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. George Miller (D-CA), and the Chairman and Senior Democratic Member of the Committee's Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Mr. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Ms. Lynn Woolsey (D-