Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 746 for H. Res. 419, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the fiftieth anniversary of the William G. Rohrer Memorial Library in Haddon Township. For the past half century this valuable community asset has steadfastly served the citizens of Haddon Township. This past summer, the library was forced to temporarily close after suffering damage from an unfortunate water main break. Undeterred, library staff worked diligently to reopen as soon as possible. Reflecting the great value and importance of this library, community members lined up at the door for the reopening of their cherished and loved library.

The staff of the William G. Rohrer Memorial Library also deserves particular recognition. It is through their hard work that this library has come to be so cherished by the people of Haddon Township. Their efforts have made the library a great success over the past fifty years and will continue to earn the support and admiration of the community for many more to come. To celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the library, local leaders, entertainers, and citizens came together to mark this important milestone with a day of reading, fun, and games.

Mr. Speaker, the fiftieth anniversary of the William G. Rohrer Memorial Library and the dedication demonstrated by its staff should not go unrecognized. I congratulate them on fifty great years, thank them for their service to the community, and wish them all the success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Tom Gallia, a longtime member of the Rowan University community, currently serving as the Chief of Staff to the President and the Vice-president of community relations.

In his 40 years with the university, Dr. Gallia has served as a dedicated and tireless advocate for students and has played an integral role in every major university decision over the past several years.

In particular, Dr. Gallia's achievements have revolved around his relationship with the Borough of Glassboro. He graduated from Glassboro State College, where he earned bachelor's degree in biological and physical sciences with a minor in science education in 1966. He also met his wife at the school. His first job was at Glassboro High School, where he served as a biology teacher, advisor, and wrestling coach.

Prior to joining the administration of the University, Dr. Gallia served as a biological science and secondary education professor, serving three terms as a Department Chair and eight years as executive associate dean in the College of Education. Dr. Gallia continues to hold the rank of full professor in both the Teacher Education and Educational Leadership departments.

Dr. Gallia has been instrumental in the planning and implementation of the Rowan Boulevard Project. The opportunities provided by the construction of the hotel, bookstore, residential apartments, and town square are secondary to the degree to which the project truly brought Rowan University students and the school's surrounding community of Glassboro together. The project, with Dr. Gallia's guidance, has helped the school develop a positive and meaningful relationship with the surrounding town.

In addition to his work at Rowan, Dr. Gallia serves in numerous positions in community organizations, including Main Street Glassboro, Central Business Redevelopment Authority, Glassboro Economic Advisory Board, Glassboro Chamber of Commerce, and Glassboro Code Enforcement Board, the Finance Committee of St. Bridget Church, the Bishop's Task Force and Transition Team at the church, and St. Anthony's Mutual Aid Society.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize Dr. Tom Gallia for his tireless dedication to the Borough of Glassboro, and to the faculty, students, and surrounding community of Rowan University and his decades of service to this fine institution of higher learning.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for too many Americans. For many Americans, this may be the week that their unemployment benefits finally run out and they have no income left whatsoever. For many Americans, this might be the last weekend they spend in their home because the eviction notice or the foreclosure process comes due next week. There has been a natural disaster this summer in America, but there has been an economic disaster in America for a very long time.

Fifteen days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and in good faith laid out a plan to put Americans back to work. In those 15 days, this majority has had no hearings, no discussions, and no votes on the President's plan to put the country back to work. Until today, it was accurate to say they had done nothing about the job situation in America. Today, they've done something. They put forward a bill that destroys a program that has created 39,000 jobs in the private sector.

My friend from California talked about the new deal that GM may strike to build the new generation of cars in China. With all due respect, that's the point. The purpose of this program is to make sure that the next generation of cars is built by Americans and sold to Chinese, not built by Chinese and sold to Americans. So if we let this bill pass, we are waving the white flag of surrender on the next generation of vehicles.

Now, they say, well, we have to do this because we have to provide disaster relief. I think there is unanimity in this Chamber that the victims of floods and hurricanes and other crises deserve help, but the artificial excuse that's being used here is, well, we have to pay for the help.

I have a suggestion. We're going to spend in the next 10 days in Iraq and Afghanistan what it would cost to deal with this disaster relief. How about that? Instead of crushing American jobs here at home, why don't we do the intelligent thing and say to the Iraqis and the Afghans, it's time they ran their own country with their own money. How about that for an offset? We should never have to choose between employing our neighbors and ignoring our needs.

The right vote here is ``no.'' Let's bring back to the floor tomorrow a plan that both sides can support that keeps Americans working, puts Americans back to work, and solves this disaster problem. Vote ``no,'' and then let's fix the problem.

Will the gentleman yield?

I did want to ask my friend from Georgia a question, Mr. Speaker, if I might. He says he's on the right track.

Will the gentleman agree that we should have an up/down vote on the President's jobs plan on this floor?

Reclaiming my time, is that a yes or a no?

Reclaiming my time, will the gentleman vote for the President's tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs if they hire someone?

Reclaiming my time, the President's plan was a small business that creates jobs will get a tax cut.

Will you vote for that?

Reclaiming my time, is that a yes or a no on that idea?

Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman favor the provision that says we should put teachers who have been laid off back in the classroom?

Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman agree, though, we should use some Federal funds for that purpose?

I disagree.

Mr. Speaker, America has had an economic disaster and a natural disaster. The economic disaster is 15 million people unemployed, and then we had the natural disasters of August. This bill tries to help the natural disaster get solved by making the economic disaster worse. It takes a program that has produced 39,000 private sector jobs and cripples it.

Now, the ostensible purpose for this is that we want to offset the spending to help deal with the natural disasters we had around this country in August; but on multiple occasions in the last 7 years, different administrations came to the Congress and asked for infrastructure spending to help rebuild Iraq--$3.7 billion worth of it to help rebuild Iraq and not a penny of offset.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we can vote to spend the public's money to rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq, let's not require an offset to rebuild roads and bridges in New York and Vermont and New Jersey. The right vote is ``no.'' Rewrite this bill, and do so in a way without worsening our economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Jersey on the occasion of the groundbreaking ceremony for their house of worship. This new building, located in the heart of Camden, will be a welcoming sanctuary, serving the needs of the people of Pennsauken and the City of Camden. Services will be open to the community and bilingual.

The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Jersey dates back to the Church's founder, Joseph Smith Jr., who preached here. In 1944, the Church first established a congregation in Camden, where Church members from all over South Jersey gathered to worship. Over the years the Church has grown to fifteen congregations in South Jersey, including two in Camden alone. Members have met in various buildings throughout Camden and in neighboring towns.

This building represents economic opportunity and investment in the City of Camden, as well as spiritual and personal growth for the community members. The chapel will be a gathering place for prayer, study, and service. I hope that this chapel will inspire further development in Camden and that its congregants will continue their good deeds in the region.

Mr. Speaker, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' commitment to the betterment of the City of Camden should not go unrecognized. I commend them for their hard work within the South Jersey community and congratulate them on the occasion of the groundbreaking of their new chapel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

For years, the understanding in this country has been, if you show up for work every day and work your heart out and do your best, what you get in return is a good wage, good benefits, and a future that's secure as long as your company's secure, but it seems like that version of the American Dream moves another continent, another ocean, another day away each day that goes by.

Outsourcing is destroying the middle class in the United States of America, and this bill is the outsourcers' bill of rights. It says to an employer, if you want to use as an excuse the collective bargaining and union activities of your employees and you want to pick up and move to Central or South America or Asia, here's the way to do it.

This bill draws a map of jobs outside--rather, it draws a map as to how to take jobs from inside the United States and move them outside the United States. If an employer, under our law for decades, says that I'm gonna shut down and move my plant or my office because you dared to try to organize a union or you've spoken up

for the rights of the workers, that's illegal. The purpose of this bill is to remove the only effective remedy to combat that illegality.

If this bill became law, here's what would happen:

An employer who says, I'm tired of employees speaking up for their own rights. I'm tired of union organizing. I'm tired of collective bargaining. I'm moving to Malaysia, it would still be illegal under this bill for the employer to say that, but there would be nothing the labor board could do to stop that; because if the employer formed a shell company in Malaysia and took all of the money and put it in the shell company, and the labor board said, Well, you've got to pay backwages to the people you just laid off, there would be no money to pay the backwages.

This is the outsourcers' bill of rights. We don't need an outsourcers' bill of rights. We need a working person's bill of rights in this country. We need a bill of rights that says, if you hold up your end of the bargain, the American Dream will no longer move out of your reach.

This is a bill that overreaches, it undercuts the middle class of this country, and it should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The record should reflect the fact that there is an allegation that Boeing, in the case that the gentleman mentioned, because of reasons of union discrimination moved those jobs. There is nothing in this case that says, if a company uses a legitimate business reason other than discriminating against worker rights, they can't do so.

At this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a lifelong advocate for the working people of the United States of America, my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very persuasive voice against outsourcing, my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

The previous speaker's claim that the National Labor Relations Board is dictating where jobs go in America is utterly incorrect. If any company said, We want to move from State A to State B because we think the State tax structure in State B is more favorable to us, they have an absolute right to do so. The issue is whether they can move because they want to discourage and undercut the right of collective bargaining. If they want to destroy collective bargaining, they can.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very persuasive voice for the working families of America, the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Virginia just said that this bill restrains companies from growing jobs. Here's what it restrains. It restrains from saying to a worker who dares to stand up and bargain for themselves and fight for themselves, ``You're fired.'' That's what it restrains; and it should restrain that, because that's our law.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the most passionate voices for working Americans in the modern history of this country, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a daughter and sister in a union family who doesn't forget where she came from, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

My friend who just spoke indicated that this decision, or attempt by the NLRB, would destroy jobs in South Carolina. That's not accurate. On page 8 of the NLRB's complaint, it says the relief requested by the NLRB does not seek to prohibit respondent, Boeing, from making nondiscriminatory decisions where work will be performed, including work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.

At this point I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a strong, progressive voice for working people in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the most effective leading voice for working people in America today, the senior ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, my friend from California (Mr. Miller).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

We don't have a czar controlling executive pay in this country. We have executives acting like czars outsourcing jobs around the world and ruining the middle class. That's the problem in the United States.

It is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip, who strongly understands the value of collective bargaining, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the leader who's leading the fight against outsourcing and for collective bargaining, the minority leader of the House Democrats, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a person who understands the international implications of economic growth and collective bargaining, my good friend from California (Mr. Berman).

I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a passionate voice to fight the ravages of outsourcing in our country, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a gentlelady who favors job creation over outsourcing, the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 1 minute to a gentlelady who has been a fierce advocate for jobs for New York City but, more importantly, for all of America, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the back-and-forth in this debate, there's a lot of different points and I'm sure some confusion that flows from that. But the debate's really pretty simple, and it's about one question: If a group of people working at a business in this country chooses to try to organize a union and bargain collectively for their wages and their working conditions, and the employer is discomforted by that and the employer comes in and says, ``I don't like the fact you're trying to form a union and bargain collectively and assert your rights, so I'm moving to Malaysia. I'm out of here,'' should that be legal or not? We believe emphatically it should be illegal.

To say to American workers that they dare to speak up for themselves, they dare to assert their rights, they dare to bargain collectively, therefore their jobs could be moved overseas is wrong. It is illegal today to do that.

Now, in the Boeing case, a judge will decide whether or not Boeing did that. If the judge decides that Boeing didn't, the case is over. If the judge decides that Boeing did, then there will be remedies that would lie against Boeing.

But this is what this case is really about, this issue is really about, this bill is really about in the lives of daily Americans. How many of our constituents are sick and tired of making a call about their credit card or some other account and realize that the person in the call center at the other end is in Asia and has no idea what they're talking about?

If you want more outsourcing, if you think the problem in America is that too many jobs are being created here and we do more for other countries around the world, then this is your bill. But if you've had it with outsourcing, if you want jobs to be created in America, what we ought to do is defeat this bill and rapidly bring to the floor the jobs plan the President of the United States stood in this Chamber last week and proposed.

Let's stop creating jobs around the world and start creating jobs around America. Let's stand up for collective bargaining, and let's defeat this bill.

Statement of Professors From Colleges and Universities Across the

United States on HR 2587

HR 2587, currently being considered by the House of

Representatives and endorsed by a majority of the House

Committee on Education and the Workforce, would amend the

National Labor Relations Act to take away from the NLRB the

ability to remedy unfair labor practices involving the

removal of work or the elimination of jobs by requiring

employers to undo their unlawful actions. As scholars of law

and labor policy, we are deeply concerned about the far-

reaching impact this bill would have on employees' basic

rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to engage in

other concerted activities protected by the NLRA.

The language of the proposed amendment to the Act is

sweeping. It provides that the Board shall have no power to

order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to

restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or

equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer,

subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the

location, entity, or persons who shall be engaged in

production or other business operations. This language has

been justified by the bill's sponsors and critics of the

Board as a response to the NLRB Acting General Counsel's

actions in issuing a complaint against Boeing Corporation. As

such, it would prevent the Board and the courts from

directing Boeing to restore work to its employees in

Washington State in the event that the company is found to

have illegally moved the work in retaliation for those

workers' exercise of legally protected rights.

But that unprecedented interference with a pending legal

proceeding for the benefit of a particular employer is not

all that the bill would do. If enacted, HR 2587 will

eliminate the ability of the NLRB and the courts to

effectively remedy any discriminatorily motivated decision to

transfer work from employees or eliminate their jobs not for

legitimate business reasons, but because the employees have

engaged in union or other NLRA-protected activity. It will

also eliminate any meaningful remedy for an employer's

refusal to bargain with a union in circumstances where it is

required to do so before transferring or contracting out work

performed by workers the union represents.

The Board has long held that moving jobs from one facility

to another or shutting down a particular operation to avoid

unionization or to punish workers for engaging in protected

activity violates a basic policy of the Act, that of

insulating union activity from economic reprisal.\1\ The same

is true of discriminatorily motivated decisions to

subcontract or outsource work.\2\ The standard remedy for

such a violation, regularly affirmed by the Federal Courts of

Appeals, is an order to the employer to return the work that

has been unlawfully eliminated or removed.\3\ In the

interests of economic efficiency, however, the Board will not

require restoration of work if the employer can show that it

would be ``unduly burdensome'' to do so.\4\

An order to restore work that has been eliminated or

removed is also the standard

remedy in cases where the employer's actions were taken in

violation of its duty to bargain. In unionized workplaces,

employers have a legal obligation to bargain over certain

decisions affecting where and by whom bargaining unit work is

performed. If the employer acts unilaterally, without first

bargaining with the union until the parties reach agreement

or are at impasse, the Board routinely orders the employer to

rescind the unilateral action and restore the work until the

duty to bargain has been satisfied, subject again to the

``unduly burdensome'' standard.\5\

If HR 2587 becomes law, the Board will be precluded from

ordering this common-sense relief. Employers will be able to

eliminate jobs or transfer employees or work for no purpose

other than to punish employees for exercising their rights

and the Board will be powerless to direct the employer to

return the work regardless of the circumstances.

Without the ability to order a unionized employer to bring

back work that has been unilaterally transferred or

outsourced in violation of the duty to bargain, the Board

will also be unable to insure that employees, through their

union, are able to engage in meaningful bargaining over such

decisions.

We are dismayed that a single complaint, not yet tried by

an administrative law judge argued to the Board, or ruled on

by the courts, should be the basis for so fundamental a

reversal of long-standing law. The legal theory on which the

Acting General Counsel's complaint against Boeing is based is

thoroughly consistent with existing law. Contrary to the

claims of critics, the Acting General Counsel is not seeking

to dictate where Boeing assigns work, but only to insure that

such actions are not taken in retaliation for workers'

exercise of rights protected by the NLRA. In fact the

complaint itself specifically states that ``the Acting

General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from

making nondiscriminatory decisions with respect to where work

will be performed, including nondiscriminatory decisions with

respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina,

facility.''

But as we have shown, the impact of HR 2587 would go well

beyond overruling the Acting General Counsel's actions in the

Boeing case. If enacted, it will give tacit permission to

employers to punish any segment of their workforce that

chooses to unionize or to exercise the right to strike by

eliminating their jobs. It will allow unionized employers who

find it convenient to ignore their duty to bargain with the

union before transferring or eliminating bargaining unit work

to act unilaterally without concern for legal consequences.

Employers will be able to eliminate lines of work, hire

subcontractors, switch jobs to non-union facilities or

transfer them out of the country in violation of the NLRA--

secure in the knowledge that the Board will be unable to

order it to undo those actions.

In the Committee report regarding the bill, the majority

states, ``To ensure employees can continue to exercise their

rights under federal labor law, the NLRB will continue to

have more than a dozen strong remedies against unfair labor

practices to protect workers and hold unlawful employers

accountable.'' However, the report does not list those

remedies and we are at a loss to identify them. The Board's

remedial power under existing law is already severely

restrained. The Board cannot impose sanctions. It may not

seek to punish wrongdoers. It cannot impose fines; it cannot

require anything that would amount to a new contract between

the parties. If the bill passes, the Board will have no

effective response to basic unfair labor practices.

The Committee majority seeks to justify the reducing of

employee rights and Board authority by claiming that it is

merely strengthening the employer's right to make basic

business decisions, including where and how to invest its

resources. We reject the premise that restoring work to those

who would perform it were it not for the employer's unlawful

action violates an employer's basic entrepreneurial rights.

The policy of restoring victims to the position they would

have been in had it not been for unlawful conduct is common

throughout our legal system, and it represents no more than a

recognition of simple justice.

endnotes

\1\ See, for example, Frito-Lay, Inc. 232 NLRB 753 (1977)

(employer violated the Act by shutting down plant and

transferring the work to another facility in response to a

union organizing campaign); Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857

(1989) (same).

\2\ See, for example, Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730

(1987) (employer's subcontracting of trucking work violated

Act because purpose was to avoid bargaining with union). See

also Aguayao v. Quadrtech Corp., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (C.D.

Cal. 2000) (granting the Board's request for an injunction

stopping an employer from moving its California operations to

Mexico in retaliation for union organizing).

\3\ See, for example, Mid-South Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 876

F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming appropriateness of Board

order directing bottling company to reopen a distribution

facility closed because employees voted for union

representation); Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 843

F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding Board order requiring

employer to restore trucking operations transferred to

another facility after employees engaged in union organizing

campaign); Statler Industries, Inc., 644 F.2d 902 (1st Cir.

1981) (approving Board order directing employer to restore

office jobs relocated to another facility in order to

frustrate union organizing activity).

\4\ Lear Siegler, Inc., supra, 295 NLRB at 861.

\5\ The Board's authority to order such a remedy in refusal

to bargain cases was expressly affirmed by the supreme Court

in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203

(1964), which upheld a Board order directing an employer that

contracted out the work of its maintenance employees without

first bargaining with the employees' union to resume

maintenance operations and reinstate the employees. The Court

said the order restoring the status quo ante ``to insure

meaningful bargaining'' was well-designed to promote the

policies of the Act and had not been shown to impose an undue

burden on the employer. Id. at 216.

Institutions and affiliations listed for identification purposes only

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brooklawn's 9/11 Memorial and Monument of the Delaware Valley. This monument is a special tribute to the victims and heroes of September 11th and a symbol of the spirit and courage of the American people.

Construction of the monument would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of Brooklawn Police Captain Steven Saymon, who bravely responded on 9/11. Capt. Saymon designed the monument and collected the artifacts for the display. The efforts and contributions of local businesses and volunteers too numerous to mention were also invaluable. Their selflessness allowed the monument to be constructed without a penny changing hands.

Completed in just five weeks, the monument features the only local display of artifacts from all three sites: a four ton beam from the World Trade Center; a granite block from the Pentagon wreckage; and soil from the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania. These relics serve as a reminder of the lives lost on that tragic day and the unity shown by American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens behind the 9/11 Memorial and Monument of the Delaware Valley should be recognized for their efforts and dedication in building this tribute to the memory of the tragic events of 9/11. This monument shows the lasting gratitude of the American people to those who gave their lives on that day. I encourage all of my constituents to visit this memorial, and to reflect on that tragic day, 10 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the urgent priority of this country, and it should be of this Congress, is to get Americans back to work. There is not a corner of this country that's not been severely afflicted by the unemployment crisis in this country.

Mr. Garamendi proposes that we take a simple idea and put it into this bill, and I think he's absolutely right.

Here's the idea. If we spend a significant amount of money, I think it's $300 million, for the purpose of retrofitting and maybe building some schools around the country, let's give a preference to schools that use American-made products and American-made goods over those that do not. I think that's a very commonsense idea. So if a school is going to put in solar panels to become more energy efficient and they can either buy the solar panels from a company here in the United States or one in Asia, let's favor the school that buys the solar panels from the United States to create jobs here. This is a simple and good idea. It should be on the floor so that we could debate it.

Now, the dialogue I just heard was it's the Senate fault or it's this one's fault. With all due respect to all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the days of whose fault it is are over. Long since over. And the time has long since passed for us to get to work passing commonsense legislation that puts the American people back to work. Mr. Garamendi has proposed just such a commonsense piece of legislation.

I would urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider Mr. Garamendi's amendment.

I thank my friend for yielding.

In the earliest days of our Republic, our prosperity came from our abundant natural resources. Then in later days, our prosperity came from the fact that we were bordered by two vast oceans to our east and west which gave us an isolated domestic market.

In the days after the Second World War, our prosperity was grounded in the fact that we were the sole remaining industrial power untouched by the Second World War, relatively speaking.

All of those advantages relatively speaking are gone; and the way we're going to be prosperous today and in the future is by having the best educated, best motivated workforce anywhere in the world. We're not going to have that best educated and best motivated workforce without a high-quality education for every child in America.

I see this bill as a step in that direction by enriching and making more accountable the charter school movement in our country.

Make no mistake about it: all charter schools are not perfect. Many charter schools, frankly, are very troubled. But the charter school movement has been a positive step forward for our country. This bill adds accountability to that movement and adds new resources that I think are welcome.

I would echo the words of Ranking Member Miller and note that 90 percent of children in America's schools are in public schools. And the principal legislative action we have on those public schools is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I know that the chairman of the committee has worked very diligently to prepare the committee for the work we could do on that. And I'm hopeful that we can have the same kind of cooperative effort for the ESEA reauthorization as we have for this charter school bill.

There is much more to do, but today is a good first step. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Puerto Rican community of Camden on the occasion of the Parada San Juan Bautista. The parade celebrates St. John the Baptist, the patron saint of Puerto Rico and the namesake of its capital, San Juan. This year's festivities occurred on Sunday, June 26th and marked the 54th anniversary of the annual parade.

In 1957, parishioners from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church decided to organize a parade. Their goal was to promote a positive image of Puerto Rican heritage and to share their culture with the city of Camden. This first parade has since expanded into a month-long celebration. The current organizers' dual objectives are to strengthen ties within the Puerto Rican community and with the larger Camden community.

The Parada San Juan Bautista holds special significance to the Puerto Rican community in Camden. It is an opportunity for them to share their culture with friends and enables them to pass on their traditions to younger generations. This year's parade travelled a mile-long route through the city and featured fire fighters from Camden and Philadelphia on their trucks. In addition to the parade, the day included traditional singing, dancing, and foods, all culminating in a concert on the beautiful Camden Waterfront. I thank the Puerto Rican community for all they do to enrich and support South Jersey, and I pay special recognition to this year's Parada San Juan Bautista.

Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend from California, the chairman, my friend from New York, the chairman emeritus, have it exactly right. The issue is jobs. And that's really what this bill on the floor today is about.

One of the reasons, but for sure not the only reason, that our companies aren't hiring and our economy is not growing is uncertainty about interest rates. If you're thinking about adding on a new store or hiring more people to do more R&D and you think the interest rates are going to rise, you don't to it. If you're not sure what they're going to do, you don't do it. And we've been living under a period of uncertainty for two reasons with respect to interest rates.

The first is are we going to default on our national obligations? The House today will and should emphatically say no, we will not. And then the second question is will Uncle Sam continue to eat up too much of the entrepreneurial capital in this country to finance ever-growing Federal deficits?

The House today will and should, in my view, approve the bill before us that will begin to make a reduction in that deficit. This bill will reduce our projected deficit by anywhere from 25 to 35 percent. And it's important to understand what history tells us about sincere and legitimate deficit reduction.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton's plan was supposed to reduce the deficit by 28 percent. It did not. It reduced the deficit entirely. That bill was supposed to generate $500 billion in deficit reduction. In fact, it generated $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. That's the elixir that the American economy needs now.

And I do not, my colleagues, believe that this is the only step that we need to accomplish in order to reduce unemployment. But it is an essential step. And for that reason, I am pleased to join with both Republicans and Democrats in voting ``yes'' for this bill.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with him, and I think that we owe it to the country to find common ground on economic growth.

The best deficit reduction plan is full employment. And the best full employment plan will be one that we could come together on. I think today is an important first step. It came too late, it was ugly getting here, but I'm glad we got here.

Mr. Speaker, what brings us together is a need to create jobs for the American people, and I think people would agree there's three things we have to do to create jobs:

The first is not fall off a cliff and have a default on our national obligations. This bill accomplishes that.

The second thing is to make sure we have an interest rate environment so that our businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, so they have some predictability. By making a 25 to 30 percent down payment on reducing our deficit in a fair and equitable way, this bill does that.

Finally, I think most of us agree that we need investments in our education, research and development, infrastructure, other activities to create jobs in our private sector for our people. By making sure that at least in the first 2 years of this agreement that the reductions in those areas are either nonexistent or moderate, I think that we give ourselves the freedom so our appropriators can put valuable investments forward in that way. This is a well-reasoned bipartisan agreement to create jobs for the American people. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, this agreement offers the calm, reasonable compromise the country wants. Most Americans don't want to let the debt ceiling expire. This bill solves that problem.

Most Americans say, You know what? You probably can cut about 5 percent in most government programs. Not everybody believes that, but that's what this bill does.

Most Americans say that there ought to be some other way to look at difficult entitlement programs and other issues. The bill sets up a process to do that.

What the bill does is recognize the difference between the two parties and puts that difference aside. The majority party wants to make radical changes in Medicare and Social Security; we do not.

We believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share to solve this problem. The majority party does not. The bill leaves that disagreement aside and focuses on the areas of agreement.

You know, American troops on patrol are not asking under what conditions they should do their duty this afternoon. They're understanding their duty, and they're doing it--and so should we. Pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, the inevitable consequence of this bill is that when the United States wants to extend the debt ceiling to pay our bills, we will have to reduce Medicare and Social Security. That is the inevitable consequence of these balanced budget amendments. Therefore, inevitably, this bill will not see the light of day in the United States Senate.

What we ought to do is get to our inevitable obligation, which is to come to an agreement that extends our debt ceiling and makes a responsible down payment on our deficit. The President of the United States this morning outlined a way to do that, and that's what we ought to be working on. He talked about commonality between the two Houses and the two parties on cuts in annual programs in the area of 5, 6, 7 percent--painful, but necessary.

He talked about a fair process where a body that would act between the House and the Senate would consider all the options with respect to entitlement programs. Protecting Medicare and Social Security benefits, and looking at a contribution from the wealthiest Americans, the former revenue, would be considered and voted on. And certainly that approach would get us

out of this period of uncertainty by extending the debt ceiling for the country as was done 17 times without condition for President Reagan, seven times without condition for President George W. Bush.

This is an inevitable waste of time, this bill. It's a bad idea. Let's get on to the better idea of approaching this problem and fixing the problem for this country. Vote ``no'' on this underlying bill and this rule.