Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Minnesota has a very good amendment here. Here is what we're talking about.

This would strengthen title I by keeping in place the requirement that all public companies, including emerging growth companies, hold a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes once every 3 years. One vote. They're having a meeting anyway. These are the companies that we know the least about. We support the underlying bill, but we think that requiring a nonbinding vote once every 3 years is good for the shareholders.

The question is: Will this inhibit the operation of these emerging growth companies? No, it will not.

I think the gentleman from Minnesota has a great amendment here. These are the companies we know the least about. They have the shortest track records. These shareholders and investors are taking a leap of faith, and this would allow them to have a vote on the CEO salaries and also on the golden parachutes, so I ask Members to support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3835, which would extend the current-year pay freeze for Federal workers for an additional year through 2013. This will be the third year of a pay freeze.

Similar to most of my colleagues who have spoken here today, I do support a freeze for Congress. I have voted six times to freeze Congress' pay.

While my good friend from Utah does point out that there are some high-end, high-salaried Federal employees, you have to remember that we have surgeons at the VA, very competent doctors at the VA that serve our veterans. We have scientists at NIH. We have very, very good attorneys at the SEC prosecuting very complex fraud cases. To attract those individuals, we do need to attract very competent and highly skilled individuals, and that's where those higher salaries are aggregated.

But we should be reminded that the vast majority of our Federal employees are middle-income earners. Oddly enough, we could have addressed this if this bill had gone through committee, through regular order. This bill has come to the floor without going through committee. It has not been subject to amendment.

We could have come up with a bill that said, okay, we are going to freeze the pay of high-income Federal employees. We didn't do that.

So you've got people out there making $30,000, $40,000 a year, secretaries and other staff, that their pay has been frozen for. If this goes through, it will be 3 years. So we could have done a better job if this bill had gone through the regular order and gone through committee.

I'm also concerned about the rationale behind this legislation. Similar to many of my colleagues today, while I support the freeze on congressional pay, we see a lot of legislation coming up in this Congress that attacks Federal employees, and I think this is one more example of that.

I totally oppose it.

I thank the gentleman.

This is another in a series of legislative attacks that have targeted our Federal workers throughout the 112th Congress. It will further erode employee morale and diminish the Federal Government's ability to attract the best and brightest to perform the important jobs that we need to perform. Our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in such critical areas as law enforcement, national defense, public health, and the delivery of services to America's veterans, elderly, and the disabled. They should not bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to addressing our Nation's budget problems.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any further efforts to balance the Nation's budget on the backs of our hardworking Federal employees by voting ``no'' on H.R. 3835.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall votes 927 and 928, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I come before you as an ironworker for 18 years before coming to Congress. I actually practiced before the National Labor Relations Board, and I've actually represented a number of unions in election proceedings, and I wish I could point out every inaccuracy offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I only have 1 minute.

Let me start off by saying that I've heard time and time again by my colleagues that the NLRB is an advocate for unionism; it's an advocate for Big Labor; it's nothing more than overreaching and trying to create unions. For those who believe that, I ask you to look at the American workforce. What percentage, since the NLRB is creating all of these unions and is overreaching, what percentage of the American workforce is working under a union agreement right now? The answer is 11 percent.

So if those guys are in the tank, the NLRB is in the tank for creating unions, they're batting about 110. They're doing a lousy job. I've heard a lot about 31 days for an average election. That's where the union and the employer agree; it's 31 days. If the union and the company don't agree, it's over 100 days.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This is an attack on the middle class in America. We need to put people to work instead.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill, H.R. 3094, the so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.

Since the start of the 112th Congress, a certain faction guiding the Republican majority has undertaken what amounts to a full-scale attack on America's working families and America's working class and against the bedrock principles that have helped create America's middle class.

This latest effort is more of the same. The so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is another piece of legislation that weakens the rights and protections that workers have fought long and hard to obtain.

Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to organize in ``an appropriate unit,'' giving them choice on how best to bargain with their employer. And that's all this is about. When an employee group organizes, all it requires is that they sit down across from their employees and bargain, talk to them about terms and conditions of employment and benefits.

What this bill would do is establish a one-size-fits-all approach to organizing, forcing together employees who have very little in common and making it much more difficult to organize. That's gerrymandering, basically, to protect employer interests, plain and simple.

But this bill doesn't stop at changing existing rules, however. This bill would overturn proposed rules that have not even been finalized by the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB has proposed practical rules modernizing and streamlining the union election process. The proposed rules are a genuine improvement over the existing procedures and are designed to encourage the use of technology, discourage unnecessary litigation, and save taxpayer dollars.

Look, I was an ironworker for 18 years, a union ironworker. I am very proud of that fact. I was the union president. I also was involved in very many union organizing drives, not only for my own union but for the carpenters, stage hands, and wardrobe workers. And the National Labor Relations Act is actually set up to reduce the likelihood of unrest, of workforce disputes. It's really to help business and workers reduce that economic conflict. This bill will have the opposite effect. This bill will actually increase the likelihood of labor disputes.

And we have seen in this country a great disparity between the haves and the have-nots. This is going to make matters worse. Instead of putting people to work, this is going to cause strife and reduce the efficiency and productivity of America's workers. This is shameful.

All these union workers, this is the middle class in America. You are destroying the middle class in America. You are increasing that disparity between the haves and the have-nots. We've got to do better than this. The American people deserve it.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

The only thing I have agreed with so far in tonight's debate from the other side is that America's credibility is on the line. I really do believe that. We've had 2,697 trade unionists killed over the past two decades in Colombia, and 94 percent of these murders go unprosecuted.

I was an ironworker at the General Motors plant when we signed NAFTA. Mexico, of course, was 4 percent of the U.S. economy, and not long after that they closed the plant that I was working at and moved it over the border to Mexico. Colombia is 3 percent of the U.S. economy, not even 3 percent. This is all about shifting American jobs down to Colombia. That's what this is all about. Give me a break. The reason we have 9 percent unemployment in this country is that we keep shipping jobs overseas. When you find yourself in a ditch, it's time to stop digging, okay? This is a bad deal. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Reverend Eugene L. Neville, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the State of Massachusetts and the religious community, and to commend him for over 30 years of his dedicated service.

Reverend Neville was born in Roxbury, MA and was educated in the Boston public school system, graduating from Roxbury Memorial High School in 1960. He later attended Barrington College in Rhode Island, where he graduated with a B.A. in Bible and Theology in 1969. He continued his theological education at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton, MA in 1972, graduating with honors. Reverend Neville also participated in post theological studies at Andover Newton Theological School, Boston University School of Theology, and Harvard Divinity School.

It was at the historic Peoples Baptist Church, under the pastorate of the late Reverend Dr. Richard M. Owens, where Reverend Neville was first called to prepare for his Christian Ministry. Subsequently, he served under the mentorship of Reverend Dr. Michael E. Hayes, Pastor of the Twelfth Baptist Church in Boston, MA, where Reverend Neville was formally ordained as a Baptist Minister. In 1975, he assumed his first pastorate at Messiah Baptist Church in Brockton, MA, where he served for 6 years. In 1981, Reverend Neville founded and became the pastor of Mount Moriah Baptist Church; under his leadership, Mount Moriah has established over 30 ministries and has become one of the most influential churches in the City of Brockton.

Reverend Neville has also been dedicated to helping the greater community. He served for 4 years at The Hymn Foundation in Boston as the first Project Director for the Black Church Capacity Building Program. This program connected Black churches with local philanthropic foundations, and provided grants up to $8000 for their social outreach ministries. Reverend Neville has been instrumental in establishing several non-profit organizations within the church for the benefit of the greater community, such as the Amara Community Center, which has provided over 2500 children, youth, and adults with computer training and their own personal computer. Additional projects include the Higher Education Resource Center, which has assisted hundreds of first generation youth to achieve acceptance to, and remain in, college, and the Emergency Food Ministry, which is comprised of a large food pantry serving hundreds of families twice a month as well as a soup kitchen ministry serving numerous homeless individuals every Tuesday afternoon. Reverend Neville is a man of God with a vision to help individuals, families, churches, and community organizations address and overcome the challenges of this generation.

Reverend Neville is married to Ruth and they have 2 adult daughters and 5 grandchildren; he and his wife presently reside in Foxboro, MA.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of the Reverend Eugene L. Neville to thank him for his remarkable service and dedication to the religious community in the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Walter J. Hannon in recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Quincy, MA, and to commend him for almost fifty years of dedicated service to his community.

The son of Helen and Walter Hannon, Walter was born on September 4, 1931, in the Hough's Neck section of Quincy, where he lived until 1945. Walter attended Quincy public schools and he graduated from North Quincy High School in 1949. While he has left Hough's Neck, Walter continues to reside in the City of Quincy.

Subsequent to his graduation, Walter went to work in the family tire business, the Hannon Tire Company. In November of 1953, Walter assumed control of the Hannon Tire Company and expanded the business, running its day to day operations until 1972. Concurrently, Walter served as Ward 5 City Councilor from 1964-1971, and as a State Representative from 1967-1973. He was elected Mayor of Quincy in 1972, serving in that capacity until 1975.

After serving as Mayor, Walter went to work for the South Shore Chamber of Commerce in 1976 as the Director of Small Business Development. In 1978, he was appointed Director of Planning and Development for the City of Quincy. On April 2, 1979, he was named Director of Development by Marina Industries to direct the master planning of Marina Bay in Squantum. Governor William Weld recognized Walter's ability and appointed him to the Massachusetts Port Authority as Director of Maritime Development. In 1996, Walter went to work for the Marina Bay Company to oversee the Granite Links project, a spectacular reclamation of a quarry into a first class golf course and restaurant. He presently holds the position of Director of Civic Affairs for the Granite Links Golf Club.

As many in the Quincy community will attest, Walter is known for his quick sense of humor, his loyalty to his friends, and his devotion to his family. He has had the good fortune to be married to Patricia for fifty-eight years and they are the proud parents of five children and ten grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Walter J. Hannon's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to his community of Quincy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out and clarify a few points that have been made here this morning. Regarding the Boeing case, this is a clear overreach into the decision of the National Labor Relations Board.

The National Labor Relations Act, section 7, establishes the basic right for employees in this country to self-organize, to join, to form, and to assist labor organizations.

The Boeing workers have been organized with and by the Machinists Union since the 1970s. There has been a long and good relationship there. The union and the employees at Boeing were trying to exercise their basic section 7 rights. However, the management of Boeing, which is a good company, but clearly in this case the management of Boeing committed an unfair labor practice by threatening the employees that if they exercised their rights under section 7, they would move the work out of Washington, out of Puget Sound, and relocate it down to South Carolina, which they did.

The National Labor Relations Board followed the law. This is not a close case. This is the only decision that the board could possibly come up with under the law. We are a nation of laws. You may not like the result, but like it or not, workers in this country have a basic right to join unions. I know that that's not a popular idea lately. However, in this case, I completely support the board's actions. I think they followed the law.

I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to those statements.

It is a simple case; I agree with that part. And Boeing is a good company, a good American company. But in this case, if you read the facts of the case, their management made multiple threats to the employees that, if they chose to exercise their rights as employees under the law, that they would move the work away from Puget Sound and locate it in South Carolina. And that's exactly what they did. That's exactly what they did.

You can manage a company, but you cannot use your management rights to trample on the rights of those basic employees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jane J. Schwager, in recognition of her outstanding contributions to the state of Massachusetts in the area of substance abuse and recovery, and to commend her for over fifteen years of dedicated service to her community.

Jane was born in Clifton Heights, PA to Ron and Peg Lanoie. As both of her parents dedicated much of their lives to the service of their country, with Ron serving in the United States Coast Guard, USCG, for 30 years and Peg working for the Civil Service for over 25 years, Jane grew up knowing service to one's community was important.

Jane has 2 children, Michael and Magdalene Tiapula, and is married to Jim Schwager. Jim and Jane currently reside in Worcester where they are raising their 3 year old granddaughter, Alysia.

In 1994, Jane began her work for the Early Intervention Program for children with disabilities. Eventually, Jane worked for the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, SMOC, and she continued her advocacy in the substance abuse field by participating in various treatment programs including the Meadows Program, the New Beginnings Program at Bethany Hill, and the Marlboro/Hudson Sober Housing. Using her own resources, Jane purchased a building in Worcester in 1999 and opened the J&J Sober House, a 10 bedroom house for men in recovery, which she continues to run to this day. The following year she was named as the program director at the Serenity House in Hopkinton, MA. Subsequently, in 2003, Jane became an adjunct faculty member and practicum supervisor for the Alcoholism/Chemical Dependency Treatment Program for UMASS Boston after obtaining her Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor (LADC) 1 certification.

Jane's approach to recovery from addiction is rooted in her commitment to helping people obtain another chance in life. Jane employs a balanced approach of compassion and ``raw reality'' that acknowledges each participant's strengths while recognizes the struggles and trauma that often pervades participants' histories. It should also be noted that she is currently overseeing the SMOC Rhodes to Recover Program in Millbury, MA.

Her deep commitment to each and every one of the thousands of participants that have come through the doors of her program is constantly displayed through her compassionate actions. It is a tribute to Jane's commitment that she continues to empower recovering addicts to achieve their goals, dreams, and ultimately repair their broken lives.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of Jane J. Schwager to thank her for her remarkable service to her state of Massachusetts, and to thousands of substance abuse victims.

I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act because I honestly believe that this Nation is better than this bill reflects.

Just so we're clear on the differences here between our positions, this amendment seeks to place the overwhelming burden of this crisis on the backs of senior citizens, and it forces seniors especially to make enormous sacrifices while, at the same time, it allows the richest Americans and oil companies and hedge fund operators to escape any responsibility or sacrifice.

This is not how we should be treating America's Greatest Generation, who survived the Great Depression, who fought in World War II, and who made the sacrifices in their time when their country called upon them. This is not the way to treat the frail elderly or any senior, who, at the end of their working lives, are now on a fixed income.

The way we deal with this crisis will say a lot about America. I think Hubert Humphrey said it best when he said that the true test of any society is

how we treat those citizens in the dawn of life, our children; those in the twilight of life, our elderly; and those in the shadow of life, our poor and disabled.

I just want to say, as Republicans are rallying to the ramparts to save the millionaires from suffering from any loss of a tax loophole, I take a full measure of pride at where the Democrats in this House are standing on this issue. I urge my colleagues to stand with seniors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his advocacy on behalf of the American consumer.

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the sole purpose of ensuring that financial markets work for, and not against, American families. It established a single director empowered with a singular mandate which is simply to protect the consumer.

This bill, H.R. 1315, seeks to weaken the CFPB on the day it opens its doors for the first time in two important ways. First, it would make it more difficult for the Consumer Protection Bureau to act by replacing the director with a five-member commission.

As has been shown, a single director with executive authority and who is directly responsible to the American consumer is better suited to act quickly to address problems in the consumer financial markets, and he or she will be directly accountable to Congress for the bureau's actions.

On the other hand, a five-member commission creates another bureaucracy that would be both less effective and less accountable to consumers. A five-member commission would also, in this case, cost taxpayers an additional $71 million.

To offset the cost of these commissioners and their staffs, we're being asked to use the money from a Federal Housing Administration program created to help responsible Americans who have continued to make mortgage payments refinance their underwater homes. According to Mark Flemming, the chief economist for the property research company CoreLogic, underwater mortgages are a primary factor holding

back the housing market and the economy as a whole.

So instead of working to solve this problem and boost our economy, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that our money is better spent unnecessarily expanding the bureaucracy at the

Mr. Speaker, it is with an immense sense of hope that I rise today to congratulate the people of South Sudan on the eve of their independence.

South Sudan has overcome incredible devastation brought on by decades of violence and famine that killed and displaced millions. After years of brutal fighting, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed a peace agreement in January 2005 that finally ended the civil war. And in January of this year the people of the south, by an overwhelming margin of 98.8 per cent to 1.17 per cent, peacefully voted for independence. The joy on the voters' faces as they cast their ballots, their hopes for the future, and their unshakeable resolve to determine their own fate was nothing short of inspirational.

South Sudan will face many challenges. There are still major issues to be addressed such as its frayed relations with Khartoum, the dispute over Abyei and the lack of agreement on borders, citizenship rights and other matters. In addition, there is the extremely worrisome violence that has grown in recent weeks in the northern border state of Southern Kordofan which has forced tens of thousands to flee. These tests will be difficult but I have no doubt that the people of South Sudan will continue to demonstrate the courage and strength of spirit that has brought them this far to take on these challenges. As they do so, the people of the United States will continue to support and stand by them as they build their new country.

However, tomorrow will be a day for celebrating a new nation that was able to overcome adversity and rise out of the ashes of genocide and civil war. On behalf of the people of the Ninth District of Massachusetts, I wish to extend my deepest congratulations to the people of South Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Eugene J. Vaillancourt in recognition of his 24 years of dedicated service to the City of Boston and the Veterans' Services Department. Throughout his nearly quarter century of service to the City, Gene worked passionately and tirelessly advocating on behalf of veterans.

Gene Vaillancourt was born on October 5, 1942, and raised in South Boston. On February 3, 1963, Gene married the late Rita Calla. They had 2 children, Gene and Billy. Gene has 3 grandchildren, Jennifer, Jordan and Erin.

After graduating from South Boston High School in 1960, he entered the United States Marine Corps (USMC). During his career he served in all 4 Marine divisions at Hawaii, Alaska, Japan and several stateside bases. A disabled combat veteran, Gene served 2 tours in Vietnam in both the 1st and 3rd Marine divisions from 1966-1967 and 1970-1971; for his brave and admirable contributions, Gene was decorated with a Purple Heart. A highly decorated veteran, he was also awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for Outstanding Service, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm. He retired from USMC as a Sgt. Major in 1987 with 27 years of service.

In August of 1987, Gene was hired by the city of Boston Veterans' Services Department and was appointed the assistant commissioner in 1992. During his 24 years with the department Gene played a very active role with various veteran related issues and projects including assisting in the installation of many veteran memorials throughout the City of Boston.

During his time at the Veterans' Services Department, Gene lobbied for well earned benefits for veterans including real estate abatements, increased annuities for 100 percent disabled veterans, and annuities for both Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Wives. On July 1, 2003, Gene proudly accepted his appointment as the Commissioner of the City of Boston Veterans' Services Department, and continues to advocate on behalf of his fellow veterans.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to join with Gene's family, friends, fellow veterans, and the city of Boston to thank him for his incredible service to his country and his dedication and commitment to veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Gene's distinguished career and in wishing him good health and success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Rooney's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in Libya in support of democracy and the rule of law, that we are also here at home trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of the United States Constitution, which is the supreme rule of law in our land.

I've heard several times now an argument that is about politics. Well, in fairness, politics is to Congress like wet is to water. We cannot avoid that.

But this issue is really one of substance, and the United States Constitution clearly states that the President's power as Commander in Chief to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances: first, a declaration of war; secondly, a specific statutory authorization; and, number three, a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories. And none of those circumstances is in evidence here today.

So despite my great admiration and respect for our President, a lawful premise for this Libyan operation does not exist.

I've also heard the argument that we have to join with our international neighbors, that we can't desert them. Well, as a matter of fact, I've been to Iraq now 14 times. I've been to Afghanistan 10 times. When we first went into Afghanistan, when I first went over there after hostilities started, it used to be 50 percent United States and 50 percent the rest of the world. Now when I go, it's about 75 percent the U.S. and 25 percent the rest of the world. So they have migrated out of Afghanistan. At the same time, they're asking us to pick up the load in Libya.

Also on my trips, I don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. When I meet our kids, they're on their third, fourth, fifth tour of duty. We're stretched very thin. Our military families are stretched very thin. I think we should allow our international neighbors to pick up this load.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Rooney amendment.