Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the record a speech, titled ``What Would Employee Free Choice Mean in the Workplace'' given by Professor William B. Gould IV, Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, Emeritus at Stanford Law School; Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in the Clinton Administration (1994-1998); member of the National Academy of Arbitrators since 1970; Independent Monitor for Freedom of Association Complaints, First Group America, 2008, to the 58th Annual Conference of the Association of Labor Relations Agencies on July 20, 2009 in Oakland, California.

What Would Employee Free Choice Mean in the Workplace?

It is a pleasure to be with you here today. By my rough

count, this is my third speech to this organization during

the past couple of decades. I have enjoyed the chance to

speak to and with you in the past and look forward to today's

program. I am particularly pleased to renew my contact with

Maria-Kate Dowling, Associate General Counsel of the National

Mediation Board.

Kate was my Deputy Chief Counsel at the NLRB in 1997-98,

one of the youngest women (perhaps the youngest) to ever hold

that senior of a position. She is illustrative of the very

best and brightest who should--and I believe now will--

receive great recognition in Washington today.

I want to commend the Association of Labor Relations

Agencies for holding this session here today on the practical

implications of the Employee Free Choice Act. This

significant legislative proposal warrants dispassionate

examination in an arena which has been too frequently divided

and polarized. My sense is that the bill even with proper

amendments--and I am quite confident that if it is enacted it

will be amended--will have a considerable impact on the

workplace. EFCA and labor law reform contain some of the

assumptions that I have held for more than four decades,

i.e., that the Act is plagued with lethargic enforcement,

creaky and convoluted administrative procedures and

ineffective remedies, that it is not working well and that,

as a result, some employees who wish to join unions are

unable to do so. No one can say with certainty what the

precise union membership impact of law reform will be, given

the fact that so many other factors are responsible for the

precipitous decline of trade unions. But it is safe to say

that it is unlikely that any statutory reform in the

foreseeable future can by itself accomplish the desirable

objective of restoring the middle class--though its

proponents so often claim it will!

The fundamental need for reform relates to the rule of law.

The National Labor Relations Act, once considered a bedrock

of labor rights of freedom of association, has not been

performing as advertised. There is nothing terribly new about

this story. The overriding theme is that justice is being

denied through its delay! The loopholes, disproportionately

exploited by employers, have dilated into a ``black hole'' in

Washington headquarters where complaints can sit for more

than five years while workers await reinstatement and back

pay.

How can we properly address this? I think that the Employee

Free Choice Act is right on the mark in establishing a treble

damage award for back pay. For too long, an award of back pay

minus interim earnings has been regarded by everyone involved

on all sides as a ``license fee'' for employer misconduct

because back pay is cheaper than a union contract.

EFCA also provides for fines up to $20,000 for each

employer violation as well as new contempt sanctions. And

again, I think that the new law has it right in expanding and

making more effective the Board's injunctive authority for

employer unfair labor practices--in much the same manner that

the statute has established them for union unfair labor

practices since the Taft-Hartley amendments. Judge (and I

hope soon-to-be Justice) Sonia Sotomayor's opinion in

Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations

Committee, Inc. upholding my Board's view that an injunction

was appropriate in the baseball players' 1994-95 strike has

made this provision's importance about as well known as

anything.

On other key issues I think that there is much more room

for debate. While card checks are evidence of employee

support in some circumstances, I think that they are, as the

Supreme Court has characterized them, second best. And in

Canada, where the consensus in the 1960s favored card check,

a majority of provinces have now settled on secret ballot box

elections. Moreover, there will be fewer disputes over the

way in which employees mark secret ballots than there will be

over cards; fewer disputes means less litigation and less

delay.

But the unions are right to say that the election system

(and indeed many other provisions of the statute) is broken.

Accordingly, my view is that the principal breakdown in the

election scheme--which has led to the card check proposal--is

delay through which employees are subjected to a one-sided,

anti-union campaign by employers for at least two months, and

in a minority of instances a much more considerable period of

time. The answer here is to both expedite elections--to

require that they be held within a couple of weeks of the

union's petition, as is done in the provinces of Ontario and

British Columbia--and to reverse Supreme Court precedent

excluding non-employee union organizers from company premises

so that they can carry their side of the message to employees

more effectively in the run-up to the ballot itself.

Another reform can provide for postal ballots which give

employees a greater opportunity to cast their vote privately

in a neutral facility of their choosing outside of the

employer's control. In truth, the statute already provides

for this, as I noted in my concurring opinion in San Diego

Gas & Electric--but I think that Congress can be helpful by

explicitly providing that postal ballots can be available

within the Board's discretion along the lines that I set

forth in San Diego Gas. The plurality in that case, which

limited such ballots only to cases where employees are

scattered and unavailable, did not rely upon any provision of

the statute as it is written today and the Board, as well as

Congress, can reverse that poorly-reasoned opinion at any

time that it wants.

The third important feature of EFCA provides for interest

arbitration in first contract negotiations. Clearly, as

Professors Ferguson and Kochan have established, there is a

problem here--only 56% of newly-certified bargaining units

reach a contract, and only 37% do so within the first

certification year--that cannot be easily remedied by

refusal-to-bargain litigation. The surface bargaining cases

have not been an effective avenue through which to establish

or restore collective bargaining relationships that should

have been less dysfunctional in the first instance.

However, EFCA-sponsored interest arbitration, in contrast

to the ``grievance'' or ``rights'' variety, is relatively

untested in the private sector in the United States. In

Canada, which has first contract arbitration in most

provinces, the process is rare and used sparingly (except in

Manitoba where it is automatic after a specific time period).

The conundrum is that the potential for a mechanism like this

must be available to rescue bargaining which is at a stall,

and yet its mere availability can undermine the collective

bargaining process itself which is furthered by the Act.

The proper approach here, it seems to me, is to provide

that the mediator--perhaps in consultation with the NLRB

itself--should certify after extensive mediatory efforts that

collective bargaining is either at an impasse or

dysfunctional. As it presently stands, EFCA simply allows for

arbitration to be invoked after three months of collective

bargaining and subsequent mediation. Not only is this period

of time too abbreviated, but by spelling out a specific

period of time after which arbitration is automatic, it

encourages the parties to maneuver in anticipation of

arbitration in a way which can erode the voluntary collective

bargaining process. Moreover, this approach fails to take

into account the fact that both sides are frequently learning

for the first time as they put together their very first

collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration must be used sparingly, although it should

remain available in the final analysis so as to shore up a

relationship which might otherwise disappear. This must be

what the law encourages not only because of the

considerations above but also because experience with

interest arbitration in the public sector--where it is

available in many jurisdictions for police and fire--is

itself extensive and time-consuming. Amongst the interest

arbitrations that I have done was one between the Detroit

Board of Education and the Federation of Teachers twenty

years ago where hearings continued day and night for a week,

detailed briefs were filed thereafter, and the arbitration

board was required to meet and decide on the basis of

voluminous submissions at the end of it all. Though we cannot

tolerate delays such as the fifteen months which apparently

exist in the public sector in Michigan, framers of the law

must realize that it will take considerable time and expense.

This is another reason why arbitration should be the rare

exception and not the rule at the end of collective

bargaining.

Yet there is one other consideration. My view is that

final-offer baseball arbitration, where the arbitrator is

obliged to select one package offer or the other, is the best

approach because it creates uncertainty which promotes

voluntary negotiation. But because there is much uncertainty

for the arbitrator as well as for the parties, I am of the

view that his award should appear initially in the form of

recommendations and that the parties should have 10-14 days

to negotiate with the arbitrator acting as a mediator. If the

parties cannot resolve their differences in that time, the

recommendations within the parameters of the initial award

would be final and binding. In this way the real potential

for arbitral error is diminished, and the integrity of the

process maintained.

There are a few other matters that I think you should

consider which should be a vital part of labor law reform,

and yet are not covered in EFCA. First, Congress should

encourage rulemaking in lieu of adjudication so as to avoid

repetitive and wasteful litigation which enhance cost and

delay. My Board attempted to do this in the 1990s and was

stopped by appropriations riders fashioned by the Republican

Congress. A different political environment exists this time

around and Congress and the Board should take full advantage

of the opportunity to resolve disputes expeditiously and

sensibly.

Second, the amount of litigation before the Board can be

reduced if Congress unfreezes the Board's jurisdictional

guidelines and thus decreases the volume of cases that come

before it by taking into account fifty years of inflation.

The freeze has resulted in NLRB assertion of jurisdiction

over very small employers. Again, the Republican Congress in

the 1990s insisted that I withdraw Board jurisdiction when I

was Chairman but, as I pointed out to them, only Congress can

change these statutory provisions which were enacted a half-

century ago and which have left Board jurisdiction in terms

of dollar values the same as it was then--even though the

dollar is worth one-seventh of what it was at that time.

But at this time, Congress can initiate action on this

which will both deregulate labor-management relations for

small employers in some jurisdictions and, since state law

should be followed, also allow the states to enact more

expansive laws protecting union organizing. This promotes the

kind of laboratory conditions of which Justice Brandeis spoke

a century ago and relieves small business from the federal

regulation under which it currently lives. Here Congress can

and should take the lead as the 1959 amendments require.

Third, labor law reform must take into account that it is

not simply employers who are promoting delay before the NLRB

and the courts at this juncture--in many instances it has

been the Board itself as cases have languished in the black

hole in Washington headquarters for half a decade or more

while workers awaited reinstatement and back pay. As

Professor G. Calvin Mackenzie of Colby College has noted,

much of this is attributable to the ``transcendent loss of

purpose in the appointment process'' at the NLRB where

appointees ``come from congressional staffs or think tanks or

interest groups--not from across the country but from across

the street: interchangeable public elites, engaged in an

insider's game.'' The packaging and ``batching'' of

appointees was unknown prior to 1994 and has become so

embedded in the appointment process that even President Obama

has batched a Republican Senate Labor Committee policy

director with his two Democratic nominees.

This approach should be abandoned. It fosters delay through

the reticence of decision-makers who procrastinate, concerned

about congressional reaction. If reappointments were barred,

this tendency would be diminished. At the same time, Congress

should extend the term of office to eight years, reduce the

number of Board members from five to three so as to eliminate

the potential for individual Board member obstruction (with

the reduction of cases obtained through withdrawal of

jurisdiction this can work more easily), and explicitly

provide that when a Board member's term expires he or she can

serve no longer. In this way we will attract the best people

who will serve for the very best reasons.

Finally, one of the most interesting developments in recent

years relates to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

devised by the parties, particularly as a result of their

frustration about the National Labor Relations Board and its

ability to function promptly. One classic example of this

approach is set forth in the procedures devised by First

Group America to deal with complaints involving freedom of

association issues arising out of union organizational

campaigns or relating to discrimination on account of union

activity. The First Group machinery provides that an

Independent Monitor (I have functioned in that capacity for

the past 18 months) is to make public recommendations

regarding such complaints within 30-60 days of the time that

they are filed. Most recommendations have been accepted and

the program has been praised by both sides. The process is

able to move with dispatch because there is simply a

provision for investigation rather than a full-fledged

hearing. Congress ought to explicitly encourage parties to

devise such procedures, and their existence may provide

guidance with regard to how lengthy proceedings before the

Board and the courts--which are frequently excessively time-

consuming or wasteful--can be abbreviated.

Conclusion

The job of labor law reform is an important one and the

Employee Free Choice Act has done more than any other

mechanism in recent years to get this issue front and center.

The chance to engage in this process does not come often and

thus it is important that the country gets it right this time

around.

EFCA is right on the mark when it comes to sanctions,

damages, penalties, and contempt proceedings. It has gone off

course in connection with card check--but fortunately through

expedited and postal elections as well as union access to

private property that matter can be addressed with some

measure of success. On arbitration, EFCA got us part of the

way there, but much more needs to be done and revised.

The reform initiative provides a great opportunity to have

a new look at some of the problems that have plagued the

Board and the Act for far too long, i.e., the appointments

process and its relationship to delay, the failure or

inability to borrow from voluntary machinery, and the need to

get small employers beyond the reach of the Act either for

the purpose of deregulation or for, in those jurisdictions

that want it that way, more expansive protection than is

provided by the National Labor Relations Act even as revised

in 2009--if it is to be.

This is the beginning of a great debate. It is a debate

which necessarily involves labor and management, Democrats

and Republicans, and the result must be not only sensible in

content but the product of some measure of consensus and

compromise.

Madam Speaker, I rise along with my colleague Congressman Bonner to update you about the activities of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct through the end of June 2009. Below we have included a table summarizing statistics relating to the Committee's work through June 30, 2009, along with a brief summary of the Committee's accomplishments through the end of June 2009.

About the Committee

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is tasked

with interpreting and enforcing the House's ethics rules. The

Committee has sole jurisdiction over the interpretation of

the Code of Official Conduct, which governs the acts of

Members and staff. The Committee is the only standing House

committee with equal numbers of Democratic and Republican

members. The Committee's staff is required by rule to be--and

it is--professional and nonpartisan.

Much, if not most, of the Committee's work is conducted

confidentially. Members and staff are, by and large,

prohibited from discussing the Committee's work.

Confidentiality promotes compliance with the rules and, in

the investigative context, permits the Committee to

independently investigate matters fully without interference

or undue influence.

Nevertheless, the Committee's duty to maintain

confidentiality can make the Committee appear insufficiently

accountable or transparent. The Committee, to the extent our

confidentiality obligations permit, intends to be

transparent, and it will be accountable. To that end, we are

submitting the Committee's first semi-annual report on its

activities.

The Committee's Responsibilities

The Committee manages five critical responsibilities:

1. Training. The Committee provides mandatory annual ethics

training to over 10,000 employees of the House. In addition,

the Committee provides additional, mandatory training for

senior staff. Trainings take the form of in-person and

computer-based seminars, briefings and interactive

presentations. The Committee is in the process of updating

its online training materials and has put into place systems

for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the House's

training requirements.

2. Advice and Education. The Committee provides both formal

and informal guidance to Members and employees of the House.

Through published guidance, the Committee updates the House

on the ethical standards regulating the conduct of Members

and staff. It also provides confidential written guidance to

Members and staff on specific questions. In addition, the

Committee's staff gives informal, confidential advice to

Members, staff and the public every day. The Committee has

recently set a goal of completing responses to written

requests for advice within two weeks of submission and has

made significant progress toward improving the timeliness of

responses to requests for formal advice.

3. Travel. The Committee is responsible for reviewing and

approving all privately-sponsored travel related to official

duties offered to Members and staff. The Committee is in the

process of reviewing its travel regulations. Exercising its

oversight jurisdiction, the Committee, with the benefit of

two years' experience implementing the House's travel rules,

expects to revise its travel regulations in the near future.

4. Financial Disclosure. The Committee reviews and

certifies all financial disclosure reports Members,

candidates and senior staff are required to file. These are

time-intensive reviews, which require the dedication of

substantial staff resources to complete. The Committee is

putting into place systems for monitoring and enforcing

compliance with the House's financial disclosure rules.

5. Investigations. The Committee investigates and

adjudicates allegations of impropriety and violations of

House ethics rules by Members and staff. The Committee

actively investigates allegations against Members and staff,

using a mix of informal and formal investigative techniques

to determine the validity of factual allegations, explore

potential rules violations and recommend appropriate

sanctions and corrective actions. Where appropriate, the

Committee refers matters to federal and state law enforcement

authorities.

In addition, the Committee performs other critical

functions to ensure compliance with House ethics rules.

Several of these functions are noted in the table below,

which summarizes the Committee's activities for the first

half this year.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY09.001

Significant Accomplishments

Conforming Revisions to Committee Rules

Revisions to House rules over the past few years required

conforming amendments to the Committee's rules. The Committee

did the revisions in two steps. First, the Committee adopted

interim rules at its organizational meeting on February 10,

2009. The interim rules conformed the Committee's rules to

the more gender-neutral language adopted in the House rules

for the 111th Congress. At that time, the Committee announced

that it would be conducting a more thorough review of its

rules to incorporate new provisions in House Rule 11

regarding the newly established Office of Congressional

Ethics (OCE).

In April 2009, the Committee formed a bipartisan working

group led by Representative Ben Chandler and Representative

John Kline to review and make recommendations for further,

more substantive conforming amendments to the Committee's

rules. The working group met formally three times to discuss

proposed amendments to the rules. It also consulted with the

Office of the Parliamentarian, House Office of Legislative

Counsel, and the House General Counsel to ensure the

Committee's rules revisions conform to the provisions of the

House rules, applicable legislation and the Constitution. The

working group's recommended revisions were ultimately adopted

by Committee vote on June 9, 2009.

The revisions incorporated House Rule 11 and H. Res. 895

(110th Congress), which established the OCE and created the

process by which matters are referred to the Committee from

the OCE and eventually subjected to public disclosure. The

Committee's rules address the three pillars underlying the

creation of the OCE: promoting accountability of the

Committee; increasing the transparency of the Committee; and

ensuring the independence of both the Committee and the OCE.

A section-by-section summary of the conforming amendments

to the Committee's rules is included immediately below.

Summary of Rules Changes

Rule 2--Definitions. Conforms the Committee's rules to

extant House rules governing the Committee's role as an

investigative authority. Incorporates definitions relevant to

the OCE.

Rule 3--Advisory Opinions and Waivers. Clarifies that the

privately-sponsored travel approval process is part of the

Committee's Advisory Opinion process. Permits a Member,

officer or House employee to request a copy of his or her own

travel approval or advisory opinion request, along with the

Committee's response to the request.

Rule 4--Financial Disclosure. Establishes that the

Committee has declined to exercise jurisdiction over review

of the timeliness and completeness of financial disclosure

reports filed by the Board of the OCE with the Clerk of the

House. This provision promotes OCE's independence.

Rule 7--Confidentiality. Conforms the Committee's

confidentiality provisions to the public disclosure

requirements for referrals from the OCE and permits limited

disclosures of Committee investigative information to the

Board of the OCE when the Committee requests a referral.

Rule 9--Quorums and Member Disqualification. Conforms the

Committee's member disqualification rule to changes made in

the House Rules for the 111th Congress.

Rule 12--Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee

Proceedings. Removes the provision allowing witnesses to

terminate audio and video coverage consistent with the

elimination of this provision in the House rules.

Rule 14--Committee Authority to Investigate--General

Policy. Conforms the Committee's rules to extant House rules

governing the Committee's role as an investigative authority.

Incorporates authority to investigate, consistent with new

House rules, based on referrals from the OCE.

Rule 17--Processing of Complaints. Removes the provision

regarding member disqualification to clarify its broader

application to all investigative subcommittees.

Rule 17A--Referrals from the Board of the Office of

Congressional Ethics. Incorporates provisions from new House

rules detailing the Committee's process for processing

referrals from the OCE, including the timeframes for required

public disclosure of OCE referrals. Establishes the process

the Committee will follow when it receives an OCE referral

pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 3. Provides that the

Committee must, in virtually all cases, make public OCE's

reports and findings regarding referred matters, as well as

make public statements regarding the status of the

Committee's reviews of referred matters. The public

disclosures follow strict timelines. The rule sets out the

basic disclosure process and timeframes for disclosure in

detail.

Provides that public disclosures required under the rule

will be released by the Committee on the Committee's Web

site.

Provides that the Committee may receive OCE referrals in

two ways that trigger the disclosure process described in

Committee Rule 17A. First, OCE's Board may vote to refer a

matter to the Committee after completion of OCE's second-

phase review. Second, the Committee may request a referral

after receiving notice that OCE is reviewing a matter,

provided the Committee is already investigating, or has

already investigated, the matter pursuant to House Rule 11,

clause 3(r). Under that House Rule, as codified in Committee

Rule 17A(k), the Committee has the authority to request that

OCE refer a matter to the Committee at any stage of an OCE

investigation. Because a request for a referral may only come

from the Committee, it requires a vote of the full Committee.

Provides that the Committee may not request a matter and

then allow it to languish in secret. Treats an early referral

as identical to an OCE referral made at the end of a second-

stage review. Provides that, if the Committee requests a

referral from the OCE, the OCE will issue a report to the

Committee when it makes its referral. In early referral

cases, the rule applies the same strict timelines and public

disclosure requirements applicable to all other OCE

referrals. The Committee must act on the matter and release a

copy of OCE's report, typically within 45 days, with the

possibility of one 45-day extension. Consequently, if the

Committee votes to dismiss a matter after requesting an early

referral from OCE, the OCE's report will become public, along

with a statement from the Committee announcing dismissal of

the matter. The rule fosters accountability and ensures that

the actions of both the Committee and the OCE are transparent

to the House and to the public. (The Committee understands

that the OCE, in such cases, would not be precluded from

continuing its review based on new information made available

to the OCE.)

Provides that, if the Committee is unable to resolve a

matter before the public disclosure timeframes run (for

example, by empanelling an investigative subcommittee),

referred matters will revert back to the OCE for second-phase

review and possible referral of the matter to the Committee.

Provides that the Committee may only request one referral of

the same matter from the OCE.

Rule 18--Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation.

Conforms the Committee's rules to House rules and long-

standing Committee practice. Incorporates recent House

resolutions requiring action by the Committee when a Member,

officer or House employee is charged with criminal conduct.

Rule 19--Investigative Subcommittee. Adds a provision

regarding member disqualification from investigative

subcommittees to clarify its broader application to all

investigative subcommittees.

Rule 23--Adjudicatory Hearings. Clarifies that member

disqualification from adjudicatory subcommittees is also

governed by the general member disqualification rule,

consistent with the House rule revisions in the 111th

Congress.

Staffing

Effective May 1, 2009, the Committee appointed a permanent

staff director and chief counsel. In addition, the Committee

has hired four additional staff members, including two

attorneys and two investigators, three of whom will start

with the Committee during July 2009. The Committee continues

to actively interview additional candidates for numerous open

staff positions. The addition of a permanent staff director

has helped the Committee establish several significant

policies (described below) that will enhance compliance with

the ethical standards of the House. The addition of new staff

will permit the Committee to fulfill its responsibilities in

a more timely and effective manner.

Reduction in Advisory Opinion Backlog

At the beginning of this Congress, there was a substantial

backlog of advisory opinion requests to which the Committee

had yet to respond. Many of those requests were months

delayed. In some cases, responses were delayed by as much as

a year or more. The Committee has cleared the backlog and has

established policies to improve its responsiveness to

advisory opinion requests.

On May 1, 2009, the Committee established a target of

responding to advisory opinion requests, where possible,

within two weeks. From the beginning of the year through

April 30, 2009, the Committee responded within two weeks to

advisory opinion requests about 39% of the time. Since May 1,

2009, the Committee's response rate has jumped to over 80%.

The policy change has greatly increased the turnaround time

for responses, leading to more timely and effective advice to

Members and staff on issues of concern to them. The policy

also has encouraged Members and staff to seek confidential

advice from the Committee before acting, promoting greater

compliance with the House's ethics rules.

Improved Data Collection and Case Management

The Committee has significantly improved its data

collection and case management. Data is being collected and

monitored in ways it has not been before. For example, the

Committee has for the first time started collecting much of

the data included in the report above on an ongoing basis.

The Committee has started tracking the length of time it

takes to review advisory opinion and travel requests,

allowing it to set targets for processing cases. In addition,

the Committee is exploring ways to improve its processes and

to expand its data collection.

Improved Compliance Controls

The Committee has significantly improved its processes for

monitoring compliance with House rules, including the

certification of mandated training for staff and the filing

of financial disclosure reports. Specifically, the Committee

has, since May 1, 2009, established specific policies to

identify employees who, and offices that, have failed to

properly certify compliance with the House's mandatory

training requirements for staff. In addition, the Committee

has put into place policies to identify Members and senior

staff

who have failed to file financial disclosure reports. These

policies will allow the Committee to notify noncompliant

individuals and offices, seek corrective measures and take

appropriate remedial actions.

Annual Review of Travel Regulations

The Committee has started its required annual review of its

regulations governing privately-sponsored travel. It expects

to report its findings to the House by the end of 2009.

Investigations

The Committee has been conscientiously fulfilling its

mission to investigate alleged violations of the House's

ethics rules. As can be seen from the report above, the

Committee opened 15 new investigative matters from the

beginning of the year through June 30, 2009. During that

time, the Committee received six referrals from the OCE. In

addition, the Committee continued investigating 11 matters

held over from the 110th Congress. The Committee completed

four investigative matters. The resolutions in two of those

matters were publicly disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to note that I also was at a meeting for the last 2 hours, with the President at the White House, on immigration and unavoidably missed the votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the McGovern-Jones amendment, ``yes'' on the McGovern-Sestak amendment, ``no'' on the Franks amendment, ``no'' on the Akin amendment, ``yes'' on the Holt amendment, ``yes'' on the Connolly amendment, and ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Thank you, Mr. Price.

In looking at this amendment, I think it's important for Members to know that they can either vote for it or against it. It doesn't really matter because it's a restatement of existing law.

I would direct the attention of Members to section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code 1324a(h)(3), which says, and I read it, in part, authorized alien means with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time the alien is not at that time either lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by this act or by the Attorney General.

As I say, this provision is not necessary. Current law also requires all employers to verify the employment authorization of employees here in the Federal Government, and there already are criminal and civil penalties for hiring unauthorized immigrants. Again, that is current law.

Current law also permits employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of employees pursuant to section 401 and 402 of Public Law 104-208, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is the E-Verify program that Members are aware of.

Current law requires the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of their employees pursuant to section 402(e)(1) of Public Law 104-208; again, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996.

So, I provide this information to Members not as an advocate for or against the amendment, simply to note that this is a restatement of existing law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented and dedicated public servant, Mike Curran. For the past twenty-three years Mike has been the director of the NOVA workforce board. NOVA is a nonprofit, federally funded employment and training agency that provides customer-focused workforce development services in cooperation with the local community of business owners and educators in Silicon Valley. NOVA was founded twenty-five years ago and Mike has been the director for all but two of those years. Under his leadership, NOVA has received international recognition for its ability to design, develop, and deploy cutting edge operations that meet the unique talent development needs of Silicon Valley. It goes without saying that it is Mike's leadership and vision that has made this possible. He has been described as ``a premier example of the Silicon Valley work ethic-- tireless, unstoppable, someone with his finger on the pulse of how employment affects our daily lives'' and I cannot agree more. Mike has dedicated his life to community organizing, development, and service. His commitment to Silicon Valley is lifelong--Mike was born and raised in Silicon Valley and has chosen to make his home there with his wife Elaine and their two children, Brendan and Megan. As we celebrate Mike Curran's retirement from NOVA workforce board, I cannot help but be saddened by it. However, I am certain that this is not the end of Mike's service to Silicon Valley or his commitment to making a difference in the day-to-day lives of the people in our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a distinguished member of my community, the Honorable Marilyn Morgan, upon her retirement from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California.

Judge Morgan has served on the federal bench with honor and integrity for 21 years. She has been an exceptional jurist, committed to fairness in the decisions impacting those who have appeared before her. Throughout her life and career, Judge Morgan has sought to ensure that all parties, including those with limited access to services and legal representation, have justice and equality. However, her extraordinary dedication to public service extends far beyond her courtroom.

Prior to her legal career, Ms. Morgan worked in the civil rights movement in the area of voter registration. After receiving her J.D. from Emory University, Ms. Morgan returned to her native San Jose to start her own practice in bankruptcy law, representing both debtors and creditors. She also served as a bankruptcy trustee. In that capacity, she quickly identified a need for a communications clearinghouse for trustees to connect and share ideas and educational resources. Ms. Morgan was co-founder of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, an educational and advocacy organization for Chapter 7 Trustees that continues to thrive and boast a nationwide membership.

Among some important firsts, Ms. Morgan served as the first woman President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association in 1985-86 and as the first bankruptcy lawyer appointed as a Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. She has also served as a member of the Bankruptcy Advisory Committee to the United States District Court and as a referee and probation monitor on the State Bar Court. Since her appointment to the bench in 1988, Judge Morgan has continued her extensive contributions to the legal community. She is one of the co- founders of the Congressman Don Edwards American Inn of Court, a professional association dedicated to promoting civility and enhancing communications between the bench and the bankruptcy bar. She has also served on the Board of Directors of Lincoln Law School of San Jose, Consumer Credit Counselors of San Francisco and its subsidiary, BALANCE, and the Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum.

Judge Morgan has been a powerful advocate for the improvement of the legal system. In 2007, Judge Morgan testified about ``Protecting Home Ownership'' before the Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1997, she also testified before the National Bankruptcy Review Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. In 2007, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys recognized Judge Morgan for her extraordinary service in the field of consumer bankruptcy law. In 1999, she received the Fresh Start Award from the local consumer bankruptcy community in recognition of her contributions to improving the consumer bankruptcy system.

Judge Morgan has also been an active and effective advocate for improving the quality of, and access to, legal services available to the public. She has served as President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association Law Foundation and a trustee of Santa Clara County Law Related Education. She is also a co-founder of the Pro Bono Project of Santa Clara County. Judge Morgan has been a frequent provider of continuing legal education through the Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, the Santa Clara County Bar Association, the California Bankruptcy Forum, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the American Law Institute--American Bar Association, and the Norton Institute.

In addition to her contributions to the legal community, Judge Morgan has given generously to her broader community. One of the first women admitted to membership in the Rotary Club of San Jose, she has truly fulfilled its mission of ``service above self.'' She has served on the club's Board of Directors and has been intimately involved in developing Los Amigos de Washington School, a Rotary program that provides support to the students, families and teachers of Washington Elementary School through activities, events and mentoring. Judge Morgan has been a regular at the school, reading books to several classes and mentoring a group of fourth grade girls. She has also served on the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross; the San Jose Cathedral Foundation; The Women's Fund; the Santa Clara County Public Facilities Corporation; the Santa Clara County Building Authority; the Downtown YWCA; and the Santa Clara County Century Club.

For more than 30 years, Judge Morgan has been an outstanding pillar of our community in San Jose, a forceful advocate for the improvement of the legal system and the community at large, an inspiration and role model for her public service, a loyal friend to the many people with whom she has worked along the way, and a jurist whose common sense and legal acumen has provided justice to those who have appeared before her.

She is married to the Hon. (Ret.) James R. Grube, and they have three children, Terry, Elyse, and Mark.

It is with great pleasure that I join Judge Morgan in celebrating her life and many accomplishments. I thank her for her contributions to our region in California and to our nation. On behalf of our community, I congratulate Judge Morgan and wish her and her family well in her retirement and her future plans to continue in service to her community.

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Vietnam Human Rights Day and to recognize the daily struggle for freedom in Vietnam.

Fifteen years ago, Congress designated May 11th as Vietnam Human Rights Day, recognizing the plight of the people of Vietnam under the repression of their communist government. I am sad to say that these conditions persist to this day.

Just last week, Vietnam's human rights record was examined by the United Nations Human Rights Council, under the Universal Periodic Review. As part of this proceeding, numerous non-governmental organizations reported a wide range of serious abuses.

Journalists, dissidents, and whistleblowers are imprisoned merely for questioning government policies in public or calling attention to corruption or other wrongdoing. Citizens are arrested, detained, and imprisoned without due process of law. Independent political parties and labor unions are banned. In all of this, the Vietnamese government scorns the rule of law, violating its international human rights obligations and, often, its own constitution.

Abuses of religious freedom are also a serious problem. In its Annual Report for 2009, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has again called for Vietnam to be designated as a Country of Particular Concern by the State Department. I commend the Commission for making this recommendation, and urge the State Department to follow its advice.

The United States granted Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations in 2006. Since then, its already abysmal human rights record has gotten even worse. Once the Vietnamese government got the trade agreement that it wanted, it felt free to escalate its repression.

It is time for the United States to consider how it can use its considerable leverage to assist those who are striving for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. I rise to honor their efforts and sacrifices.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of David Jennings Brown, Sr., whose business acumen, community service and family dedication are inspirational.

Acclaimed as a pioneer developer of Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area business parks, David J. Brown is a man of vision, compassion and energy. David began his business career developing and managing commercial and industrial income properties for Newhall Land & Farming Company and Holvick deRegt & Koering. He then became the Regional Vice President of Boise Cascade Building, where he completed the acquisition and commenced the development and management of four major Bay Area Business Parks.

With a vision to create a commercial and industrial real estate development and management company offering the utmost level of integrity and service, David founded Orchard Properties in San Jose, California in 1973. During its 32 years of operations, Orchard Properties developed over 1,400 acres and 7 million square feet of commercial/industrial property in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Sacramento Counties. Through the teamwork of over 200 individuals, Orchard Properties earned numerous awards and special recognitions over the years, including being named Developer of the Year four times. And, as a result, David is being inducted into the ``Developer Hall of Fame'' by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) in May 2009.

Beginning in 2007 NAIOP Silicon Valley felt that it was important to take a moment to reflect upon the significant role that very few individuals have had in shaping the look and feel of Silicon Valley and the role Silicon Valley's Commercial Real Estate community has played in the international business community. Silicon Valley, as we know it today, is the result of the efforts of a few developers who did big things in the 60's and 70's, including building speculative, flexible buildings that allowed high tech companies to expand, contract and change creatively, a visionary concept from the 1960's. It was considered to be very, very risky and was not often attempted. Yet, the NAIOP Developer Hall of Fame honorees were pioneers who took risks, had vision and worked tirelessly building an industry providing a foundation of the entrepreneurial economy that today is replicated around the world.

In 1995, David acquired a ranch located in Wolf Creek Valley outside of Pagosa Springs, Colorado where his family built BootJack Ranch, which has become one of David's true passions. BootJack Ranch is a one- of-akind world-class family compound and retreat. The ranch is considered to be one of the finest and most beautiful recreational and fly fishing ranches in the country. The Brown Family enjoys using BootJack Ranch as a tranquil retreat to provide rest, renewal and introspection for their family, Christian ministry leaders, executives and others in need of a place of silence and solitude.

BootJack Ranch is also the backdrop numerous philanthropic events including the annual Music in the Mountains Festival. The Browns also founded the Pagosa Springs affiliate of the Durango festival of the same name in 2001. Music in the Mountains, Pagosa is a world class music festival featuring a wonderful variety of composers, artists and styles from classical to country and Celtic showcased in the beautiful mountain scenery.

David has 3 daughters, 2 sons and 11 grandchildren. He and his wife recently relocated to Paradise Valley, Arizona where David is currently the Vice Chairman of the Mayo Clinic Arizona Leadership Advisory Council.

I would like to thank David for his contributions to the community and commend him on his meaningful and productive career.

Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the California Democratic delegation, I yield to our colleague for a happy announcement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 342 and the designation of May 2, 2009 as ``Vietnamese Refugees Day.''

Millions of Boat People and other Vietnamese refugees endured harrowing voyages to escape the tyranny and depravation of communist Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of those refugees reached the United States, and we are all better for it. Like so many immigrants before and since, they came seeking freedom, and in turn became valuable members of their new communities. I have the privilege of representing many Vietnamese-Americans in San Jose, California, and can attest to this first-hand.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak with the same warmth about the situation inside Vietnam. To this day, the Vietnamese government refuses to respect the basic human rights of its own citizens. Reports by the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and non-governmental and Vietnamese American organizations document egregious abuses of free speech and expression, religious liberty, and many other fundamental freedoms.

So today I rise to honor the experiences of Vietnamese refugees, and to commend the Vietnamese Americans who have successfully rebuilt their lives in the United States while fighting for the rights of those left in Vietnam.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project and all those who have contributed their time and effort to ensure that historic images and vital data from the Lunar Orbiter missions of the 1960s are not lost to future generations.

In 1965, Charles Byrne, an engineer with Bellcomm, Inc., had the foresight to propose that NASA record data from the Lunar Orbiter missions onto tape recorders. NASA agreed and the images returned from the Lunar Orbiters were backed up on AMPEX FR-900 tape drives. To date, these images are some of highest resolution images we have of the Moon. Those images include a high-resolution version of ``Earthrise,'' the first picture of the Earth from the Moon's vantage point. Time Magazine has called this image ``the photo of the century.'' The tapes also contain the first stereo imagery of the Moon's surface. Indeed, these are some of the best images of the Moon ever taken, far superior from those received from the Hubble telescope.

Astonishingly, all of the images stored on the 1,500 14-inch diameter tape reels were nearly destroyed. With its focus turned to the Apollo mission, NASA saw little further use for the tapes. Fortunately, Nancy Evans, co-founder of NASA Planetary Data Systems, convinced her superiors at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to retain the tapes. Evans also salvaged three refrigerator-sized FR-900 tape drives, which she stored in her own garage for two decades. Evans and Mark Nelson, of Caltech, managed to get a few tape drives running but their project ultimately folded. NASA turned down her requests for assistance after placing an estimate of $6 million on the cost to restore the data.

Fortunately, Evans' efforts caught the attention of Dennis Wingo and Keith Cowing, both of whom have been focused on space exploration for many years. They arranged to move the tapes and drives to NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Ames' director, Peter Worden, arranged for them to store the equipment in an old abandoned McDonalds, which they jokingly referred to as ``McMoon's.'' Wingo and Cowing began working with Ken Zin, an army veteran, to get the drives up and running. NASA contributed $100,000 to the efforts. Cowing invested his own money in the project and the team enlisted the support of local students to recover the images.

There is still a long way to go to complete this project but the public's interest in it is more than just a matter of historical record. The images have the potential to push NASA's climate data back a full decade. And just as the Lunar Orbiter images provided data crucial to safely landing our first astronauts on the moon, those same images will assist the current efforts of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission by providing a baseline for understanding the changes to the Moon between the 1960s and present day.

As with the Lunar Orbiter's images themselves, the efforts of those who have devoted themselves to this project should not go unnoticed or unrecorded. Although space exploration is a vast, complicated enterprise, it ultimately relies on individuals who have the vision and imagination to move us forward. The Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project is an example of that kind of vision and imagination, and those who have contributed to the Project and to preceding efforts surely deserve our gratitude.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Rodney John Diridon, ``Rod,'' on the 70th anniversary of his birth. In addition to celebrating the commemoration of a life well spent, I would like to acknowledge the dedication he has exemplified in serving the Valley of Santa Clara for over half of his life.

Diridon, the son of an immigrant Italian railroad brakeman, has focused on transportation issues for decades. A most effective proponent of public transportation, Rod Sr. is considered the ``father of modern transit'' in Santa Clara County and credited with countless achievements including building the light rail system. He is a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and a former candidate for the California State Assembly.

Upon his retirement from public office in 1994, the main train station in San Jose was renamed ``The Diridon Station'' in his honor. He currently heads the Norman I. Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, and is a former chairman of the board of the High Speed Rail Authority.

Rod's service to his community and country started much earlier in his life. From 1963 to 1967 he served in the U.S. Navy as a Fleet Officer and Combat Duty Officer in Vietnam.

In 1969, Diridon founded the Diridon Research Corporation, later renamed Decision Research Institute (DRI) in 1972. DRI conducted market research, needs assessment surveys and legislative consulting throughout the United States. As founder and president he developed a ``shared survey'' research procedure subsequently adopted by the UNICEF of the United Nations.

His political career began in 1972 as the youngest person ever elected to the Saratoga City Council. He retired because of term limits, after completing 20 years and six terms as chairperson of both the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Transit Board. He is the only person to have chaired the San Francisco Bay Area's (nine counties and 104 cities) three regional governments: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Association of Bay Area Governments.

To find the basis for Rod's call to public service, one need only look at his family's roots. Rodney John Diridon was born in Dunsmuir, California in 1939 to Claude and Rhoda Diridon. As the son of Italian immigrants, Rod's father, Claudius Diridoni was compelled to change his name when bigotry in the railroad employment system kept him from being hired. After becoming a union member, Claude was protected from discrimination, thus starting the Diridon family's long appreciation of organized labor.

Although Rod was dyslexic, through hard work and determination, he was a good student and member of championship football teams in high school. While working his way through college as a railroad trainman, he attended Shasta Junior College and Chico State, each for one year. He then transferred to San Jose State University, where he was a student leader, and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and an MSBA in Statistics.

He was married to Mary Ann Fudge from July 4, 1964 until 1999 and raised two children, Rodney Jr. born September 10, 1969, and Mary Margaret, born September 14, 1971. On June 10, 2001 he married Dr. Gloria Duffy.

Rod has chaired over 100 international, national, state and local community service programs and projects, most related to transit and the environment. He served, in 1993, as the chairperson of the American Public Transit Association in Washington, D.C., and more recently as the North American Vice President of the International Transit Association in Brussels. He has been an advisor to the Federal Transit Administration and in 1995 chaired the National Research Council's Transit Oversight and Project Selection Committee. Rod chaired the NRC's Transportation Research Board's study panel on ``Combating Global Warming Through Sustainable Transportation Policy.'' He is frequently asked to provide testimony to Congressional Committees.

Diridon has received published recognition and numerous awards for his contributions and has served on numerous organizations committed to community service at the national, state, regional and local levels. He has been most involved with transportation, the environment, arts and human rights fund-raising and advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, fellow attorney, my fellow Californian, the former attorney general for California, Congressman Dan Lungren, for joining with me in introducing this bill first in the 109th Congress, then again working to get the bill on the floor in the 110th, and now, once again, in the 111th Congress. And I am grateful to Chairman Brady for moving this bill so promptly. I think starting this early perhaps we'll get this all the way through the Senate and over to the President and accomplish something that's really quite important for the legislative branch.

As has been mentioned, top law graduates in the top law schools in the Nation seek clerkships in the judicial branch and sometimes in the executive branch, but we don't have that here in the legislative branch, and he's right, we do owe some gratitude to Dean Larry Kramer for proposing this idea.

Here's what Dean Kramer said: ``This bill will serve an important role by educating young lawyers and future leaders of the profession about the legislative process. It will be enormously beneficial for both the profession and the public if some of the Nation's brightest young lawyers begin their careers in the legislature and so develop and can convey to the public an appreciation of Congress and the legislative process equal to that lawyers have shown for courts and the judicial process.''

This really isn't about getting work out of these bright, young lawyers. It's about starting off on the right course and having the respect for Article I that we hope that they will get by working with us here in the Congress.

We believe that this bipartisan bill, that will be bicameral, bipartisan, will make a difference not today, not tomorrow, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, to make sure that Article I is elevated as it should be.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank the chairman. I thank Congressman Lungren, and I thank the dean of the Stanford Law School, Larry Kramer.

Thank you, Chairman Brady, for yielding. As vice chair of the Committee on House Administration, as well as chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I find myself in kind of a unique position of dealing with this funding resolution both as a member of House Administration, where we heard the testimony of every chair and ranking member, read the budgets of every single committee, but also as chair of the Committee on Standards, I, along with the ranking member, Congressman Bonner, gave testimony and made a budget request.

So I am pleased to note that the committee funding resolution today is not just about how much money a committee receives, it's about resources necessary to meet and fulfill duties and obligations.

Now when it comes to the so-called Ethics Committee, obviously, we know--and this is bipartisan--we have a very strong responsibility to ensure that the House adheres to and upholds the highest standards of ethics.

To that end, the Ethics Committee annually produces thousands of written advisory opinions and informal opinions; it educates Members and staff and other employees of the House; it reviews annual financial disclosure filings; and, when necessary, conducts investigations into possible violations of the House rules.

In the last Congress, the House greatly expanded the duties and responsibilities of the Ethics Committee. It has required that the committee conduct mandatory annual ethics training for every officer and employee of the House. That means we must train roughly 10,000 employees each year.

The House also requires that the committee review all staff and Member travel requests that are privately funded, which I can tell you is a voluminous task. In addition, the House voted to establish the Office of Congressional Ethics, which we expect will increase our workload.

As you can see, the committee's mandate has grown significantly. The resolution before us does provide some

additional funding for additional staff and for the adoption of new technologies to allow us to fulfill our expanded mandates.

I very much support the resolution, not only for the Ethics Committee, but for the other committees. This is a tight budget. It's not everything that everyone wanted, but these are tough times as well.

I think the chairman and the ranking member have done a marvelous job. I, for one, would like to thank them for listening to the plea of the Ethics Committee and our increased responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1319. My name was mistakenly submitted by the bill's sponsors.