nlrb's assault to the right to work state. not only are the nlrb's actions a gross intrusion of government on private business, but this suit if allowed to proceed would have a chilling effect on the business growth in all right to work states like tennessee. in my home state, the unemployment rate is at a staggering 9.8%. in some of my counties well over a double-digit in unemployment. too many tennesseans are out of work and i don't want companies with good paying jobs to feel like they can no longer move a facility to tennessee for fear that there will be an nlrb lawsuit. . it tells the state which state they can and cannot locate. it could very well drive the company to leave the united states and go overseas where agencies like this don't exist. that's what i've seen here

today. this is an important first step not only to put nlrb on notice their action will be checked by congress but to ensure that nlrb cannot dictate which state an employer can locate jobs in the united states. at a time when 14 million workers are unemployed, we must get federal agencies like nlrb out of the way and clear the path for job creation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it's september. when are you going to bring a jobs bill to the floor? when are you going to bring legislation that's going to help people go back to work in this difficult economy? at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: well, i don't mean to contradict my colleague but the republicans do have a jobs plan. it's true that majority leader

canton kicked off the week by saying not a penny for infrastructure. we don't want to just build things in america. we don't want to invest. that doesn't put people to work. you know, the $50 billion the president proposed, that would create about 1.5 million private sector jobs in the construction industry but they are not interested in that. they do have a jobs plan. snakes. yes, snakes. yesterday in the oversight committee they held a hearing similar to what we're talking about today on a job-killing regulation being proposed by the obama administration. keep out invasive species. giant pythons which are taking over the everglades, the republicans say that is a job-killing restriction. just think of all the jobs related to snakes. first, the importer of these invasive species. second, you know, there's -- we sell them. then there are people who raise things for them to eat. then things for them to eat and then when they escape we hire

people, pest troll, to try to find them when people abandon them. what a jobs creator. no, we're not going to rebuild our infrastructure. we are not being to try to continue to have fair wages for people who build the best airplanes in the world, boeing. no, those things are off the -- off the table as far as the republicans are concerned. it's job-killing regulations, that's what's hurting america. come on, guys, get real. let's invest in america. you know when a worker earns a fair wage they can afford to go to the small business down the street and patronize them and buy their goods and then maybe someday if you stop these trade-killing -- these job-killing trade deals they could buy goods that are made in america with their decent wages at an american company. get real. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the

gentleman from kansas, mr. mike pompeo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. pompeo: indeed last night on a telephone town hall i had a worker from boeing call in. he was very worried about his work in wichita, kansas. he was worried because this administration has taken action to destroy manufacturing and aviation manufacturing here in america. i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation because the nlrb has no business telling the boeing company that wants to invest hundreds of millions of its own dollars, not taxpayer dollars, its own dollars creating jobs in south carolina. what's next? what's next? attack on kansas, an attack on aviation workers all across america? we need to stop this -- we need to pass this piece of legislation immediately and ask the president to sign it. it's too important to american workers to allow the nlrb to

continue the big government policies of this administration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. mr. speaker, we should be taking here on the floor and debating and considering an infrastructure bill to put people back to work. we should be taking up the entire -- the entire president's jobs proposal that he delivered in the speech a week ago. we should be taking up things that will actually help this economy and put people back to work. and instead we are dealing with a bill that will make it easier and more likely for u.s. corporations to ship u.s. jobs overseas. this is a bill that creates a new race to the bottom for american workers' rights, wages, benefits and working conditions, and it is bad for this economy. why do my republican friends continue to insist that the

only way to deal with our economic problems is to lower the standard of living and the quality of life for american workers? why are all the tough choices being made on the backs of american workers? we could do much better in this country. we need to be focusing on jobs, not on this stuff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time and reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. steve palazzo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate it. i hear across the aisle and my colleagues talk about, what have the republicans done to create jobs? point out where we've created a job. well, i don't think it's the government's responsibility to create jobs, but it is our responsibility to foster a healthy business climate in this nation where entrepreneurs and small business owners can go out and create jobs, expand, increase the benefits and the pay of their employees. but you're not going to do that if you increase their faxes.

you're not going to do that if you have unelected bureaucrats running around increasing jobs, stifling job creation -- create and foster an atmosphere in this country to create jobs. you're not going to do that if we continue to have frivolous litigation that -- you know, all these things taken together develop a certain amount of uncertainty in our nation. and capital sits on the sidelines or it goes overseas to a more friendlier job creation environment. i'm one of those 22 proud right to work states. mississippi, we love the high-tech jobs we're getting in the advanced manufacturing jobs and the department of defense aerospace industry. we like jobs in mississippi. and this protecting jobs and government interference act will prohibit the nlrb from telling private sector companies from where they can or cannot locate. we must restrain them. we must stop this because they, you know, the jobs -- the industries that we've collected over the past several years in

the state of mississippi, i firmly believe these companies would not have located either to the united states or they would have not located to my state if it wasn't for the right that we have a great work force and we're a right to work state. we would have lost these jobs forever or we would have never seen them. they would have left america or stayed in the country they came from. we like jobs in mississippi. we want more of them, not less. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yields back. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgomp. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, the gentleman talks about creating a healthy business climate. i don't know how we're creating a healthy business climate by passing a bill that makes it easier and more likely that u.s. corporations will ship u.s. jobs overseas. you know, after more than 200 days in the majority, house republicans have passed no bills, none.

moving to job-killing legislation that could cost two million jobs and more to come. we're taking up this legislation that will encourage the shipping of jobs overseas. and a bill that will weaken the middle class. instead of creating jobs and strengthening the middle class and protecting workers' rights, the republicans are making it easier for corporations to send american jobs overseas and it allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their rights to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, to ensure full day's pay for an honest day's work. you know, that's what this bill does. in 2000 the nation relations labor board was forced to bring jobs back to the united states from mexico as the company was charged with shipping jobs to mexico in retaliation against workers seeking to organize a union. under this republican bill, american workers would lose

this protection. again, their plan for the economy is all about lowering the standard of living, lessening the quality of life for american work erstwhile protecting those who are most fortunate in this country. those who head up the big companies. we should be -- we should be debating on this floor today the president's jobs bill. if my republican friends don't want to vote for it they don't have to but that's the legislation that should be brought before the members of this congress today. not this bill, a bill that punishes american workers. enough. you've been pun irkirk american work -- punishing american workers since the beginning. enough. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. robert hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. hurt: i thank the gentleman from for yielding to me and for his leadership on this very

important issue. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. over the past two years this administration has vastly expanded the size and scope of this federal government and important policies that have stalled jobs, stifled investment and innovation and slowed our economic recovery in virginia's fifth district and across the country. one of the most recent and troubling government overreach is the run elected national labor relations board to block boeing from creating thousands of jobs in south carolina. this kind of government intervention is a direct attack on our economic freedom and has disastrous effects on fifth district virginians and all americans it has the potential to cost thousands of jobs, at a time when we need jobs most. dangerously and unacceptably it inserts the federal government in the business decisions of private companies and undermines the economic competitiveness of all states, such as virginia, that has right to work laws. being the northern most right to work state on the east coast has helped make virginia the best place in the country to do

business and has helped promote job growth and economic investment across the fifth district and our commonwealth. at a time when millions of americans are out of work and unemployment remains unacceptably high, right to work states should not be penalizes by an overbearing federal government for their ability to atrack new business, investment in business. h.r. 2587 would remove the federal government as a roadblock to job growth by preventing the nlrb from dictating where employers and private businesses can set up their operations, putting our economy -- our economic recovery back where it belongs, in the hands of the people instead of the federal government. if we are serious about getting our economy back on track, we must support these kinds of policies that help restore certainty to the marketplace and provide our true job creators with the confidence and freedom and opportunity necessary to do what they do bess, innovate, grow their businesses and get america working again. that is why i am proud to co-sponsor h.r. 2587, and i

urge my colleagues to support this bill. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina reserves, and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire of the gentleman from south carolina how many more speakers he has? mr. scott: i have none. mr. mcgovern: ok. then, mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me state for the record that this bill is not a retaliation against right to work states. i'm not a big fan of right to work states in terms of how they treat workers and those who want to organize unions. but this bill is really about protecting workers and from corporations that retaliate against them simply for demanding their rights and organizing for their rights. the republican bill changes the rules mid trial to benefit a particular fortune 500 company, boeing, but this bill has

wide-ranging repercussions for american workers. this bill does not protect or create jobs. it just doesn't. it forces american workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their rights and underbidding each other. it's a race to the bottom. the republican bill makes it easier to ship jobs -- u.s. jobs overseas. there's no question about that. and the republican bill creates an open season for c.e.o.'s to punish workers for exercising their rights. again, this is a further assault on the right to protections that workers have fought for so hard for so many decades. and this bill undermines the duty to bargain in good faith. this is an anti-union bill, no question, among other things. the bill also encourages law-breaking and intimidation by employers. it removes a key disincentive against employers who unlawfully threaten employees with job loss during organizing drives. and the republican bill creates

a new race to the bottom for american workers' rights, wages, benefits and working conditions. we're going in the wrong direction with this bill. this bill is one more assault on american workers, on the american middle class. time after time after time the republican leadership has stood up for big business and against the american middle class. higher gas prices, republicans protect big oil's tax breaks, do nothing to help the average consumer. health care coverage for our kids through the age of 25, republicans side with the health care companies that put profits over patients. . with this bill republicans are promoting job creation overseas by allowing companies to move overseas in retaliation of workers who are exercising their own legal rights. not only that, this bill goes back in time and applies this

bill retroactively. this is just like changing the value of a touchdown in the middle of the super bowl simply because you don't like the score of the game. this bill would be a joke if it weren't so serious. i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not about protecting right to work states. this is not even about unions. this is about the rights of workers in this country. this is about protecting american jobs. this is about urging companies to invest in the united states and not making it easier for them to create jobs overseas. we are in a difficult economy right now, mr. speaker. we should be debating on this floor the president's jobs bill. we should every day we should be doing something about jobs. and instead here we are in september, my republican colleagues have done nothing. they have done nothing. except continue an assault on middle class families. today it's workers, they are going after medicare in the ryan

budget, they are -- their leading republican presidential candidate is talking about eliminating social security, all the protections, all the rights middle class families have fought for and won that are essential to a decent quality of life, they are trying to take away. enough. i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule and no on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i tell you, my good friend from massachusetts continues to talk about the president's jobs plan that is nothing more than a brand spanking new stimulus plan, spending $467 billion by increasing taxes on everyone, including the middle class. i cannot find it in my heart to say to mr. mcgovern that the president's plan has any opportunity of passing in this house. because the bottom line is simply this, we are ought to spend our time focused on the

things that we have in common. it is time for the games to stop. we should look at the president's plan and pick out those parts of the plan that we agree with. we should start by talking about having an opportunity to work on corporate tax reduction. flattening the tax rate for corporations. we have the second highest tax rate in all the world and this environment creates an unlevel playing field for america's job creators. mr. mcgovern: would the gentleman yield? mr. scott: certainly. mr. mcgone: i'm curious when will we debate a bill on this floor and creates jobs. let's bring the president's plan to the floor and debate it out. mr. scott: our president wants an up or down vote on this package. we believe the most effective way to show american people that partisan politics is over and we are now focused on the american people, we will take those parts, those aspects that the

president has that we agree with, like regulatory reform, like we are doing today, and say to the american people we are listening. we will take without any question an opportunity to debate the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make america's corporations more competitive. mr. speaker, i sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the games which so often sidetrack things in washington, and pass this important legislation here today. this is not a question of pro-union, i agree with you, or anti-union. it is a question of right versus wrong. the nlrb has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and hold employees accountable for unlawful labor practices. there is simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where private business can establish its work force.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. scott: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 372, if ordered, and suspend the rules and passing h.r. 2867. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: on this vote the yea are 234.

the nays are 177. the previous question is ordered. the chair would ask the members to vacate the floor of the house, the well of the house, please. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a scanned copy of a letter received from mr. scott gillis, deputy secretary of elections on behalf of nevada secretary of state, the honorable roth miller, indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held september 13, 2011, the honorable mark e. amodei was elected representative to congress for the second congressional district, state of nevada. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a scanned copy of a letter received from mr. robert brim and mr. todd valentine, co-executive directors, new york state board of elections, indicating that

according to the unofficial returns of the special election held september 13, 2011, the honorable bob turner, was elected representative to congress for the ninth congressional district, state of new york. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from nevada, the honorable mark amodei, be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not yet arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from new york, the honorable bob turner, be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not yet arrived, but i am not aware of any reason why the

house should not see him sworn in today. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. will the representatives-elect and the members of their respective delegations, present themselves in the well of the house. the speaker: members will now rise. the representatives-elect, if you'll both raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the

constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god. congratulations, you are now a member.

the speaker: without objection, the house will be in order. without objection, the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley, is recognized. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, it is my great pleasure to welcome representative amodei to congress. our new colleague is a native son of nevada. and a graduate of the university of nevada where he served in the rotc program and later served on active duty in the army, first in artillery, and then as a j.a.g. officer. he has worked for the people of nevada for many years as an assemblyman and as a member of the state senate. i look forward to working with the gentleman as we represent the citizens of the great state of nevada. and i would now yield to my colleague and friend, representative heck.

mr. heck: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i, too, want to offer my congratulations to mark amodei. i had the honor of serving alongside him in the state senate where he distinguished himself as president pro tem and a member of the natural resources committee where he was the go-to guy on a lot of issues important to nevada regarding waterlog, fell veteran, it's an honor to have him here. i wish him well. i ask the entire house to welcome him as well. thank you so much. i yield back. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman from nevada, representative mark amodei. the speaker: the gentleman from nevada is recognized.

mr. amodei: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, brand new colleagues, for your courtesies. i will endeavor to do the best i can to bring honor to this house and help you with the work that we have to do. i was told the longer you talk the less popular you are. so i yield back my time. thank you very much. the speaker: without objection, the house will be in order. without objection, the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, is recognized. mr. rangel: most of us know that we are honored, so honored to be members of this august body. and that whenever we have an election, the one winner clearly

are members of the congress, the constitution, and our great country. we from new york have the special history of not being partisan in working together for our districts, our communities, our country, and peter king has been here long enough to remember the days when adversaries could also be friends. so on behalf of the congress and the new york delegation, we all welcome the honorable bob turner in joining our group, and we in this state delegation look forward to working with him. at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to my friend , my distinguished friend, peter king, from the great state of new york. mr. king: thank you, congressman

rangel. as all of you know, this is not something we used to do in -- we are used to doing in new york. but it's a great moment, it's a great moment for new york, it's a great moment for the people of the ninth congressional district, and it's a special privilege to me to be able to introduce our newly elected member. bob turner is an army veteran. he was an extremely successful businessman. most importantly he's the proud husband of peggy, proud father of five children. proud grandfather of 13 children. and i can tell you a great friend and a great human being. he's going to make an outstanding congressman. i am so proud to be here today for bob turner as i have been during the years i have come to know him and respect him. he's going to be a truly, truly outstanding addition to this body and great fighter for the people of new york. with that, chairman rangel. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i thank you for the great privilege of bringing to you our newly elected member, the honorable bob turner.

mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, congressman rangel. the speaker: the gentleman from new york, mr. turner, is recognized. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. now? it's with true humility i accept this awesome responsibility. and i pledge not to forget how i got here. it was an important bipartisan election. it's the only way it can be done in new york city. and i'll also promise not to forget why i'm here and it's the future, which is ably represented here by these

handsome grandchildren, not even the whole brood. follow a good example and be brief, thank you. the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from nevada and the gentleman from new york, the whole number of the house is now 434. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 372. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays are 176, the resolution is adopted. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2867 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2867, a bill to

re-authorize the international religious freedom act of 1998 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 391, the nays are 21. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise for a unanimous consent request on roll call vote 706 that was taken yesterday on the adoption of h.j.res. 77. mr. gingrey: i voted no when i intended to vote yes. i ask unanimous consent to have

placed in the congressional record at the proper location my intention to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will be in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 399, resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 79, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, purr superintendent to house resolution 372 i call up h.r. 2

587 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 118, h.r. 2587, a bill to prohibit the national labor relations board from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 372, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force printed in the bill is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2587. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2587, i yield

myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: the protecting jobs from government interference act is a commonsense proposal that will prevent national labor relations board from dictating where an employer can and cannot create work. upon the date of enactment, this limitation will apply to all cases that have not reached final adjudication by the full board. now more than ever the american people are looking for leadership out of washington and some common sense them. want to know their elected officials are willing to take on the tough issues and make the difficult decisions needed to get this economy moving again. they need to believe congress has the courage to tear down old barriers to new jobs, regardless of the political cost. after 31 straight months of unemployment above 8%, we cannot afford to cling to the status quo any longer. this legislation represents an important step in the fight to get our economy back on track. it tells job creators they don't

have to fear an activist n.l. -- nlrb reversing important decisions about where to relocate a business. it offers workers peace of mind by ensuring no federal labor board can force an employer to ship their jobs across the country. and it tells the american people we are serious about getting government out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs who are desperately trying to do what they do best, create jobs and opportunities for our nation's workers. on april 20 the national labor relations board sent a shock wave, a shock wave across our struggling economy, in a complaint filed against the boeing company, the nlrb demanded that this private company relocate work already under way in south carolina to washington state. the board has more than a dozen remedies available to protect workers and hold employers accountable. regrettably the obama nlrb exercised the most extreme remedy and as a result put the

livelihoods of thousands of south carolina workers on the line. equally troubling, the countless workers across the country now fear they can be subject to a similar attack in the future. make no mistake, every worker deserves strong protections that ensure they are free to exercise their rights under the law. this legislation preserves the number of tough remedies for the board to punish illegal activity. this republican bill simply says that forcing a business to close its doors and relocate to another part of the country is an unacceptable remedy for today's work force. . this will have a chilling effect on our economy, businesses at home and abroad will reconsider their decision to invest in our country and create jobs for american workers. we have already heard stories of canadian business leaders doing just that. in doubt these difficult choices are being discussed on shop floors and board rooms across the country and outside our

borders. last month this board unloaded a barrage of activist decision that is undermine workers' rights and weaken our work force. if the president will not hold the board accountable for its job destroying agenda, congress will. it is time we force the nlrb to change course. this is a sensible reform that will encourage businesses to create jobs right here at home. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 outsourcer's 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 -- 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 going to

shut down and move my plant or my office because you dared to try to organize a union or 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 the money and put it in the shell company, and the labor said you got to pay back wages to the people you just laid off, there would be no money to pay

the back wages. this is the outsourcer's bill of rights. we don't need an outsourcer's 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 in this country, and it should be defeated. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i am pleased to yield three minutes to the chair of the health employment labor and pensions subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of america's job creators and h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government

interference act. what this bill does is simple, if amends -- it amends the nlra, national labor relations act, passed in 1935, and prohibits the national labor relations board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance. in other words, it allows managers to make business decisions in the best interests of their company and employees. in filing the complaint against boeing, the nlrb's general counsel has put 1,100 good-paying south carolina jobs at risk. mr. speaker, i was in south carolina about five weeks ago and viewed that plant. it's a huge plant with 1,100 people working. today, american people working. the -- this shot across the bow of america's business sends a clear message, don't do business in a right to work state. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that boeing decided to build a plant in

south carolina as an act of retaliation against a unionized work force, but not a single worker in washington state has lost his or her job. they have added jobs. and i'm glad that they have. i'm left to wonder that if the fact that south carolina, like tennessee, is a right to work state has the nlrb to conclude that the job created in washington is more valuable than a job created in south carolina. i grew up in a unedown household. my father worked in a factory making for the b.f. goodrich company, and his job was outsourced in the literal 1970's. i understand that very well. very simply what happened, mr. speaker, is this. is that a company wanted to expand a business line, a 787 dreamliner. they built a huge factory in charleston, south carolina, a complaint was brought by the general sounl at nlrb against this. it's now being adjudicated very expensively in the courts.

think what a message this sends to job creators in america. if i were a business, there is no way i would move to a nonright to work state because you can never get out if this ruling is upheld. and i might add also that the remedies, there are over a dozen remedies that the nlrb has. offer of employment, placement of preferential hiring, payment for travel and moving, on and on. over a dozen remedies. mr. speaker, i strongly encourage us to support this bill and the fact is with 14 million americans out of work, two million more than when i came to this congress three years ago, we need every job in every corner of the country. the administration's answer is more spending and more regulation. it's a recipe for failure. it's time we recognize a fundamental truth that government doesn't create jobs. businesses do. but instead of trying to get the government out of our job -- out of the way of our job creators,

this administration seeks to throw up more roadblocks. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the record should reflect the fact that there is an allegation that boeing in the case 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 do so. mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to a lifelong advocate for the working people of the united states of america, my friend from new jersey, mr. payne, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. payne: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. payne: thank you. mr. speaker, in september, 2010, my republican colleagues issued

a pledge to america stating that it is time to do away with old agendas. that much is clear. however what is also clear is that this pledge is not the majority of the american people but to corporate america. to make matters worse, republicans are taking up legislation that will encounter -- encourage the shipping of jobs overseas and weaken the rights of middle class workers. furthermore, my republican colleagues have fast tracked what is more appropriately called the job outsource's bill of rights. in the interest of corporate america. proponents of this bill claim it will protect jobs by prohibiting government to interfere with company's ability to move its operations. however the law the republicans are trying to amend to do so, the national labor relations act, does not restrict the location of company operations at all. until the company's location

effort is an act to retaliate against workers exercising their right to organize to demand better benefits, safer working conditions, and assure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. this is obviously a response to the case against boeing and i find it inappropriate, changing the law in the middle of a trial is irresponsible and dangerous. the united states chamber of commerce wrote a letter in support of this bill. but as noted in the letter they represent the interest of business. well, i represent the interest of american people. may i have 30 seconds, mr. chair? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. payne: i represent the interest of the american people. i was voted into this position not by wall street, not by corporate america, not by those people who reside in high rise skyscrapers, but by hardworking americans who want to raise their families the way that we had an opportunity to raise

ours. rather than ratchet it down to the bottom. i believe that this bill is foolish, hazardous to the well-being of our nation's workers, and our economic development. this is -- it is time for the republicans to abandon this pledge to corporate america. i urge my colleagues to vote against this outsourcing bill. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield to a wonderful representative of the people of tennessee, the american people, a member of the committee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. desjarlais, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. desjarlais: i rise in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. as i have traveled tennessee's fourth congressional district and spoken with 30-plus job creators, our conversation inevitably focuses on one basic complaint. the federal government's

overregulation of the private sector is impeding job creation in this country. . instead of reducing the regulatory burdens on business, an act which would most certainly create much needed private sector jobs, this administration has used its labor board to make it harder to do business in america. nowhere is this more apparent than in its recent unfair labor practice complaint against boeing. if you want to talk about creating jobs, let's look at the facts. boeing has invested approximately $1 billion to build a plant in south carolina which will create new well paying jobs in south carolina. . despite the fact that not one, not one single employee in washington has lost his or her job due to boeing's decision -- thank you. due to boeing's decision, the administration is attempting to destroy those south carolina

jobs. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a very persuasive voice against outsourcing, my friend from new jersey, mr. holt, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the outsorcerers bill of rights. this bill would be devastating to workers across this country and tick off a new race to the bottom. the outsorcerers bill of rights is a naked attempt to directly interfere in a pending labor relations board case. now, there's much to be said about workers' rights and the importance of protecting them, but in the short time i have, let me just say a little bit about what this means for the american economy. it makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. it eliminates the only remedy to force companies to bring work back from overseas.

companies that make a commitment to the welfare of their employees, well-run companies, and make commitments to their home communities, rather than shopping to be the latest, lowest pay scale someplace in the world, actually do better in the long run. so the outsorcerers bill of rights is not only contrary to the interest of workers, it's bad for our economy at large. we need to improve worker protections, not weaken them. and yet the majority party and the proponents of this bill continue their assault on the rights of working men and women. it doesn't create a single job. with 25 million americans unemployed or underemployed, the majority today continues their no jobs agenda, bringing to the floor a special interest that is -- dealing with one particular case rather than creating jobs. it is not good legislative policy to legislate on

individual cases. i urge my colleagues to oppose the outsorcerers bill of rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. mr. rokita: thank you and i thank the gentleman for yielding some time. i rise to give my strong support to this measure. this straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the national labor relations board from dictating what private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in america. mr. speaker, let me say that again. this straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the nlrb from dictating where private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in the united states. it's almost a bizarre situation that we're in.

an american company wants to provide american jobs in america and we have an agency of this administration trying to prohibit that. because of recent overreach by the nlrb we unfortunately need to have this legislation, mr. speaker. businesses who want to hire americans in america ought to be able to do so. for americans wondering why jobs are going overseas, it's because there are too many regulations and too many bizarre regulations that are forcing companies out of this country. just so they can stay in business. we must continue to empower businesses to create jobs, increase investment and keep production capabilities right here at home. not only does that produce a strong economy, it keeps a strong middle class. this bill does just that, by letting us stand strong in our commitment to america's job

creators. it's just disappointing that we have to do this bill, do this law over an administration and a bureaucracy that doesn't understand the success of this country's last 200 years. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: 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 to a very

persuasive voice for the working families of america, the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hirono, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2587. in hawaii we believe in fairness and respect, we believe that working men and women should be able to come to the table, have a voice in their workplace, be able to negotiate for fair wages and benefits. this belief helped build the middle class in hawaii and across our country. right now what working men and women need most are champions in their corner, champions who are fighting for real jobs and instead this bill takes aim at our working families, it's another direct assault on them and workers' rights. let's face it. companies today can move their

business operations for any business reason at all. except for an illegal one. today retaliating against workers who want to organize, join a union, is illegal. this bill changes that. it says companieses can go ahead, you can move your -- companies can go ahead, you can move your jobs to other states or even other countries to punish your workers who want to organize and have a voice. this would have a chilling effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the bargaining table. workers have already taken big hits in their paychecks, in their retirements over the years. we should not make it easier for businesses to gain the -- game the system. i urge my colleagues to fight against this bill and to stand with the working men and women of this country. aloha. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield

two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank chairman kline for yielding me this time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor and i thank congressman scott of south carolina for his leadership in introducing this legislation and all those who join with me in supporting what i think is an important job-creating bill for this country. and it's important not just in right to work states like south carolina or virginia, but it's important in states that don't have protection of workers under right to work laws, like washington state. because businesses, both in this country and overseas, looking to invest are not going to look in places where they can be subsequently restrained from being able to expand their business, and that's what's happening here, they're expanding their business to another state if they locate in a place where that can happen to them. they're also not going to locate in right to work states.

nope. when they need to expand, they're not going to have any statement about what their intentions are or why they're doing it, as is the case with most companies. they're simply going to locate in china or taiwan or thailand or india or 100 other countries around the world that are very friendly and welcoming to employers who want to grow and expand businesses. and unless the united states changes this law and restrains the national labor relations board from making these kind of decisions, we're going to suffer greatly in job loss. so this is a great job-creating bill. i encourage my colleagues to support protecting jobs from government interference act that amended the nlra to prohibit the nlrb in future and pending cases from ordering an employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances.

this is an important measure, this will not just save 1,000 jobs in south carolina, this will save hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. it will ensure that employers have greater freedom to make one of the most basic management decisions, where to locate a business. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: 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'm pleased to yield to one of the most passionate voices for working americans in the modern history of this country, my friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you. this was a new deal initiative which helped save american

capitalism by creating a proxy to help protect the rights of employees and employers. this was before nafta and the w.t.o. which tore legal rights for workers apart, moved millions of jobs out of the u.s. yes, we stand for the workers at boeing and washington state but we also stand for the workers at boeing in south carolina. because they will have no recourse if boeing wants to move jobs to china. you can't say you want to create jobs here at home while destroying the right of workers to organize. these are basic rights in a democratic society. you can't say you want to protect american jobs and not protect american workers. take away workers' rights to free speech, take away workers' rights to due process and you create a new class of slave laborers here in the united states who are helpless to stop the movement of jobs out of america. this bill sacrifice the right to boeing workers in washington state and also sacrifices laws that are designed to protect workers' rights.

it's an attack on all american workers. it's one thing to take the side of the boss or the owners, it's another thing to take the side of the boss and the owners when they want to move jobs out of america. stand up for the american workers, stand up for workers' rights, stand up for american jobs and stand up for employers who want to keep jobs in the united states. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to another member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, two minutes, dr. buechon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon demrverage thank you. i rise today to talk -- build mr. bucshon: thank you. i rise today to talk about jobs. i would argue this does just the opposite. just like dr. roe, i grew up in a union household. my father was a united mine worker and that's why i'm here today. i was elected to congress to protect all workers, not just a

select few. 93% of american workers are not in a union. 7% are in the private sector. the national labor relations board complaint is an attack on american job creators. again, i was elected to protect all workers, not just a select few. the nrr -- nlrb's decision to punish boeing for creating 1,100 new jobs is just another example of the administration abusing its position to advance a biased agenda. i want to remind everyone, no joobs were taken from washington state. this is a straightforward bill that prohibits the nlrb from ordering an employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances. this bill will create an environment necessary for employers to develop their businesses in the state that offers the best opportunity and i would argue in the best country that offers the best opportunity to grow and create jobs and not have this left up

to a board of unelected bureaucrats in washington, d.c. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and let's get america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a daughter and sister of a union family who doesn't forget where she came from, the gentlelady from new york, mrs. mccarthy, for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. mccarthy: thank you and thank my colleagues. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition of h.r. 2587, a bill i call the outsourcing bill of rights. especially during these difficult economical times, we have come together to do the patriotic thing, protect and create jobs here at home. this legislation eliminates the nlrb's already limited authority to order an employer to restore work taken away in a wrongful way. by passing this bill we are telling our nation's workers we cannot and we will not help them.

plain and simple this bill passes, it will lead to increased outsourcing jobs. further, the bill will make certain that employers will not be held accountable. you know, my colleagues on the other side just mentioned that 93% of american workers are not unionized and i also like to bring to the point that we've seen wages across this country going down. and yet we have seen the profits in corporations going up. that's why we're in the situation we're in right now. i come from a union family and i'm proud of that. it was able to give us the education that we needed for my father and mother to be able to buy us a home. that would not seem today. why? because we're hitting the workers. why did we have unions in the first place? to give them a voice. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. in my opinion the corporations should be a little bit more patriotic and start hiring people so we can get this economy going, make this great country what we are, america can

go forward but not without good pay for our workers. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and so many others on the education and work force committee. mr. speaker, the nlra is supposed to balance the rights of employees, employers, and the general public, but you would never know that from the recent actions of the nlrb. this un-elected group of executive branch recess appointees have abandoned all pretense of objectivity and become nothing more than a taxpayer bunded law firm for big labor. -- funded law firm of big labor.

this is not the only example of their overreach. at a time when union membership is at an historic low, the nlrb seeks to give big labor an historically high level of influence with this administration, whether it's add mow vating posters in the workplace or this the economic death penalty. the nlrb is out of control and it needs to be reined in so it does not do even more damage to this fragile economy. with respect to the bill at hand which my friend and colleague, mr. scott, seeks to remove a single remedy from the arsenal of the nlrb, leaving a dozen other remedies, this bill simply says that you cannot force boeing to close a billion dollar facility which has already been constructed in charleston and fire the thousands of workers who have been hired and send the work back to washington state which is tantamount to the economic death penalty. not a single worker has lost a

job or a benefit in washington state, mr. speaker. when boeing started this separate, distinct supply line. the nlrb thinks a company should stay a union state no matter how many work stoppages there are. no matter how many customers have threatened to go do business somewhere else because they can't get their planes on time. no matter how many fines have been paid because of late deliver riff airplanes because of work stop anages. no matter what. no matter how much money is lost, mr. speaker, the nlrb thinks that boeing should have to stay in a union state because it planted a flag originally in the union state. this congress has leveled civil remedies when they have been abused. this congress has limited criminal remedies when they have been abused. and this congress must limit administrative remedies when they are being abused as they are now. even the "chicago tribune," mr.

speaker, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, acknowledges that the nlrb is out of control. and i will ask my colleagues on the other side, if they can name, i'll ask them the same question i asked the general counsel for the nlrb, can you name me a single, stol tarry worker who has lost a job -- stol tarry worker who has lost a job because of boeing's decision? can you name me a solitary worker who has lost a benefit or suffered any recrimination, any reparation because of boeing's decision? mr. speaker, this administration were serious about job creation, they would have reined in this agency a long time ago. they did not. and we must. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 20 seconds. my friend who just spoke indicated that this decision would -- attempt by the nlrb would destroy jobs in south carolina. that's not accurate.

on page eight of nlrb's complaint, says the relief requested by the nlrb does not seek to prohibit boeing from making nondiscriminatory decisions where work will be formed, including work at its north charleston south carolina facility. at this point i'm pleased to yield to a strong progressive voice to the working people of the united states, the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. woolsey: i thank the ranking member for yielding to me. when the president spoke in this chamber last week, he urged us to focus on jobs. believe me, this outsourcer's bill wasn't what he had in mind. he demanded that we move urgently to create new jobs. certainly not jeopardize the ones we already have. this outsources bill of rights is nothing more than a gift to the majority's corporate

cronies. it gives unscrupulous employers the green light to retaliate against workers, to punish them, punish them for engaging in union activities for fighting for their rights as workers. they do that by saying that it is perfectly ok to pick up and leave town and they do that after the president of boeing actually admitted the reason they are moving to south carolina is because there was too much union activity in seattle. that is retaliation, my folks. someone tell me how exactly is this supposed to revive our economy? it's part of the republican vendetta against workers and their collective bargaining rights. it's park of their orchestrated assault on the labor movement that built the american middle class. this is not the time to be undermining or threatening the job security of any american. it's time to defeat this bill

and move immediately to pass a big, bold jobs bill. one that will put america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota has 14 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. could i inquire as to the time remaining on the other side as well? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 17 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to another member of the committee, the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. of which i'm a co-sponsor, representing a district in the state of alabama, a right to work state, the current activist agenda is the national labor relations board greatly concerns

me. congress has a responsibility to ensure that the nlrb objectively applies the written law by the people's elected representatives. congress also works to ensure that labor interests are not undermining the employer's efforts to create jobs. at a time when millions of individuals are unemployed and searching for work, public officials in washington should look to provide greater certainty to america's employers so they can grow business and create new jobs, not hinder them. unfortunately, the recent rulings and proceedings of the nlrb help demonstrate otherwise. i'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter this letter of support of h.r. 2587 from the associated builders and contractors of alabama into the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. roby: they represent over 800 commercial companies in my state, all of whom are concerned that the nlrb has abandoned its

role as a neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor law to promote special interest of unions. the federal government, especially the nlrb, has no right to dictate where a company can or cannot create jobs. the protecting jobs from government interference act will provide employers with the certainty they need to invest in our economy and put americans back to work right here at home in the united states. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to the most effective leading voice for working people in america today, the senior ranking democrat on the education and work force committee, my friend from california, mr. miller, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for that nice introduction. i rise in very strong opposition to this legislation, h.r. 2587. this special interest bill is a

job killer. it's simply a job killer. it was spurred by a particular case involving a fortune 500 corporation, the boeing company. but this bill is not just about boeing. this bill is really about working americans all across this country. and they should pay very careful attention to this bill and to this debate because it affects their livelihood, their ability to support their families, the safety of their jobs at work, the conditions under which they work, and their ability to participate in their increased productivity in higher wages and better conditions. this bill takes the rights away from workers, from all workers, all across the country. this isn't just about whether you belong to a union or not. this is about whether or not your employer can retaliate against you by taking your work away, by sending your work down the road, or out of the country. makes it easier to outsource. because you simply, in response

to a request by workers that they might share in the profits of the company, they might have higher wages, their work can disappear in an arbitrary fashion, and they have to understand that that's what happens under this legislation. for the first time in 70 years, american workers in the workplace will not be protected. they will not be protected for the right to have a grievance against the employer for their wages or benefits that they are paid because employer for the first time in 70 years will have the ability to say, well, if you need more wages, and you want more wages, you know what i'm going to do? i'm going to take your job and outsource them. i'm going to send them to china. i'm going to send them to india. i'm going to send them to another part of the country because i'm not going to pay higher wages. today that's illegal. under this law it will not be. they can take your job and your work away from you.

and we have got to understand what that means. we just saw the wages have taken one of the largest hits in a decade in this country. we have seen, we have seen as workers fail to organize in the workplace wages have continued to go down. at the same time, we have seen the c.e.o.'s and the management of companies take out tens of millions of dollars a year for each and every one of them. but not share it with the workers. they have decided that they'll take the increased productivity of the most productive workers in the world, the american worker, and they'll take that increased productivity and they'll take it for themselves. they won't continue the bargain that we have in this country that if you work hard you'll be able to prove your lot in life. so we have seen wages stagnant in this country. and now this. and now this. if you try to get better wages, if you seek to improve your lot in life, if you seek to improve the ability of your kids to go

to school, to provide for your family, your work can be taken away. this is a first in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: 30 seconds? mr. andrews: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: this is a first in america. we must repudiate this on behalf of families that are struggling all across the country. those who are fortunate enough to continue to have a job. but they can't have a job living under this threat that they won't be able to better themselves if their employer decides to be selfish, decides to retaliate against them. for seeking to organize, to do something on their behalf. it's a fundamental part of the contract in america. it doesn't exist in other parts of the world, but it does here. and it's led to the middle class in this country and it's the middle class that is threatened by this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from

georgia, mr. westmoreland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. westmoreland: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. speaker, i would just like to say on the previous speaker that we have a czar to control these executive pays. so if that czar's not doing his job, that's another problem we need to address. i rise today in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. after the unprecedented actions by the national labor relations board earlier this year, i was proud to join the gentleman from south carolina and support this legislation. right now our economy is suffering and that suffering is felt even more in the south where states like georgia and south carolina have unemployment rates higher than the national average. we need to encourage companies to invest in those states most hard hit. the boeing plant in south carolina directly created thousands of jobs in south carolina and indirectly through

suppliers and construction, created hundreds more. instead, the president has once again overstepped his executive authority and allowed the union attack dog to threaten to shut down the plant in south carolina, jeopardizing thousands of jobs. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 2587 and stop the national labor relations board from killing jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota 11. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. we don't have a czar controlling executive pay in this country, we have executives acting like czars outsourcing american jobs around the world and ruining the middle class. that's the problem in the united states. 8. . it is my privilege to yield to the democratic whip who strongly understands the value of collective bargaining, three minutes, mr. hoyer from

maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, the issue here has been raised by a case that is not yet concluded. let me state that again. the issue raised in this legislation is reference to a case that is not yet concluded. and seeks to either pose our judgment for the finder of fact and law's jument judgment. normally we believe -- judgment. normally we believe that's a bad practice, in a nation of laws not of men. secondly, this bill shows clearly a basic difference between many of us on this side and many on that side of the aisle.

and that is whether or not you believe that working men and women have the right to come together, to organize and to bargain collectively for their pay, their benefits and their working conditions. in fact, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority of working americans, whether or not they have joined such an organization, find their working place safer, healthier, their pay better and the more availability of benefits than they would have if men and women had not been guaranteed the right to bargain collectively. for which they fought and some died in the 1930's and 1940's and later because people did not want them to do that. they wanted to say, i don't care how much money we make, this is your portion.

now, we see super athletes not stand for that, if they're in the nfl or if they're in the nba or if they're in the nhl. we understand that. they see their enterprises making great money because they're great players but the owners want to pay them what they need to pay them. why? because they have want to maximize profits. i'm for that. that's the free enterprise system. so we set up a system where we can bargain and we can come to a fair resolution. but this bill says that the right which is that the employer cannot retaliate for the exercising of a legal right will be jettison. that's what this bill says. pretty simply. yeah, you have the right to bargain collectively but if we don't like what you're doing, we're taking a hike. we're going to retaliate.

now, i do not decide today whether or not that will be the finder of fact and law's conclusion in this case. i don't know that boeing did that. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. andrews: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i don't know whether that will be the ultimate conclusion, whether boeing violated the law by retaliating and i have told my friends at boeing i don't know that's going to be the conclusion but do i know this, that i am for working men and women having the right that they've now had for some 70 years. and i believe that working men and women in america, organized or unorganized, are better off because we adopted a law to protect that right. do not jettison, and i close with this and i quote from a letter sent by hundreds of professors with expertise in

this area. quote, we are dismaid that a single complaint -- dismayed that a single complaint shall be the basis for so fundamental a reversal in longstanding law. do not take this step, reject this bill, vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield at this time to another member of the committee two minutes, the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. in the past unions have been about protecting workers. as a physician i know that one of the major reasons for the increase in life expectancy between the first and second half of the last century was due in large part to increases in worker safety which were brought about by actions of unions. i grew up in a union household. in fact, when my father was injured on the job, it was his

union that helped represent him in court and helped put food on the table for my family. but too often today's unions are more about politics and protecting their clout than protecting workers. this change in focus is exemplified by a boeing union news let that are stated, quote, 2,100 bargaining unit positions may be lost, end quote, if boeing located a new manufacturing plant in south carolina. not jobs, not employees, not brothers and sisters, but bargaining unit positions. these employees were reduced to nothing more than a number. employers must have the ability to locate where they can find the best employees, period. i worry that if the nlrb takes away the ability that prevents them from creating jobs in a right to work state like south carolina, what does that mean for other right to work states like my state of nevada?

the state hardest hit by recession and with the highest unemployment rates in the nation? would the nlrb take similar action against a company trying to create jobs in nevada? that's a risk nevadans can not afford to take. h.r. 2587 maintains an employer's ability to locate where they can find the best employees and that is why i support this legislation and i strongly urge my colleagues to do the same and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the leader who is leading the fight against outsourcing and for collective bargaining, the minority leader of the house democrats, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, commend him for his tremendous leadership on behalf of america's workers, thank you, mr. andrews, for your leadership. mr. speaker, across the country

americans of every political party and every background, democrats, republicans, independents, and others, agree that our nation's top priority must be the creation of jobs. and economic growth and security. yet for more than 250 days the republican majority in the house has refused to listen to them. they, the republicans, have failed to enact a single jobs bill. and the american people do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for congress to act to create jobs. the president has proposed the american jobs act, he's called upon us to pass the bill now and i support that, as do the members of the -- the democratic members of the house. but today instead of passing a jobs bill we are wasting the time of the congress by attacking workers instead of strengthening them. we are debating the bill to undermine the foundation of our

middle class instead of fighting for people -- to put people to work building our roads, broadband lines, schools, airports, water systems. we are voting on a measure to send jobs overseas instead of focusing on how to keep jobs here at home through our make it in america initiative advanced by our democratic whip, mr. hoyer. make it in america, how to strengthen our economy and our national security by stopping the erosion of our manufacturing base, indeed by strengthening our manufacturing and industrial base. i want to recognize my colleague, congressman george miller, the ranking member on the committee of education and work force, for his leadership, for his flodge, for his tireless advocacy, for not only his intellect but his passion on the subject of america's workers.

congressman miller has said, republican colleagues have proposed a so-called outsourcers bill of rights or as i prefer to call it, the outsourcers' bill of wrongs. because this legislation has the wrong priorities for america's economy and for american workers. this bill is -- the bill is about more than one company or a single case, it is about the economic security of america's work force and families. rather than create jobs this measure encourages the outsourcing of jobs and undermines the rights of middle class workers. this bill cuts the national labor relations board, makes it easier for corporations to ship jobs overseas, allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their right to

organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, to ensure a full day's pay for a full day's work. for months in wisconsin, ohio and states nationwide, americans have seen republican governors and legislatures attack teachers and public servants. and we've seen these workers, union and nonunion alike, inspired a nation to fight back. now republicans have brought their assault on working americans to our nation's cap tal, to the floor of the house -- capitol, to the floor of the house, claiming their actions will help the economy. but it will do just the opposite, it will weaken our workers, our middle class and our families. it's indeed the cornerstones of our economic prosperity, of our middle class, and of our

democracy. the outsourcers' bill of wrongs or rights is not about jobs, it's about dismantling protections established specifically to strengthen the rights of workers. we need these protections now more than ever. last year american companies -- listen to this, last year american companies created 1.4 million jobs overseas. overseas. while breaking in enormous profits. we must create these jobs here at home. democrats will stand strong for our working men and women, we will stay focused on jobs and economic growth. on a personal note, mr. speaker, the other night one of the thrills of my political lifetime, i received, a second honor for me, the francis

perkins award for my colleague, lynn woolsey, a champion for working families in our country. for those of you who may not know francis perkins from history, she was the first woman to serve in a cabinet of a president of the united states. she was the secretary of labor and she was responsible for many important initiatives, the 40-hour workweek, ability for workers to bargain collectively. she was a remarkable champion for working people in our country. she was largely responsible for creating social security. imagine having that as her credentials, imagine what a thrill it was for me to receive an award named for her, especially given by congresswoman lynn woolsey, a champion on the education and work force committee.

much of what she did, while the credit was given to the president of the united states, is, as is appropriate, more than 75 years ago, upon the signing of the national labor relations act, president franklin roosevelt said this, by preventing practices which tend to destroy the independence of labor, this law seeks for every worker within its scope that freedom of choice and action, which is justly his. i guess he could have said his or hers but. that independence, that freedom of choice and act has rested at the core of a growing, thriving american work force. it is not -- it has not limited the ability of companies to move , to change, or extend their operations. it has simply ensured that companies treat their workers in

ways consistent with the laws of our land. the independence and freedom of our workers have helped build and expand our middle class which is the backbone of our democracy and has -- and drive unprecedented prosperity for our families and for our nation. and it must be preserved in our time. i call upon my colleagues to do just that, to preserve this right in our time. i call upon my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to uphold the value of fairness for our work force and to get to work putting american people back to work by bringing president obama's bill, the american jobs act, to committee and to the floor, to, again, again, give people hope and confidence and the dignity of a job.

with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from new jersey has 8 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ros-lehtinen thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. ross on behalf of those -- mr. ross: on behalf of those who give their hand to a neighbor in need, they have had enough. on behalf of boeing, whose innovation, entrepreneurship and technology ensures that more moms and dads will not have to witness a flag-draped coffin from a land far away, they too have had enough.

the future that one gave to his children would be a future of freedom, for those, too, have had enough. mr. speaker, there is no defending the overzealous guys at the national labor relations board. it is a regulatory board gone amuck. in fact, the irony of this is if the -- boeing wants to escape their reach, their jurisdiction. the only way to do is to move overseas which is contrary to what we want here. nowhere in america should your government tell you what you can or cannot do just because they believe what your intentions are. mr. speaker, this administration needs to stop reading minds and start reading the constitution. the boeing decision is a vivid reminder that absolute power corrupts absolutely and we could dismiss it if it were only an isolated case but it is not. americans have endured an

administration that fines american citizens for not buying a product. raids with guns on american guitar manufacturers. and orders federal employees mott to speak to members of congress. mr. speaker, free enterprise is not the problem. it is the solution. and, mr. speaker, contrary to what the other side may say, labor is not the enemy. labor is the backbone of the american economy, but both should be aware of a government that can tell you what to do just because of what you think. and both should be aware of a government that can tell you what to buy just because they think that's what you need. i pray that this legislation is the cornerstone of a renewed free market. the rein of the regulator is -- the reign of the regulator is over. there are still patriots in this house. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey.

>> i'm sure -- mr. andrews: we think patriotism includes the right to freely and collectively bargain and we stand for it. i'm pleased at this time to yield to a widely respected advocate of the people of the state of washington, the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i'm very concerned about this outsourcing bill and it's tenor. if you want to change what's legal or illegal, then this body should address those issues. but this bill won't change what's legal or illegal. it will simply stop current law from being enforced. the nlrb is a law enforcement body. it follows an independented a jute can tif process -- independent adjucative process.

now, i have taken a position on the case that brings us here today, but i don't intend to here. but i can say this firmly. elected officials should not be politicizing an ongoing adjutcative process. we should not interfere with this or any other case. i won't support a bill that doesn't change the underlying law but those charging those enforcing it with the ability to do so. don't allow one controversy to solely uncle sam's ability for justice in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this bill. i will start, mr. speaker, by

making a comparison and contrasting the events recently in the great state of south carolina with that of my home state of arkansas. in arkansas aerospace is one of our top exports. we have more jobs affiliated with the aerospace industry than any other sector of our manufacturing economy. thousands of arkansas families enjoy high-paying jobs. communities, schools and small businesses are all positively impacted by the aviation industry's choice to locate in arkansas. but, mr. speaker, if the nlrb had had their way, none of this would have ever been a reality in my home state of arkansas. the recent action by the nlrb is the case of massive overreach, overreach that tells a business when and where they should locate their business and who to employ. arkansas is a right to work state. right to work states allow the private sector to create jobs and prosper. and, again, not a single job

was lost as a result of boeing's decision to open another manufacturing plant in the state of south carolina. if the nlrb chose to attack the private sector once again, and that's just indicative of this administration's economic agenda that focuses on growing government instead of creating jobs and growing our economy. in closing, mr. speaker, the nlrb decision sets a dangerous precedent. this bill is the first step to limit the government overreach that threatens arkansas companies and regulators. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield at this time a person that understands the complications of -- implications of economic growth and collective bargaining, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and, mr. andrews. i'd like the proponents of this legislation to look at this fact situation.

let's assume there was compelling evidence that an employer decided to move a production line from one part of the country to another part of the country because he wanted to find a work force that was white and not african-american or not latino or there was more like -- or much more likely not to have women applying to work on that manufacturing line than where he was located. would anyone here suggest there should be a bill that notwithstanding title 7 of the civil rights act should let that employer with a discriminatory motive and a racist intention move his plant for that reason? this is not a bill about what an employer can or cannot do. this is a bill about motivation. the civil rights act 1964, the right of an employer to organize, form unions, bargain collectively and to berate employers from retaliating 75

years ago. if you really want the job creators to do whatever you want, as you like to say, get rid of the worker's right to choose, remove the protections against disgrim nation against unions but don't pretend you're trying to do something for reasons that disguise the motivation for the reason. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i need to inquire again about the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey controls 6 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from minnesota five. mr. kline: ok. we're expecting another speaker but not sure where is he, so at this time i'll reserve and let the gentleman from new jersey -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i'm very pleased to yield to a passionate voice, the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i stand in strong opposition, mr. speaker, to this bill.

the national labor relations board exists to ensure if companies do not discriminate against workers who exercises their rights under federal law. to -- the protection prevents the illegal offshoring of american jobs. in 2000, for example, a california jewelry manufacturing company took aggressive action to discourage its employees from organizing a right that is protected under federal law. when the company failed it announced plans to relocate its operations to mexico. the board was able to prevent this from happening using the authority this bill would eliminate -- the board prevented the company from moving american jobs to mexico. h.r. 2587, if inen acted, companies will be able to ship jobs overseas in retaliation against american workers exercising their rights. unfortunately h.r. 2587 is part of a larger campaign to attack

workers' rights. that campaign includes an investigation by the oversight committee into the board's ongoing prosecution of the boeing company for allegations of illegal retaliation against workers in washington state for exercising their rights under the law. a "washington post" editorial warned that the committee should not sabotage this ongoing legal process, and 34 law professors urged the committee to let the board do its job without interference. instead, the committee issued a subpoena, threatened contempt and even intimidated nlrb attorneys trying to do their job. and h.r. 2587 -- if h.r. 2587 becomes law, even if boeing is found to violate workers' rights, it will -- nobody interested in protecting american jobs should support this bill. i urge my colleagues strongly to vote against 2587, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: if i could inquire how much time each side has available? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota five. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a the gentlelady who favors job creation versus outsourcing, the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. h.r. 2587 should really be called the death of the workers' rights act. this amends the national labor relations act of 1935. i remember why that act was created. we were in the great depression. so why was it then passed? because workers could join unions even back then but they could be fired for joining the union and for striking. does that sound familiar? this caused great labor unrest in this country, a country that was struggling to get back on its feet.

remember, we are a country of workers, workers made this country and workers will continue to make us the great country that we are. what the nlrb said is workers could act in a concerted manner for mutual aid and protection. this act basically eliminates the remedies if that act, if that right is violated. now, remember the nlrb must prove that these protected rights were violated. they just simply can't go in and act willy-nilly. they have to prove these allegations. there will be no rights for these workers if this bill is allowed to pass. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: now, mr. speaker, it is apparent that we have two speakers, the gentleman from virginia and one from texas who apparently are not going to be able to get here on time so i will be closing when mr. andrews has allowed his

speakers to speak so i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, it's my honor to yield to a the gentlelady who has been a fierce advocate for jobs for new york city but more importantly for all of america, the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding the time. today i rise in opposition to h.r. 2587. this bill, which was rammed through committee without so much as a legislative hearing, does not create or protect jobs in spite of its misleading title. what this bill does is give american workers an unfair choice -- your rights or your job. h.r. 2587 creates an open season for c.e.o.'s to punish workers for exercising their rights. this bill allows companies to relocate or eliminate jobs in retaliation against employees who exercise their right to organize, strike or engage in

collective bargaining activity. this republican sponsored bill accomplishes this by eliminating the national labor relations board's power to order -- be reinstated. in practical terms this would mean if a c.e.o. would want to punish workers for unionizing or striking, the employer could relocate and thereby eliminating the worker without fear of being held accountable. i ask colleagues to vote -- to oppose this bill and vote it down today. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota continues to reserve. mr. kline: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i believe you just said we have 2 1/2 minutes left on our side? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. andrew andrews our plan would be -- mr. andrews: our plan would be we would rest and the chairman would proceed. i ask unanimous consent to

enter in the record the statement from the law professors referenced earlier. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, one listens to the back and forth on 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 choose to try to organize a union and bargain collectively for their wages and their working conditions and the employer is discomforted by that, the employer comes in and says, i don't like the fact that you're trying to form a union and bargain collectively and insert your rights. so i'm moving. 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 they'll be remedied. but this is what this case is really about. this issue is really about. this bill is really about. 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 our chris 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remainder of our time. this is always an interesting debate on the floor. this has been another example. we have some fundamental differences in how we view the problems and more importantly the solutions facing our country. both sides recognize that we

have high unemployment, historically high, 30 months of unemployment over 8%, 14 million americans out of work. both sides want the economy to grow and people to get back to work. but one side believes that more regulations by the last account some 219 in the pipeline coming from this administration, more regulations, more spending money that we don't have, more government interference will somehow get americans back to work. and the other side, mr. speaker, believes that employers, the private sector, small businesses, entrepreneurs, middle sized businesses and large businesses create jobs. put americans to work. now, the national labor relations act haas, as has been discussed, has been around for a long time.

neither side is suggesting that americans don't have the right to organize and to bargain. i beg to differ with my colleagues on the other side. that's not what this is about. but what we have here is a case where the act creates a board which by its nature changes back and forth depending upon who's in the white house so it has more democrats one time and more republicans another and so i would argue and have argued that for some time the board in enforcing the act is causing some whipsaw of the economy. i concede that. but right now with this board i would argue that as one of my colleagues on the other side said, that there was an agenda over here, i agree, there is an agenda. the board has an agenda. there is a rainfall, a torrent

of rulings coming out of this board that strike at the heart of american job creators to create jobs. one of those, one of those rulings, and i agree that it's an interim ruling, it's a ruling by the actinging general council, one guy -- acting general counsel, one guy, looks at the actions a major company has taken to create more jobs, to spend $1 billion, build a plant in south carolina, hire 1,000 people, one guy says, no, i don't think so, i think, says he, this is a transfer of work and it's in retaliation. i think that. and so it's been pointed out this is an ongoing process and one of my colleagues in the committee said, well, nothing bad has really happened here. let's let this play out. no, no, i beg to differ. go to charleston, south carolina, talk to those 1,000

employees about their future and the uncertainty that this brings. talk to the companies who are looking at creating jobs, starting businesses in this country and are looking at this ruling, at the threat this poses and reconsidering their actions. so, mr. speaker, i believe we have a choice, we can stand, we can sit, we can watch or we can step up and try to help americans get back to work in america by stopping this action and the threat that it poses to companies across america. so i encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation, let's get americans back to work in america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to house resolution 372, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the national labor relations board from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of new york moves to recommit the bill to the committee on education and the work force with instructions to report the bill back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, insert the follow thing, section 4, protecting u.s. jobs from overseas outsourcing. nothing in this act or the amendment made by this act shall limit the national labor relations board's authority to order an employer to maintain or restore jobs within the united states that has been or will otherwise be outsourced to a foreign country in violation of

the national labor relations act . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the bill before us today would prohibit the national labor relations board from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. any circumstance? what about jobs that are illegally outsourced to foreign countries like china, india and the philippines? under the republican bill if a company sends american jobs overseas illegally the nlrb is strip of its authority to do anything about it. why would any member of this house intentionally want to allow corporations to ship american jobs to china in violation of the law amid the largest american jobs crisis in a generation? mr. speaker, my amendment is very simple and it does not kill the underlying bill. this final amendment simply maintains the national labor relations board' ability to go after corporations that

illegally outsource jobs overseas. this is just good, old-fashioned common sense. again, i ask, why would we say to corporations, go ahead, violate the law, ship good jobs to india and china, we'll just turn our heads the other way? that doesn't make any sense and it would certainly kill jobs here in america. yet section 2 of the bill clearly states that the board shall have no power to order any employer to restore or reinstate any work product, production line or equipment to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting or outsourcing. let me say that again, or outsourcing. the bill makes no exceptions for violations of the law. why would we want to undermine enforcement of the law rather than address violations of the law? chairman kline just said that we have some fundamental differences. he's right. we do. but if we can agree on nothing else, we should be able to agree that outsourcing american jobs to foreign countries like china and india is a scourge on our

current efforts to create jobs here at home and that we should do everything in our power to stop outsourcing. mr. speaker, outsourcing is a real problem for our economy. the relentless pursuit of a less expensive work force to the dert meant of the american worker is deplorable. corporations all across the country are moving the jobs of hardworking americans overseas. estimates indicate that american jobs are being sent overseas at a rate of 12,000 to 15,000 jobs per month. according to a study by duke university more than 50% of companies have offshoring strategies in place, up from 22% in 2005. furthermore, 60% of companies currently offshoring say they have plans to aggressively expand outsourcing activities. finally, the commerce department tells us that the american companies cut their work forces in the u.s. by 2.9 million workers over the last decade while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. mr. speaker, this final amendment does not kill the bill. it simply allows the cops to go

after the robbers. it allows the nlrb to enforce the law when someone violates the law. the amendment does nothing to prevent private businesses from making decisions about where their operations are best located as long as that activity is not in violation of the national labor relations act. again, this is just common sense. a vote for this final amendment is a vote to protect american jobs from outsourcing. i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting american jobs and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the words of my colleague from new york. but if he and others on the other side of the aisle are looking for a way to stop jobs from going overseas, i've got really good news for him. h.r. 2587 is a step in the right direction. right now the national labor

relations board is exercising an extreme remedy that has a chilling effect on job creators here and potential job creators who would like to come here from abroad. and right now members of congress have an opportunity to say, stop, you bonet -- stop. but don't take my word for it. listen to the employers themselves. recently the national association of manufacturers asked thousands of american manufacturers a simple question about the boeing complaint. question was, could this nlrb complaint negatively impact your decisions on hiring or work force expansion plans? 69% of those manufacturers who responded to the survey said yes. this complaint could negatively impact decisions to grow their businesses and hire new workers. at a recent hearing of the education work force committee, the former nlrb chairman, described an encounter with 60 canadian business leaders.

he told us, quote, a few with whom i had an opportunity to speak with afterwards expressed real concern about doing business in the united states as a result of the agency's complaint against the boeing company. thanks to the nlrb's actions, efforts by manufacturers to hire workers are being undermined and international employers are concerned about doing business here in the united states. this is the hostile environment to new jobs and economic growth that is created by this decision. and it must end. so as i noted earlier today, we can stand by or sit by or we can stand up and do something about it. my friends had ample opportunities to offer amendments in committee, they chose not to do that. this is a procedural step. i understand that. doesn't go to fix the hostile environment that has been brought forward by this activist

nlrb. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. bishop: mr. speaker. on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage, the question is on the adoption of the motion to recommit. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]