regarding these two facilities. when we get to a network that looks more like this, we will have fewer facilities and will realize significant savings for the's service. our future network will support a 2-3 day first-class service standard. these consolidations will result in an estimated 50% there will be a 50% reduction in the mail processing equipment, and this will eliminate the capacity in the system. and it will enable us and our customers to optimize transportation. less entry points means a better utilization of trucks. the bottom line is we expect to realize $3 billion in savings this year. that is the impact for the customers.

and there are two areas of change the customers will be interested in. where they need to drop mail. this change is largely transparent to the residential customer and the receiver of the mail. there is no impact with this. regularlyble to accommodate this new schedule. we know that the proposed changes will have some industry- specific implications. we have outlined these changes on a successful basis and have been pleased with the initial response. we have a strong record of working with our customers with any potential issues and we will make certain that this transition works as smoothly as possible. we're also looking to the

advance notice of the rule change, which should be published within a week. we plan to work closely with our customers as we have done over the past five years of aggressive consolidation. we don't make these decisions likely to hit -- lightly. we have a dedicated and committed workforce. our employees do a tremendous job and deserve credit for their effort and the service levels achieved, the last few years. every mail processing employee will be affected by these changes. we make every effort to accommodate the employees, and also work with the union to reposition the impact. we are responsible. over the last 12 years, -- we

have never laid anyone off. to reduce the size of the workforce, for the future network. and to put the impact in context let me walk you through these numbers. we have 559,000 career employees. we anticipate that we will have 35,000 fewer teleprocessing positions in the future. what i have discussed today will reduce the annual operating expense by $3 billion. this one of them -- this is one of three significant network realignment initiatives. we're also reworking the retail network for the post office and expanding the effort every -- the network of retail partners

as a transition to less brick and mortar post offices. all told, the realignment of the networks will result in $6 billion of cost reduction. this sets the foundations for a profitable postal service that will carry us forward. let me turn it back over to pat will talk about how we get to $20 billion in cost reductions by 2015. >> thank you. as we have said, the immediate goal is to get to the $20 billion -- by 2015. we just described a very ambitious operational plan that we believe we can accomplish. and most importantly to note,

this is within our control. we have plans will need congressional held on and this will get us through the 20 billion. this is just a part of where we need to go to get to this. the remainder, we are counting on a couple of different things. we believe we can achieve this working with the labor unions, with more flexibility, and some other changes, with what we have. we're also seeking substantial and comprehensive long-term legislation to provide a much more flexible -- >> much more flexible business model. if we're going to return to

profitability, we have to have legislation that allows us to be flexible in the way we manage this organization. we need the legislation now, and we lost 22% of the volume and we're not going to see any increases and need to make those changes now. we have to resolve the pre funding issue that is out there. one is the transfer of the overpayment -- we think we have a good proposal for us to take over our own health benefits system. and doing this will allow us to pull this cost overall for the health benefits, and we will pay $7.20 billion this year. we think we have an excellent plan, that we share with congress and the administration.

we are looking to push this going forward. we have issues we will continue to work through with the union and the retirement plans, streamlining the government, going forward. and if we can push through legislation, along with the plans we have in place, we can successfully achieve what we need to do with the profitability standpoint. we can get there by 200015, and that the postal service on firm financial footing going forward. we put a lot of ideas before you this morning, and we have spoken about a number of these. we will answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you.

what we would like to do is limit the questions to 3 if possible. if you have a question, please wait for the microphone to be brought to you, and we ask that you provide your name and who you represent. >> what role has the internet played with the reduction? >> the internet has had a substantial impact on the postal service. 60% of americans pay their bills online, from about 5% in the year 2000. we are facing the reality going forward that this will continue to change. we have to make these changes now to get the finances in order, and the healthy, financially, going forward. >> what do you say to the people who are nervous about their post

office closing in their neighborhood? >> we're looking at small post offices without a lot of activity, looking to redesign the way that we provide this service. we think we will provide better access to customers at a lower price. >> how can congress help you? >> we need comprehensive legislation, with a requirement for the retiree health benefits. we have to get the administration and the congress and the postal service all on the same page. this is important for the american public. can you tell us what the impact will be on priority mail, and on the standard mail service?

>> there may be some changes with the standard mail -- >> you said that your customers are relatively positive about these changes. can you tell us how this will impact small businesses, particularly with the entry point of changes? >> as we lay this out, we have this in a number of different places. what we will be doing in the plan is reviewing, plant by plant, if we keep these open and the alternative. we will not leave the customers high and dry. they will have the same opportunities, and may be better opportunities if they want to go to the consolidation. we want to make this as

transparent and easy on the customer's as possible. >> and we have extensive customer outreach, to make certain that we hear all voices. and we will work with them for tailored solutions. >> can you bring the microphone over here? >> angela, with bloomberg news. you talked about wanting to get ahead of the curve, but get to the point where you can close half of these facilities and still deliver the mail? >> we have been closing our offices, the airport mail facilities, and what we are going to now, these are facilities that will require a change in the entire network. the difference became the decision around the service standard.

what has happened, first-class mail -- this has caused us to step back into a couple of things, looking at what we do and the customers. in this changing environment, what should we be doing? we need consistency and predictability, and this is very important. designing this network to get the most out of your assets, but also delivering delivery and time and processing is what customers are looking for. >> if you relax standards -- you are making this slower. why on earth is this a better system for customers that rely on faster delivery? >> if you look at what happened to the blue mailboxes, customers have moved to dramatic -- to

build them and this has made a dramatic change for us. we can sit and keep this existing networks going on forever -- but this is completely irresponsible. the customers are saying -- give us consistent timing and the opportunity to bring the mail into the facility and keep down the costs. we do not want to be priced out of the system. >> if i put a birthday card in the mail two days before my sister's birthday, knowing -- >> it will get there in two days. send it with express mail and we will guarantee this. >> talk about the increase in reliability? >> 65% of first-class mail is

entered by commercial mail. we will work with them and depending on the kind of entry, we can accommodate overnight service. >> a couple of questions. when it comes to these closures being studied, he showed the announcement today -- what are the number -- what is the no. we're talking about in total? >> we are announcing today are studies. with 252 studies that we will work through. we look at the overall financial impact and the considerable customer end of it. it would be premature for me to give you a number about how many

will ultimately be closed. this is altering the entire landscape. >> 35,000 employees -- he talked about not having to lay off anyone. but what are we talking about now. we have the 35,000 person figure to be reached by 2013 or 2015. are we talking about layoffs. >> we have 151,000 mail processing employees. we're looking at 35,000 fewer positions. we currently have over 150,000 employees who can retire today. we will continue to work with the union, and the expectation is we can reach these reductions through attrition. >> he talked about creating the

breathing room to put you on financial footing, getting ahead of the cost curve to the end of the decade. but is this enough for long-term stability, or will we find out in 2015 that another round of the sort of thing is going to be necessary? how confident are you on your projections? >> we want to address the costs in the short term. 65 days, that is $3 billion out of the system. the long-term issues are addressed with what do you do with retail and how the man is that access going forward. as we go forward, you have to look at the best way to provide access and keep down the costs. the proposal for health benefits and retirement plans give us short-term savings but also help to control the cost in the long

term. >> let's go over to the side of the room. >> i am scott mcfarland. what happens to these actual facilities, the buildings, if the decision is made to close this down? >> we are going to study over 30 million square feet of space. either we sell the assets out ride or bring the existing operations into their own space. >> the orlando facility, it is possible that other regional postal services will be looking forward to this? >> the other question was, you mentioned that all distribution employees will be affected, somehow. will some the moved or asked to move to the new facility or lose

your job? >> we dictated the repositioning of employees. and some may be moved to another site. >> can you come over here? >> first of all, when is the change in delivery taking place and do you need regulator approval or are these all things that you have the authority to do right now? >> we have to file with the proposal for a nationwide service interchange. they would offer their nonbinding advisory opinion on these changes. >> when will these changes happen? >> we will file them in november. >> as you shrink the facility, we transition all the things we

do with the customers. you see changes in local service standards and acceptance time and the whole 9 yards. the key thing for customers to understand is that we have an excellent plan and we will be working with people, not just at this level, will make certain that the customers are fully taken care of. >> i am jennifer with the fiscal times. you testified before congress last week and before -- how encouraged are you? you express or urgency for this legislation but from your testimony, how encouraged are you that there will be fast action on this with all the partisanship that is happening on the hill? do you think that we will see quick movement on this? >> the one thing that was encouraging is the administration said they would

support the 90-day extension. that give us breathing space. we are looking for a bipartisan work on this and we think that there is definitely an opportunity for everyone to get together because the postal service is still a critical part of the american economy. we are not going out of business but we are trying to do is get the finances in order so that we can provide excellent service. we think the proposals on the table are very good proposals and the democrats support this in the house and senate. and i think that we will see the sale this year and by the end of the calendar year, with the 90- day extension, it is a very important and responsible thing to give us long-term, comprehensive legislation.

>> i will come back over to this side. >> i am from the buffalo news. i am interested in the buffalo list for your potential closure. what standards to use to determine which facilities use of the foreclosure at this time and what you plan to have as part of the long term network? >> the components that we review our capacity, projected volume, customer input, to name a few. >> this has to do with the male and how this is process, not the terms of the employees or the quality of the facilities? >> when we talk with our employees, we tell mrs. not the indictment of a performance or individual.

we're trying to make the best decision regarding the network. >> a lot of times when you look at is the reach, and if you look at buffalo against rochester, you can get a better reach. they do a great job. >> can you talk about the history of this process. >> processing studies have been around for decades. we clearly are very transparent about the information, and also the inclusion of customer in the. we'll have community meetings in each service area, such as buffalo, so in that area they will have a chance to provide comments and feedback. >> emily long, government

executive. the 200,000 you are hoping to cut by 2015? with this come simply by 2013? >> we are looking at a number. we have these network proposals, and when we talk about the number, this is up to 220,000. we thought that this was very responsible, and i told congress that we have to address this issue. we have spoken to the union and there are some opportunities on there. we can create opportunities to move people off the role in a responsible way. >> will this have an impact on the ongoing union negotiations? >> there are always these discussions and this is a situation right now where we

have one in negotiations and one in arbitration. the economic issues we're facing have to be taken into consideration. >> and are there any other questions? >> as domestic mail transitions, what will be the impact on international mail? there'll bebelieve an impact on the international side. >> so the mail that is two or three days, there will not be an impact an international mail will still be the same as before? >> we have no changes planned for the international standards. >> there will not be any major change. >> thank you. >> can you give me an example, please, of a specific industry that would be affected by these

new standards, what kind of step -- to of discussions you have had with them and how they have received this? >> we had conceptual briefings with the industries and the technically buys three committee. and obviously, this is an important topic to work through. the intention over the next few months is to sit down with the different segments of the mailing industry, and work through this process to determine how to mitigate these service interchanges. with the revised entry time, we believe that we will be able to accommodate this readily, but the overnight standard. >> one thing that we have seen -- two major changes going on -- one of them is the payment issue that people pay most of their

bills online, there are a lot of bills being paid to the mail. we have to make certain that the remaining male -- that we work with that industry to make certain that our consolidation points -- that they're able to handle the volume, and find an expeditious way to get that money -- to get that money through to the recipients. this is what has given us the idea behind us. if you look at what has been happening over the course of the last few years in the first- class mail business, there has been a lot of consolidation. along with the generators that move to consolidation -- we get

to-three days service standards, and working both ankles, we believe we are making the right decision. >> and other any other questions on this? >> probably in the back. >> i will get to you in one second. >> what do you say to the people who say that they are concerned that the prices will increase and they will have to pay more, what can you tell them? >> for 44 cents, from washington dc or alaska -- this is a good proposition and we also provide tremendous safety and security for the mail that goes through this system. where are -- we are important to the economy and society. >> what about the price questions? >> we are looking at this.

if the prices go up, it would be 2% or less. >> let's go into the back. >> i was wondering, what if congress does not act by the end of the calendar year? >> we will continue with our activities that we are currently -- that are currently underway. we have to reduce the network foot print and get the cost in line with volume. we will continue to work out of the workforce flexibility and lower the cost of labor altogether. i seriously think that congress and the administration understand the gravity of the situation and they will act on this. i cannot control this. the mail will be delivered. we do have cash flow issues and i can't make it -- can make a $5

billion payment. we will make certain that we make the rest of the payments the rest of the year, to pay the employees. the male is important to get through to people. i have faith that congress and the administration will work with us. >> " -- switching from one day to two days, how much mail will really be affected? >> this depends. in the blue mailboxes, the male has decreased -- 12% a year right now. this is around 15 billion pieces and this will be affected. like you said before, commercial mailers -- they still have the opportunity to bring this mail in to the centralized facility and retain the overnight

service. >> going back to the press conference he had a couple of months ago about closing post office, -- post offices, how many post offices been closed and what can we expect? > the earliest we would finalize this review process is late december early january. let me add that the studies are not foregone conclusions. the closing process, we have this continual 21 studies -- discontinued 21 studies because we did not believe that we had the products available in those areas for consumers. >> in terms of the retail side, the post offices, it is access. it can be on line, in stores, a number of different ways that we want to make sure the american

public gets it. we have to keep an eye on the top line as we go through this. >> we have been talking a lot about cuts being made. what is the post office doing to possibly create new business in order to compete with things like e-mail and create revenue? >> there are a couple of things going on right now, we have not taken our eye off of revenue at all. in the last four months, we have simplified advertising products. we have made about $65 million on that product. we continue to see good growth in priority mail and parcel select. fedex, ups, the largest customers in that area. we are also looking to get into the digital world lot more than we are today. we think we play an extremely

important role in digital because we do a couple of things. we are the most trusted network in the united states, probably in the world. and we can provide excellent security along with that. what do you want? how can we help? we're working through this. >> if i am a member of congress, probably the first thing i would do when i see this list come out, is there a facility in my home district and how do i protect it? you are probably going to be getting letters and phone calls from members, protecting jobs in their district. what role does congress play in this process, if any? frankly, how do you keep politics out of the process? >> the important thing is, all of these things we are doing is the standard criteria. there is no favoritism being

played. we did that with first offices -- post offices. when you actually step back from that map, you see a very viable and a distribution of the facilities across the country that makes sense. congress needs to work with us going forward, we all have a responsibility to take the best interest of the american public in general as well as what happens in the entire mailing industry. i think congress will work with us on that. >> any other questions? >> can we get a clarifying figure, i believe you said yes to both questions. 35,000 employees. the question was it would be 2013 or 2015, which is it? >> what we have laid out for the 2015 are a set of activities, planned production,

delivery consolidations, other changes in what we do for contract management. what we do is to get to about 425,000 employees by the end of 2015. 560,000.numbers are in the three-year time frame, we will move through that. >> are there any final questions? they are willing to stay for a few more minutes if you want to come up and ask additional questions. we will and the conference, thank you for coming. ference,he con thank you for coming.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight on c-span, john boehner on the economy. he says job creators are basically on strike and everyone needs to buckle down and work on stimulating the economy. >> this isn't that hard. we need to liberate the economy from the shackles of washington and let our economy grow. i think we need to trust in the good judgment of the american people. the message of the government is always to get bigger, more meddlesome, more intrusive. that is that direct odds with what is needed to make the american economy move. >> more at the economic club of washington tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> in an election marred by a moral scandal and political corruption, james g. blaine lost in 1884, but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's weekly series, "be contenders." friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn more about the series and upcoming programs at c-span.org /thecontenders. ♪ >> do you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> what is that? >> it is somewhat open for debate, but it has been pretty much proven just recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individuals, citizens of the united states. >> the right to bear arms. >> the right to keep and bear arms. >> do you feel safer with

handguns? >> yes, being a woman, i am automatically a weaker target. with a hand gun here, i would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you are talking about a robbery, obviously, a defender, they will see that you are armed, they will not bother. >> that was one of the winners of last year's studentcam competition. now this year's is under way. the topic, the constitution and you. get more at studentcam.org. >> president obama awarded the medal of honor to veterans at a ceremony at the white house. the former marine is honored for saving 13 americans and 23

afghan soldiers during a 2009 fire fight with the taliban in afghanistan. he is the first living marine to receive the medal of honor since the vietnam war. this is just over 20 minutes. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. michele obama accompanied by a medal of honor recipient sgt dakota myreyers. [hail to the chief] ♪

>> if you would, please pray with me. almighty god, we pause to the acknowledge your grace which has brought us to this momentous day. we confirm that by this ceremony, and in accordance with your divine guidance, our forbearers established a nation rooted in the ideals of courage and virtue. we now look to your direction for this country even as we bestow its highest honors on sgt dakota meyers who sacrificed himself to cherished values. through love and support of his family as well as countless mentors and friends. know of our thankfulness for emboldening his spirit so that when called on to preserve the safety and dignity of his comrades, he was able to find it

within himself to demonstrate the valor and intricately -- intrepiditiy of his character. this nation is, indeed, exceedingly grateful. we ask that you would touch his humble spirit, that he would know that as the highest award is draped around his neck, you encircle him with of the death of your love. -- depth of your love. the other marines were in such a part of those actions on that fateful day. and sure him that as his actions were honored, you equally recognize those that demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice everything in order to uphold the ideals we on this day. the marines, sailors, soldiers,

airmen, and coastguardsman that have given their lives in service of this country. we left out in prior all those that remain in harm's way throughout the globe. bestow your wisdom on those that lead this nation and shape her endeavors. by the examples of these, our heroes, that love country more than self, receive more than life. god, bless america. in your holy name we pray, amen. >> thank you, everybody. please be seated. thank you, chaplain. good afternoon, everyone. on behalf of myself, welcome to the white house. it has been said that where there is a brave man in the thickest of the fight, there is a post of honor.

today, we pay tribute to american that placed himself in the fight. again, and again, and again. he has earned our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor. and we are extraordinarily proud of sgt dakota meyers. this is only the third time that a recipient of the medal of honor has been able to accept it in person. we are honored to be joined by one of the other to recipients. -- two recipients. i would point out something else, of all of the recipients, dakota is also one of the august. 23 years old. he performed to the extraordinary actions where he was just 21 years old. despite all this, he is one of

the most down-to-earth guy is that you'll ever meet. in fact, when my staff first try to arrange a phone call so i could tell them that i could prove his mettle, he was at work. he felt he could not take a call right then because he said, if i don't work, i don't get paid. [laughter] we arranged to make sure he got a call during his lunch break. [laughter] i told him the news and he went right back to work. that is the kind of guy he is. he also asked to have a beer with me. we were able to execute yester day. -- yesterdya. ay. dakota is the kind of guy that gets the job done, and i appreciate you taking my call. [laughter] the medal of honor reflect the

gratitude of the entire nation. we are joined by members of congress, including somebody from your home state, the republican leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell, we are joined by leaders from across my administration including the secretary of veterans affairs and navy secretary. and leaders from across our armed forces, including the commandant of the marine corps, general james amos. we are welcoming his father, mike. his grandparents, and more than 120 of his family and friends from the home state of kentucky. i want to welcome the embedded training team, and we are humbled by the presence of the medal of honor society. dakota, i realize the past few years have not been easy for you.

you are a very modest young man, but as you have said, you do this for a simple reason. it helps you to honor those who did not come home and to remind your fellow americans that our men and women in uniform are over there fighting every single day. that is how we will do this today. he is fading -- is fitting that we will do this this week, the anniversary of the attacks that took our nation to war. we see the best of the generation that served with distinction for a decade of war. let me tell the story. september 8, 2009, just before dawn. a patrol of afghan forces is on foot with their american trainers making their way of the valley heading to a village to meet with elders. suddenly, the lights go out.

about a mile away, and dakota was a corporal and the staff sergeant could hear the ambush over the radio. it was if the whole valley was exploding. taliban fighters were unleashing a firestorm from the hills, even from the local school. they were pinned down, taking a ferocious fire from three sides. if that were being wounded, killed, and four americans were surrounded. they asked permission to the lan -- to go in four times. four times, they were denied. they were told it was too dangerous. as one of his teachers said if you tell dakota to do something, he will do it. dakota said, those were my brothers. i could not just sit back and watch. the story of what he did next will be told for generations.

he told juan they were going in. juan jumped in, dakota manned the gun. they were defying orders, but they were doing what they thought was right. they drove straight into a killing zone, his upper body and had exposed to a blizzard of fire. mortars, rocket-propelled grenades. coming up on wounded afghans soldiers, he loaded each of them into the humvee, each time exposing himself to enemy fire. they drove those wounded back to safety. those that were there called it the most intense combat they had ever seen. they would have been forgiven for not going back, but as dakota says, you don't leave anybody behind. they went back into the inferno, swerving to explode --

avoid explosions all around them. when one gun got jammed, grabbing another. they came across afghans, dakota loaded them up and brought them back to safety. a third time, they went back with insurgents running up to the humvee in dakota fighting them off. some were desperately trying to escape the bullets. juan put the hon be right in the line of fire putting the deal -- using the vehicle as a shield. they brought the americans back to safety as well. for a fourth time, they went back. dakota was wounded in the arm, the vehicle riddled with bullets and shrapnel. he later confessed that he did not think he was going to die, he knew he was. they pushed off, delivering the wounded to safety. for a fifth time, they went back under fire that came from

every window and every alley. when they got those trapped americans, dakota ran towards them, drawing all those enemy guns on himself. bullets kicking up the dirt all around him. he kept going until he came upon the four americans, together as one team. dakota and the others knelt down and pick up their comrades, through the bullets, smoke, chaos, carry them out one by one. dakota says that is what you do for a brother. dakota says he will accept this medal in their names. we remember the man that love the outdoors, lieut. michael johnson. the husband and father, a gunnery sergeant that went -- adwin -- edwin johnson. the medic that gave his life

tending to his teammates, third class james layton. and a soldier that never recovered, sergeant first class kenneth westbrook. dakota, i know you have grappled with the grief of that day and that somehow, your efforts were a failure because your teammates did not come home. as your commander in chief, it is quite the opposite. you do your duty above and beyond, and you kept faith with the highest provisions of the marine corps that you love. because of your honor, 36 men are alive today. because of your courage, for fallen american heroes came home. in the words of james layton's malm, they could lay their son to rest with dignity. the fight, hour after hour, the former marines that read about your story say that you showed how and the most desperate final

hours, our brothers will save us. because of your example, our kids, especially back in kentucky will know that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can do great things as a citizen and as a member of the american family. there lies the greatest example of the truth that the men and women of uniform live out every day. i was part of something bigger, dakota has said. part of a team that worked together and working for a common goal. every member of our team was as important as the other. in keeping with his wishes for this day, i want to conclude by asking now under a sergeant chavez and all those that serve with dakota, marines, army, navy, to stand and receive thanks from a grateful nation. [applause]

>> hoo-ah! >> thank you. every member of our team is as important as the other. it is a lesson that we all have to remember as citizens and as a nation. as we remember our time at home and around the world. to the marines, to all the men and women of uniform, to the fellow americans, let us always be faithful. as we prepare for their reading of the citation, god bless you, dakota. god bless the marines and god bless the united states of america. semper fi. [applause]

>> the president of the united states in the name of the congress takes pleasure in presenting the medal of honor to corporal dakota l. meyer at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with married embedded team 28, advisory command 37 in afghanistan in april of 2009. he was a security at a rally point as other marines moved on foot with a border police into the village for a meeting with village elders. moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by 50 enemy fighters firing rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, machine guns from fortified positions on the

slopes above. hearing over the radio that four u.s. team members were cut off, he seized the initiative. with a fellow marine driving, the corporal took the exposed gunners positioned as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trap the marines. this regarding enemy fire concentrated on their vehicle, he killed a number of enemy fighters with mounted machine guns and his rifle. some at near point-blank range as they made three trips into the ambush area. during the first trips, they evacuated two dozen afghan soldiers, many wounded. when one machine gun became inoperable, he switched to another gun truck for a third draft where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining u.s. personnel and afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush. despite a travel wound to his

arm, he made more trips in the third gun truck accompanied by four other afghan vehicles. they searched for the missing u.s. team members. it still under heavy enemy fire, they dismounted and the vehicle and moved on foot to recover the bodies of his team members. his daring initiative and fighting spirit throughout the six-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy attack and inspired members of the command forced to fight on. his unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his u.s. and afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death reflect a great credit on himself and double the highest traditions of the united states naval service.

[applause] >> let us close in prayer. god may this ceremony serve as a reminder that comes with receiving a great gift of

freedom. as we depart this hallowed hall and return to our daily lives, we pray that you will enable us, when called upon, we will recall the resolute fearlessness of sgt dakota meyer and all those that where the stars of valor and bring responsibility to bring honor to you and your country. in your holy name we pray, amen. >> thank you all for joining us here today. we are grateful for dakota, we are grateful for all the men and women in uniform. i hope that all of you have not only been inspired by the ceremony, but also will enjoy the hospitality of the white house, i hear the food is pretty good. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] ♪

>> tonight, john boehner and the economy. he said juppe treaters in america are basically on strike and that everybody needs to buckle down and work on stimulating the economy. >> this is not that hard. we to liberate the economy from

the shackles of washington and let our economy grow. we need to trust and good judgment of the american people. the instinct of government is to get bigger, more meddlesome, more interested. that instinct is that correct odds with what is needed to make the american economy moved. >> more from his remarks at the economic club of washington, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span. >> sylvian nasar talks about her book and is interviewed on " afterwords," this weekend on c- boat tv. we talk about professors from george washington university.

and michael moorer recounts his life from starting his own newspaper to winning the academy award. he will be our guest next month next"in depth." get the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> this weekend on c-span3, celebrate constitution day with actor richard dreyfuss. during the civil war, 25% of the union war effort was financed by californian gold. find out how and why. and from oral histories, nixon staff assistant barbara franklin on recruiting women for high- level government jobs. for our schedules, click the c- span alert button.

>> coming up from the house floor, the swearing in of two new members. the replace former representative anthony wiener and dean heller. 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 tt 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 a 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 honoto 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. thk you very much. the speaker: without objection, the house wl 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 e 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 congressiol 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 spker: the gentleman from new york, mr. turner, is cognized. 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'mere and it's the future, which is ably represented here b 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 e oath to the gentleman from nevada and the gentleman from new york, the whole number of the house

>> the house now stands at 242 republicans, 192 the democrats, with one vacancy. on the other side of the capitol, senate worked on a bill that red streaks trade restrictions with burma. this would provide $7 million in assistance to communities hit by natural disasters. right now, senators are voting on whether to pass an extension of faa programs and service programs for six months. current funding for the faa expires tomorrow. you can see that on c-span2. the house today took up a bill that would prevent the national labor relations board for restricting a company decision to relocate its operations. legislation would overturn

cancan nlrb the restricted -- ruling that restricted the move of the company to south carolina. this is about an hour, 20 minutes. 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 >> the house went on to approve that measure on a mostly party- line vote. the senate has not yet scheduled a day to take up the bill. following that debate, republican majority leader there kantor and democratic whip stemware looked at the house agenda, including legislation to create jobs and spur the economy and their resolution to continue funding the government through the fall. they spoke for less than 25 minutes. >> the cr will be considered next week, likely on wednesday. i want to ask about -- it is a man standing in the supplemental for emergency requirements of fema will be included.

mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman that what will be in the c.r. is the budgeted amount for all of fiscal year 201 which is 2.65 billion dollars will be in the c.r. front loaded. in other words, the agency will have access to all of those funds prior to the expiration of the c.r. november 18. in addition to that, we have, as the gentleman knows, funded out of this house the emergency supplemental which was $1 billion more than that which the agency had requested, all of which was offset. that, too, will be in the c.r. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. when you say all of that has been offset, it is my understanding that in fact in the c.r. for 2011, not for 2012, but for 2011 that there is a $1.5 billion offset

included, is that accurate? mr. cantor: yeah, that is accurate. mr. hoyer: and it's further my understanding that that offset which is unusual in that as the gentleman knows during the bush administration, as happens we have natural disasters and emergencies, hurricanes, floods, even earthquakes that require local governments and local agencies and individuals to respond and we have responded to them with assistance. . atimes we had done that on the bush administration, we did not offset. we did not offset that it was an emergency, and we would pay for it but pay for it in subsequent years. it's my understanding that the offset that is being considered is $1.5 billion from the advance

vehicle technology fund. the problem with that as i see it, we are talking about creating jobs. and the president's presented a jobs bill, i'll talk about that in just a minute, but that the fund that is in question to date has created 39,000 jobs, and the loan am case are projected to create 50,000 or 60,000 additional jobs. therefore if we use this as an offset, which would set a precedent although i understand precedents not being followed for 2012, what we are doing in my view, mr. leader, is undermining a specific item in the current scheme of things that is in fact creating jobs. as i said, 39,000 jobs with the

loan applications that are in progress now expected to create additional 50,000 to 60,000 jobs that we undermine that effort. frankly, on our side we would hope that we could return to what is precedent and that is in an emergency respond with emergency funding as we did throughout the bush administration. not with the concept we wouldn't pay for it. you and i both agree that paying for this is critically important, and that in fact i think you and i are both of the opinion that hopefully the committee of 12 set up to look at how we get our finances back in line with our revenues and expenditures, that that needs to be done. but certainly this is a new precedent and unfortunately it appears that you have targeted -- i don't mean you personally, but the c.r. would target a

particular item that is exactly what we want to do and that is creating jobs. would the gentleman like to comment on that? mr. cantor: sure, i do. i know that, mr. speaker, i know the gentleman is committed to paying for what we spend. and he if anyone would put as a priority that we ought to act accordingly. and i find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman is defending what occurred during the bush administration as i will posit what occurred during the clinton administration, because president clinton under his administration actually signed four separate supplementals that were offset, including flooding and the oklahoma city bombing. so it is -- the gentleman is correct, there's precedent on either side. i think he would agree with me, mr. speaker, that now is the time for us to begin to really put forth a concerted effort to act responsibly. not just say we are going to act

responsibly in attempt to offlay the obligation to the joint select committee. we have an opportunity to do so now. and the gentleman refers to the offset that some on his side have raised as an objection. i would say to the gentleman, the facts are there's currently $4 billion in unobligated budget authority remaining under the advance technology vehicles manufacturing loan program, and this so-called pay-for just rescinds $1.5 billion of that total and the program will have remaining in it $2.5 billion. and i think it's worthy of note, mr. speaker, that this money has been laying around since september 30, 2008. that is three years. so i don't think, mr. speaker, that anyone is intending to do anything damaging to potential job creation here. what we are trying to do is

finally face facts. we in this body, in this town, must stop the federal government from continuing to spend money it doesn't have. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. of course when money the government doesn't have, as you know, revenues are at the lowest point they have been in some six decades in america. on one hand because we are not collecting revenue, on the other hand because people don't have money in their pockets to pay revenues. they are not working. therefore they are not paying taxes. and therefore revenues are down for those two reasons. i would say to my friend it's my understanding that the account that you have targeted has some $3.9 billion in pending requests which are the items that would lead to 50,000 to 60,000 new

jobs. at a time when we are not creating sufficient jobs for our people, let's assume for the sake of argument you want to offset this money. you and i both agree it ought to be paid for. the question is when do you pay for it. do we pay for it right now? the fact of the matter is if you target this particular fund, you are targeting a fund which, as demonstrably, grown jobs in america. some 39,000 jobs have been created as a result of loans out of this fund. there are $3.9 billion, you indicate there's still money in the account, you are absolutely right on that. but there are pending requests, again, which would result in 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs which would be revenue creation for the federal government. so in fact it appears that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face here. i would urge the gentleman to perhaps revisit this.

the gentleman mentioned the clinton administration. as the gentleman will well recall, the concerns were not as high then because during the clinton administration, of course, we were creating over three million jobs per year on average. and so that the private sector was humming along very well, createsed 22 million jobs during the clinton administration, and unfortunately that was not the case in the last administration, nor has it yet been the case in this administration, although there were two million jobs as the gentleman knows created in the last 20 months. however the last two months have been stagnant. that's not good for anybody. it's not good for republicans, democrats, but more importantly it's not good for the country. and therefore i would urge us to make sure that we do not target a fund which has already

demonstrably created jobs. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: let me, mr. speaker -- thank you you. mr. speaker, if i could respond to the gentleman. first of all the gentleman knows good and well the situation with the federal debt was entire-l different back under the clinton administration time. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. i do know that very, very well. we had surpluses not deficits. i yield back. mr. cantor: there was also a republican congress that was at work trying to help job creation then at that time as well. so if one wants to claim, we both can claim credit, but as the gentleman knows, i prefer to look forward to see if we can work together. with that in mind, the gentleman of anyone in this body has been committed to try to take a fiscally responsible approach, and that's what we are trying to do here. i would say to the gentleman, instead of just trying to claim numbers, as if there is some panacea going on here, and as if

the move to offset using funds obligated for this program would somehow create job creation, if you look at the numbers, this year, all that has been allocated from the available $4 billion, is 780 million. that's all been allocated and approved during this program. remember, the money's been laying around since september 30 of 2008. that's three years. in addition, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, the gentleman claims the 33,000 jobs that were actually created by this program. but many would say that these jobs already existed at existing ford motor company plants. the administration, i know, has claimed that these jobs have been saved when there is no indication that in reality that that is the case. so, again, instead of trying to make all these claims and try

and continue to make promises that frankly can't be substaniated, what we are trying to do is do what every family's got to do around its table. around every small businessperson's got to do at the end of each pay period, figure out how they are going to make it through the end of the month. and just as if a family was facing a situation where they had saved $25,000, $30,000 and they wanted to use that money to buy a new car, and god forbid somebody got very sick that needed that money in their family, most families are going to take that money and decide not to use the new car and instead -- buy the new car and instead help the family member who needs it. that's what we are trying to do here, mr. speaker. we are not trying to suggest that perhaps there isn't some laudable intent under this program. what we have identified is, moneys unspent that have been

obligated, moneys that apparently do not go out as quickly as the gentleman may suggest to, as he says, and claims, creates jobs, and take that money and prioritize it by saying it belongs to help the people in a disaster so they can get the relief they need. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response. we could go back and forth on how many jobs were in fact created. my belief is that there were somebody sanction -- substantial number of jobs created by this fund and the prospect of those 50,000 or 60,000 jobs is real not ephemeral. not just debating point. but i would say to my friend that, my friend has been recently quoted, i'm sure, accurately, perhaps, correct me if i'm wrong, in saying that during the first eight months we focused on cuts. and of our cut and grow, and now

we need to focus on grow. i would tell my friend, assuming that quote is accurate, that in fact here we are again focused on cut not on grow. clearly whatever the specific number is, i think that it's frankly not refutable that the investment in advanced manufacturing technology vehicles is, in fact, going to make us more competitive globally. going to enhance the ability to make it in america. not only succeed in america but to make it, in this case, advanced vehicles which are competitive in the international markets, this is a specific era where we have tried to invest in making sure that we make it, in this case advanced technology

vehicles, and i don't believe that the public, and i don't think it's good policy for us to be focused on cutting back on those areas which have the promise of growth and jobs. that is what i tell my friend. obviously the gentleman is correct, but i want to tell the gentleman also that if you keep cutting revenues, as we did in 2001 and 2003, and then you keep escalating spending, as we did over the last 10 years, inevitably you are going to get to a point where that family is not going to have any revenues to pay its bills, as the gentleman points out. but it's inevitable when you continue to cut revenues and if you don't cut spending, you're going to be in trouble. that didn't happen in the last decade. didn't happen in the last administration.

in fact, as you know, exactly the opposite happened. we escalated spending more than we did under the clinton administration, and therefore we find ourselves in a hole. the economy went into the tank, and it's struggling. and i agree with you. it doesn't matter why it's struggling or who's to blame, it's struggling. and as a result what the president has done is come before us and said, look, here's a jobs bill. we need to build jobs. the overwhelming majority, i'm not going to go through all the polling data, i'm sure my friend has seen it, a recent cnn poll which shows the public by big numbers wants us to focus on creating, building, expanding jobs. and very frankly the public believes that you need to invest to do that, by pretty good numbers. i'm for disciplining spending. i will vote to discipline spending, but i don't think that targeting job creation projects is the way to discipline it when

americans all over this country are really hurting because there are not jobs available for them. i want to thank the gentleman for what i think are very measured and positive responses to the president's suggestion on how we create jobs in this country. i would ask the gentleman what plans the gentleman has and his party has to move forward on the legislation that the president has asked to create jobs, to invest in growing our economy, and to help those small businesses expand and create jobs and to help those who do not have any job and who are worried about how to put food on their family's table, as well as investing in infrastructure and keeping teachers on the job. we think this legislation is critically important. we think the american people and most recently cnn poll have

responded very positively. they think this is a productive way to go forward. can the gentleman tell me whether or not there are plans to have the committees move forward or for us to move forward on this legislation? i yield to my friend. . mr. cantor: the gentleman may have seen the remarks i made about the president's jobs plan. what i said is there's a lot of area i think that we can actually work together on. i do reject the president's demand for an all or nothing approach. that perhaps his way is the only way. because there are items in the president's plan that we take strong disagreement with. so i do think the american people do want us to try and drive towards results here, and i do think there are some areas we can work on together. we support the extension bonus depreciation.

we support removing the pending application of the withholding on government contractors. we support facilitating and increasing small business access to capital. we support incentives to hire veterans. we support reforming the unemployment insurance system in this country, free trade agreements. we would -- we would love to entertain serious discussions on how you reform the system so that we can get beater return and improve infrastructure spending in this country. there are many areas. small business tax relief the president discussed, we have our own ideas. as the gentleman knows, the house is proceeding on our agenda for job creation. it's rolling back regulations that are impeding job growth. the one that was just passed prior to the session -- members leaving the chamber today. we will have one every week that we believe after having consulted with small businesses

around this country are getting in the way of their jumping back in the game of job creation. so we all have ideas. it's not just the president's plan that will come up in this house. we are going to work together to find areas of agreement. and so i look forward to working with the gentleman to achieving that end so that, yes, the middle class in this country can get back to work as we see small businesses beginning to rev up again toward economic recovery. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i think the gentleman has just gone through a list of places where we can perhaps find common ground. what we need, of course, is a vehicle. hopefully on this floor in the very near future in which to find common ground and also to offer alternatives that each of our parties or individuals in

this house think will fact grow the economy and create jobs. i think that will be very useful. the president indicated in his speech a sense of urgency that the american people feel. they gave us that message very loud and clear. i think all of us share that message. i think that -- think about somebody being unemployed for three months or six months or 18 months or two years. not -- want to and have the ability to work and kind find a job is a crisis. it's in fact a depression in that person's life not only psychologically but actually so i would urge the gentleman to bring something to the floor as soon as possible that incorporates that on which we can agree and gives us an opportunity to offer solutions that perhaps the house will agree on. and if not we won't agree. i've also welcomed the

gentleman's rejection of the philosophy of my way or the highway. we welcome that recognition. in fact we need to reach compromise if we're going to move this country forward. if i might in closing let me perhaps ask you about the schedule longer term than next week. the members -- obviously we have a special committee. i think the gentleman and i are both committed to. i know i am committed to the success of that committee. i think it's absolutely critical to give our business community confidence, to give our people confidence and to give the international community confidence that this government can in fact work, can address serious problems. in this case the debt and deficit. but also confront the problem of growing our economy as both bowles-simpson commission and the rivlin-domenici commission said we ought to address both. that's what the jobs bill is

about and that's what the special committee is about. but does the gentleman have any thoughts in terms of the probability that the schedule that you have issued that indicates we'll get out on december 8, as we know the committee has to be voted on december 23. that doesn't mean we have to wait until the 23rd assuming the committee comes out with a positive report. can you elaborate somewhat the schedule will be and the certainty with which members can plan based upon the schedule that's been issued given what faces us and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows we've been really trying to stick to the schedule and afford members some certainty so they can schedule their business and their time with their constituents in their districts, and the hope is at this point for us to absolutely stick to the schedule. we at this point have no changes in the recess times,

and as for whether we are going to go longer than december 8, obviously the work of the joint select committee bears greatly on that. as you know, as the speaker, as the gentleman knows, the joint select committee is compecksed to report by december 23. all goes well, we should be able to live up to the schedule as printed. again, it will all depend on the work of the joint select committee. >> john boehner called on washington to liberate the economy from regulations, current tax policies, and deficit spending. he outlined the house republicans oppose the job plan. that is next. then, international monetary fund managing director christine lagarde talks about the global economy. later, the head of the securities and exchange commission, mary