Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. My friend who just spoke indicated that this decision, or attempt by the NLRB, would destroy jobs in South Carolina. That's not accurate. On page 8 of the NLRB's complaint, it says the relief requested by the NLRB does not seek to prohibit respondent, Boeing, from making nondiscriminatory decisions where work will be performed, including work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility. At this point I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a strong, progressive voice for working people in the United States.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. The previous speaker's claim that the National Labor Relations Board is dictating where jobs go in America is utterly incorrect. If any company said, We want to move from State A to State B because we think the State tax structure in State B is more favorable to us, they have an absolute right to do so. The issue is whether they can move because they want to discourage and undercut the right of collective bargaining. If they want to destroy collective bargaining, they can. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very persuasive voice for the working families of America, the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the back-and-forth in this debate, there's a lot of different points and I'm sure some confusion that flows from that. But the debate's really pretty simple, and it's about one question: If a group of people working at a business in this country chooses to try to organize a union and bargain collectively for their wages and their working conditions, and the employer is discomforted by that and the employer comes in and says, ``I don't like the fact you're trying to form a union and bargain collectively and assert your rights, so I'm moving to Malaysia. I'm out of here,'' should that be legal or not? We believe emphatically it should be illegal. To say to American workers that they dare to speak up for themselves, they dare to assert their rights, they dare to bargain collectively, therefore their jobs could be moved overseas is wrong. It is illegal today to do that. Now, in the Boeing case, a judge will decide whether or not Boeing did that. If the judge decides that Boeing didn't, the case is over. If the judge decides that Boeing did, then there will be remedies that would lie against Boeing. But this is what this case is really about, this issue is really about, this bill is really about in the lives of daily Americans. How many of our constituents are sick and tired of making a call about their credit card or some other account and realize that the person in the call center at the other end is in Asia and has no idea what they're talking about? If you want more outsourcing, if you think the problem in America is that too many jobs are being created here and we do more for other countries around the world, then this is your bill. But if you've had it with outsourcing, if you want jobs to be created in America, what we ought to do is defeat this bill and rapidly bring to the floor the jobs plan the President of the United States stood in this Chamber last week and proposed. Let's stop creating jobs around the world and start creating jobs around America. Let's stand up for collective bargaining, and let's defeat this bill. Statement of Professors From Colleges and Universities Across the United States on HR 2587 HR 2587, currently being considered by the House of Representatives and endorsed by a majority of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, would amend the National Labor Relations Act to take away from the NLRB the ability to remedy unfair labor practices involving the removal of work or the elimination of jobs by requiring employers to undo their unlawful actions. As scholars of law and labor policy, we are deeply concerned about the far- reaching impact this bill would have on employees' basic rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to engage in other concerted activities protected by the NLRA. The language of the proposed amendment to the Act is sweeping. It provides that the Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or persons who shall be engaged in production or other business operations. This language has been justified by the bill's sponsors and critics of the Board as a response to the NLRB Acting General Counsel's actions in issuing a complaint against Boeing Corporation. As such, it would prevent the Board and the courts from directing Boeing to restore work to its employees in Washington State in the event that the company is found to have illegally moved the work in retaliation for those workers' exercise of legally protected rights. But that unprecedented interference with a pending legal proceeding for the benefit of a particular employer is not all that the bill would do. If enacted, HR 2587 will eliminate the ability of the NLRB and the courts to effectively remedy any discriminatorily motivated decision to transfer work from employees or eliminate their jobs not for legitimate business reasons, but because the employees have engaged in union or other NLRA-protected activity. It will also eliminate any meaningful remedy for an employer's refusal to bargain with a union in circumstances where it is required to do so before transferring or contracting out work performed by workers the union represents. The Board has long held that moving jobs from one facility to another or shutting down a particular operation to avoid unionization or to punish workers for engaging in protected activity violates a basic policy of the Act, that of insulating union activity from economic reprisal.\1\ The same is true of discriminatorily motivated decisions to subcontract or outsource work.\2\ The standard remedy for such a violation, regularly affirmed by the Federal Courts of Appeals, is an order to the employer to return the work that has been unlawfully eliminated or removed.\3\ In the interests of economic efficiency, however, the Board will not require restoration of work if the employer can show that it would be ``unduly burdensome'' to do so.\4\ An order to restore work that has been eliminated or removed is also the standard remedy in cases where the employer's actions were taken in violation of its duty to bargain. In unionized workplaces, employers have a legal obligation to bargain over certain decisions affecting where and by whom bargaining unit work is performed. If the employer acts unilaterally, without first bargaining with the union until the parties reach agreement or are at impasse, the Board routinely orders the employer to rescind the unilateral action and restore the work until the duty to bargain has been satisfied, subject again to the ``unduly burdensome'' standard.\5\ If HR 2587 becomes law, the Board will be precluded from ordering this common-sense relief. Employers will be able to eliminate jobs or transfer employees or work for no purpose other than to punish employees for exercising their rights and the Board will be powerless to direct the employer to return the work regardless of the circumstances. Without the ability to order a unionized employer to bring back work that has been unilaterally transferred or outsourced in violation of the duty to bargain, the Board will also be unable to insure that employees, through their union, are able to engage in meaningful bargaining over such decisions. We are dismayed that a single complaint, not yet tried by an administrative law judge argued to the Board, or ruled on by the courts, should be the basis for so fundamental a reversal of long-standing law. The legal theory on which the Acting General Counsel's complaint against Boeing is based is thoroughly consistent with existing law. Contrary to the claims of critics, the Acting General Counsel is not seeking to dictate where Boeing assigns work, but only to insure that such actions are not taken in retaliation for workers' exercise of rights protected by the NLRA. In fact the complaint itself specifically states that ``the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from making nondiscriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed, including nondiscriminatory decisions with respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.'' But as we have shown, the impact of HR 2587 would go well beyond overruling the Acting General Counsel's actions in the Boeing case. If enacted, it will give tacit permission to employers to punish any segment of their workforce that chooses to unionize or to exercise the right to strike by eliminating their jobs. It will allow unionized employers who find it convenient to ignore their duty to bargain with the union before transferring or eliminating bargaining unit work to act unilaterally without concern for legal consequences. Employers will be able to eliminate lines of work, hire subcontractors, switch jobs to non-union facilities or transfer them out of the country in violation of the NLRA-- secure in the knowledge that the Board will be unable to order it to undo those actions. In the Committee report regarding the bill, the majority states, ``To ensure employees can continue to exercise their rights under federal labor law, the NLRB will continue to have more than a dozen strong remedies against unfair labor practices to protect workers and hold unlawful employers accountable.'' However, the report does not list those remedies and we are at a loss to identify them. The Board's remedial power under existing law is already severely restrained. The Board cannot impose sanctions. It may not seek to punish wrongdoers. It cannot impose fines; it cannot require anything that would amount to a new contract between the parties. If the bill passes, the Board will have no effective response to basic unfair labor practices. The Committee majority seeks to justify the reducing of employee rights and Board authority by claiming that it is merely strengthening the employer's right to make basic business decisions, including where and how to invest its resources. We reject the premise that restoring work to those who would perform it were it not for the employer's unlawful action violates an employer's basic entrepreneurial rights. The policy of restoring victims to the position they would have been in had it not been for unlawful conduct is common throughout our legal system, and it represents no more than a recognition of simple justice. endnotes \1\ See, for example, Frito-Lay, Inc. 232 NLRB 753 (1977) (employer violated the Act by shutting down plant and transferring the work to another facility in response to a union organizing campaign); Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857 (1989) (same). \2\ See, for example, Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730 (1987) (employer's subcontracting of trucking work violated Act because purpose was to avoid bargaining with union). See also Aguayao v. Quadrtech Corp., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (granting the Board's request for an injunction stopping an employer from moving its California operations to Mexico in retaliation for union organizing). \3\ See, for example, Mid-South Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 876 F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming appropriateness of Board order directing bottling company to reopen a distribution facility closed because employees voted for union representation); Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding Board order requiring employer to restore trucking operations transferred to another facility after employees engaged in union organizing campaign); Statler Industries, Inc., 644 F.2d 902 (1st Cir. 1981) (approving Board order directing employer to restore office jobs relocated to another facility in order to frustrate union organizing activity). \4\ Lear Siegler, Inc., supra, 295 NLRB at 861. \5\ The Board's authority to order such a remedy in refusal to bargain cases was expressly affirmed by the supreme Court in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (1964), which upheld a Board order directing an employer that contracted out the work of its maintenance employees without first bargaining with the employees' union to resume maintenance operations and reinstate the employees. The Court said the order restoring the status quo ante ``to insure meaningful bargaining'' was well-designed to promote the policies of the Act and had not been shown to impose an undue burden on the employer. Id. at 216. Institutions and affiliations listed for identification purposes only

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from Virginia just said that this bill restrains companies from growing jobs. Here's what it restrains. It restrains from saying to a worker who dares to stand up and bargain for themselves and fight for themselves, ``You're fired.'' That's what it restrains; and it should restrain that, because that's our law. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the most passionate voices for working Americans in the modern history of this country, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brooklawn's 9/11 Memorial and Monument of the Delaware Valley. This monument is a special tribute to the victims and heroes of September 11th and a symbol of the spirit and courage of the American people. Construction of the monument would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of Brooklawn Police Captain Steven Saymon, who bravely responded on 9/11. Capt. Saymon designed the monument and collected the artifacts for the display. The efforts and contributions of local businesses and volunteers too numerous to mention were also invaluable. Their selflessness allowed the monument to be constructed without a penny changing hands. Completed in just five weeks, the monument features the only local display of artifacts from all three sites: a four ton beam from the World Trade Center; a granite block from the Pentagon wreckage; and soil from the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania. These relics serve as a reminder of the lives lost on that tragic day and the unity shown by American citizens. Mr. Speaker, the citizens behind the 9/11 Memorial and Monument of the Delaware Valley should be recognized for their efforts and dedication in building this tribute to the memory of the tragic events of 9/11. This monument shows the lasting gratitude of the American people to those who gave their lives on that day. I encourage all of my constituents to visit this memorial, and to reflect on that tragic day, 10 years ago.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. In the earliest days of our Republic, our prosperity came from our abundant natural resources. Then in later days, our prosperity came from the fact that we were bordered by two vast oceans to our east and west which gave us an isolated domestic market. In the days after the Second World War, our prosperity was grounded in the fact that we were the sole remaining industrial power untouched by the Second World War, relatively speaking. All of those advantages relatively speaking are gone; and the way we're going to be prosperous today and in the future is by having the best educated, best motivated workforce anywhere in the world. We're not going to have that best educated and best motivated workforce without a high-quality education for every child in America. I see this bill as a step in that direction by enriching and making more accountable the charter school movement in our country. Make no mistake about it: all charter schools are not perfect. Many charter schools, frankly, are very troubled. But the charter school movement has been a positive step forward for our country. This bill adds accountability to that movement and adds new resources that I think are welcome. I would echo the words of Ranking Member Miller and note that 90 percent of children in America's schools are in public schools. And the principal legislative action we have on those public schools is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I know that the chairman of the committee has worked very diligently to prepare the committee for the work we could do on that. And I'm hopeful that we can have the same kind of cooperative effort for the ESEA reauthorization as we have for this charter school bill. There is much more to do, but today is a good first step. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the urgent priority of this country, and it should be of this Congress, is to get Americans back to work. There is not a corner of this country that's not been severely afflicted by the unemployment crisis in this country. Mr. Garamendi proposes that we take a simple idea and put it into this bill, and I think he's absolutely right. Here's the idea. If we spend a significant amount of money, I think it's $300 million, for the purpose of retrofitting and maybe building some schools around the country, let's give a preference to schools that use American-made products and American-made goods over those that do not. I think that's a very commonsense idea. So if a school is going to put in solar panels to become more energy efficient and they can either buy the solar panels from a company here in the United States or one in Asia, let's favor the school that buys the solar panels from the United States to create jobs here. This is a simple and good idea. It should be on the floor so that we could debate it. Now, the dialogue I just heard was it's the Senate fault or it's this one's fault. With all due respect to all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the days of whose fault it is are over. Long since over. And the time has long since passed for us to get to work passing commonsense legislation that puts the American people back to work. Mr. Garamendi has proposed just such a commonsense piece of legislation. I would urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider Mr. Garamendi's amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I agree with him, and I think that we owe it to the country to find common ground on economic growth. The best deficit reduction plan is full employment. And the best full employment plan will be one that we could come together on. I think today is an important first step. It came too late, it was ugly getting here, but I'm glad we got here.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend from California, the chairman, my friend from New York, the chairman emeritus, have it exactly right. The issue is jobs. And that's really what this bill on the floor today is about. One of the reasons, but for sure not the only reason, that our companies aren't hiring and our economy is not growing is uncertainty about interest rates. If you're thinking about adding on a new store or hiring more people to do more R&D and you think the interest rates are going to rise, you don't to it. If you're not sure what they're going to do, you don't do it. And we've been living under a period of uncertainty for two reasons with respect to interest rates. The first is are we going to default on our national obligations? The House today will and should emphatically say no, we will not. And then the second question is will Uncle Sam continue to eat up too much of the entrepreneurial capital in this country to finance ever-growing Federal deficits? The House today will and should, in my view, approve the bill before us that will begin to make a reduction in that deficit. This bill will reduce our projected deficit by anywhere from 25 to 35 percent. And it's important to understand what history tells us about sincere and legitimate deficit reduction. In 1993, President Bill Clinton's plan was supposed to reduce the deficit by 28 percent. It did not. It reduced the deficit entirely. That bill was supposed to generate $500 billion in deficit reduction. In fact, it generated $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. That's the elixir that the American economy needs now. And I do not, my colleagues, believe that this is the only step that we need to accomplish in order to reduce unemployment. But it is an essential step. And for that reason, I am pleased to join with both Republicans and Democrats in voting ``yes'' for this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Puerto Rican community of Camden on the occasion of the Parada San Juan Bautista. The parade celebrates St. John the Baptist, the patron saint of Puerto Rico and the namesake of its capital, San Juan. This year's festivities occurred on Sunday, June 26th and marked the 54th anniversary of the annual parade. In 1957, parishioners from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church decided to organize a parade. Their goal was to promote a positive image of Puerto Rican heritage and to share their culture with the city of Camden. This first parade has since expanded into a month-long celebration. The current organizers' dual objectives are to strengthen ties within the Puerto Rican community and with the larger Camden community. The Parada San Juan Bautista holds special significance to the Puerto Rican community in Camden. It is an opportunity for them to share their culture with friends and enables them to pass on their traditions to younger generations. This year's parade travelled a mile-long route through the city and featured fire fighters from Camden and Philadelphia on their trucks. In addition to the parade, the day included traditional singing, dancing, and foods, all culminating in a concert on the beautiful Camden Waterfront. I thank the Puerto Rican community for all they do to enrich and support South Jersey, and I pay special recognition to this year's Parada San Juan Bautista.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, what brings us together is a need to create jobs for the American people, and I think people would agree there's three things we have to do to create jobs: The first is not fall off a cliff and have a default on our national obligations. This bill accomplishes that. The second thing is to make sure we have an interest rate environment so that our businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, so they have some predictability. By making a 25 to 30 percent down payment on reducing our deficit in a fair and equitable way, this bill does that. Finally, I think most of us agree that we need investments in our education, research and development, infrastructure, other activities to create jobs in our private sector for our people. By making sure that at least in the first 2 years of this agreement that the reductions in those areas are either nonexistent or moderate, I think that we give ourselves the freedom so our appropriators can put valuable investments forward in that way. This is a well-reasoned bipartisan agreement to create jobs for the American people. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this agreement offers the calm, reasonable compromise the country wants. Most Americans don't want to let the debt ceiling expire. This bill solves that problem. Most Americans say, You know what? You probably can cut about 5 percent in most government programs. Not everybody believes that, but that's what this bill does. Most Americans say that there ought to be some other way to look at difficult entitlement programs and other issues. The bill sets up a process to do that. What the bill does is recognize the difference between the two parties and puts that difference aside. The majority party wants to make radical changes in Medicare and Social Security; we do not. We believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share to solve this problem. The majority party does not. The bill leaves that disagreement aside and focuses on the areas of agreement. You know, American troops on patrol are not asking under what conditions they should do their duty this afternoon. They're understanding their duty, and they're doing it--and so should we. Pass this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the inevitable consequence of this bill is that when the United States wants to extend the debt ceiling to pay our bills, we will have to reduce Medicare and Social Security. That is the inevitable consequence of these balanced budget amendments. Therefore, inevitably, this bill will not see the light of day in the United States Senate. What we ought to do is get to our inevitable obligation, which is to come to an agreement that extends our debt ceiling and makes a responsible down payment on our deficit. The President of the United States this morning outlined a way to do that, and that's what we ought to be working on. He talked about commonality between the two Houses and the two parties on cuts in annual programs in the area of 5, 6, 7 percent--painful, but necessary. He talked about a fair process where a body that would act between the House and the Senate would consider all the options with respect to entitlement programs. Protecting Medicare and Social Security benefits, and looking at a contribution from the wealthiest Americans, the former revenue, would be considered and voted on. And certainly that approach would get us out of this period of uncertainty by extending the debt ceiling for the country as was done 17 times without condition for President Reagan, seven times without condition for President George W. Bush. This is an inevitable waste of time, this bill. It's a bad idea. Let's get on to the better idea of approaching this problem and fixing the problem for this country. Vote ``no'' on this underlying bill and this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to ask my friend from California a question, and then I would yield. Is the gentleman saying that the text says that if the commission set up by this bill reports back a cut in Social Security benefits that that may not be enacted by the commission? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the sequestrations. I'm talking about the fact that this commission's instructed to find $1.8 trillion in cuts and Medicare and Social Security are not exempted from those cuts. This is a roadmap, this is a users guide as to how to cut Social Security and Medicare. We reject it. I yield to my friend.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem in this country is not that the American Government is about to breach its debt ceiling; it's that too many American families have already breached their debt ceilings. We have a jobs crisis in this country, and this should be our principal focus. Now, somewhere in America today, some decision-makers are not getting much help with that jobs crisis. A hospital that's thinking about adding a rehab lab and adding a couple hundred jobs wonders how much Medicare revenue it's going to get. This bill says wait 6 months and we'll let you know. An entrepreneur who has a software company who is about to finally get off the ground is thinking about borrowing some money to hire more people, but she doesn't know what the interest rates are going to be. This bill says wait 6 months and we'll let you know. And, yes, there's a diabetic, a person who's worried about whether they should keep their house or not because their health care bills are rising and they're worried that Medicare may not pay as many of their diabetic bills as they have right now. And we're saying to her wait six months; we'll let you know. We can't wait to solve this problem. The Republicans should listen to their own leadership, who spoke out against a short-term fix to this problem: ``We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, have very little certainty in terms of where we are headed.'' I completely agree with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who said that in June. We should listen to Mr. Cantor's advice. We should adopt a long- term plan and put America back to work, get back to the negotiating table today.

Mr. ANDREWS. If that committee wanted to close tax loopholes, would they need a simple majority or a two-thirds vote of the House?

Mr. ANDREWS. So it's your position that a simple majority of both Houses could raise taxes?

Mr. ANDREWS. The gentleman is correct. This is not a commission. It is a committee that is empowered to cut Medicare and Social Security. We will not stand for it.