Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1538, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, just to save my good friend from Wisconsin the time, I represent a State where 7.5 million people will not see the repeal to their marriage penalty relief, a State where 7.5 million people will not see capital gains rates go back up under this budget, where 7.5 million people will not lose their child care tax credit, et cetera. Here is what these budgets say about taxes. In 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, the present law remains in effect. There is no tax cut that was enacted that is modified, limited or repealed. On December 31 of 2010, whomever is in control of this Congress will have a choice to make, and that choice will be which, if any or all, of the tax cuts should be extended beyond their expiration date. Here is the difference between our budget and the President's Republican approach. We say that we should think first, analyze first, and then make the right choice. We say that when we get to December 31 of 2010, let's look at what surplus may exist. If Mr. Spratt's budget is adopted, the budget will be in surplus of $154 billion by fiscal year 2012. We say, let's look at the revenues that come in. Our budget, of course, is based upon the CBO's more pragmatic and conservative revenue estimates. The President's budget, Mr. Chairman, is based upon more optimistic revenue assumptions. We hope that he is right. We hope that the optimistic revenue assumptions are correct, and there will be an even greater surplus at that point in time. Our budget contains significant investments in closing the tax gap, in going after the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars that are owed under present law but not collected. And we say, let's see how we do in collecting some of those funds. Let's look at the Nation's priorities, and then let's make an intelligent choice about what to do. The President and the Republican Party have fallen back into the same old rut of saying, when we get to December 31 of 2010, let's do what we have done throughout our period of primacy and majority. Let's borrow more money. That is how we got into the mess that we inherited when we took this majority in January. We believe that this budget should not borrow money from the Social Security trust fund and from foreign governments like the People's Republic of China to meet our obligations. We believe we should pay as we go, whether it is adding a dollar for the Children's Health Insurance Program, or reducing a dollar in taxes paid by the people of the country. We believe that the right choice and the first choice and the dominant choice is to stop running this country on borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund, from the Chinese and from others. So when my friend from Wisconsin read from our resolution, I thank and commend him, because that is exactly what we stand for. When we get to December 31 of 2010 and the question about which tax cuts to renew should be taken up by this Congress, if we are the majority at that time, we will make a wise choice based upon what the surplus is, what the economy looks like and what our options are. But we will not borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund and from other creditors around the world. We have tried that under them for the last 6 years. It is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for a cataclysm in the next decade when Social Security and Medicare come due in a very, very large way. So our principle is not to increase this deficit and to build a surplus, and we stand by it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on matters affecting my family from voting on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 190--Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1401, Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Rollcall No. 191--H. Res. 269--Rule providing for consideration H.R. 835--Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007. Rollcall No. 192--H.Res. 270--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1401, Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Rollcall No. 193--H. Res. 299--Supporting the goals and ideals of Professional Social Work Month and the World Social Work Day. Rollcall No. 194--On agreeing to the Thompson (MS) amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 195--On agreeing to the Cohen amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 198--On agreeing to the Thompson (MS) amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 199--On agreeing to the Cohen amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 201--On passage--H.R. 1401. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 196--On agreeing to the Sessions amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 197--On agreeing to the Flake amendment to H.R. 1401. Rollcall No. 200--On motion to recommit with instructions--H.R. 1401.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you; and I thank the chairman for yielding. Chairman Skelton and Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Hunter, Ranking Member McHugh have shown great leadership on this bill; and I thank them for their efforts and salute them for their work. They led because they listened. First of all, as my friend Mr. McHugh just said, it is important to note that the drafters of this bill listened to the good work that was being done by the many, many men and women in the military health care system, in the veterans health care system. The system has been beleaguered lately with terrible news reports of intolerable treatment of the wounded warriors of this country. We deplore those reports. We deplore the facts that gave rise to those reports. But we do want to commend the vast majority of people who work in each of these systems for the great work that they do and acknowledge the contribution they make to our country. The leaders of this bill listened, and I think they have come up with a great work product that will help. They have listened to the family of the warrior who has sat for too long on a bed unattended, who has languished for too long in a bureaucracy, forgotten about, whose care and whose future situation has not been given the attention it deserves. And by requiring a medical case manager and an advocate for each one of those persons, I think we will find that fewer people will be forgotten about and more people will get top-quality care. This bill shows that its drafters have listened to those who have experienced the gaps in care and the frustration where there has not been a continuity of care when they were in the military health care system and then moved over to the VA health care system; that the care they are receiving, the diagnosis, the treatment is not consistent of someone who has had a good quality of care for a period of time, finds that interrupted and finds that to be inappropriate. This bill will establish means by which we can merge the best qualities of both systems and address the needs of that wounded warrior. Finally, this bill deals with the outrageous inconsistency that so many people have experienced in the disability system, where the same injury under the same circumstances is treated one way in one system and another way in the other and where it takes months or even years to find out what your final resolution is going to be. So this is a bill that shows that we can listen to those concerns and address them. As Mr. McHugh says, the bill is not perfect, but the bill is sound, because it listens to the very real concerns of the wounded warriors. It addresses them in a way that puts aside politics. I am proud to support this bill, and I thank the authors for this opportunity.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend. With the authority of the chairman of the full committee, I would like to indicate the committee enthusiastically supports this well-thought-out amendment and thanks the gentlelady for offering it.

Mr. ANDREWS. Very briefly on behalf of the committee, we thank the gentlelady for offering this well-thought-out amendment and, on behalf of the chairman, indicate our strong support for the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may claim the time in opposition, although I do not, in fact, oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the committee, we thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this well- thought-out amendment. We support his efforts to try to reduce waiting time for our deserving veterans, and the majority will support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to fight for middle class Americans by introducing the ``Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction and Tradesworkers (RESPECT) Act.'' Day after day, middle class families are struggling to survive as their real incomes decline and the costs of basic necessities increase. A major contributor to this middle class squeeze is the decline in workers' freedom to organize and collectively bargain. Organized workers earn more, have greater access to healthcare benefits, and are more likely to have guaranteed pensions than unorganized workers. When workers get their fair share, the economy benefits and the middle class grows stronger. Yet the freedom to organize and collectively bargain has been under severe assault in recent decades, thanks to weak federal labor laws in dire need of reform. It has also been rolled back by a number of misguided decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the last few years. These decisions have operated to strip millions of workers entirely of their freedom to organize. The RESPECT Act serves to restore that freedom by addressing a series of decisions which stray dramatically from and undermine the original intent of the National Labor Relations Board and which fly in the face of common sense. This bill provides clarity in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on one aspect of the fundamental question of coverage: who is an employee and who is a supervisor. Last year, the NLRB issued a trio of decisions, collectively often referred to as the ``Kentucky River'' decisions, which eviscerated the meanings of ``employee'' and ``supervisor'' under the NLRA. The NLRA protects employees' freedom to organize and collectively bargain. Supervisors are not considered employees and are therefore not covered by the Act's protections. If an individual is determined to be a supervisor, she has no right to organize, no right to engage in concerted activity with her fellow employees, and no right to collectively bargain. Every fundamental right protected by the Act may turn on this question of whether she is a supervisor or an employee. The Kentucky River decisions dramatically expanded the definition of supervisor far beyond the limits that the framers of the Act intended and far beyond the limits of common sense. In so doing, it stripped an estimated 8 million workers--particularly skilled and professional employees--of the freedom to organize. In the workplace, people know who the supervisor is. A supervisor has the power to discipline, reward, promote, hire, and/or fire employees. The legislative history of the NLRA reflects these common sense understandings of who is or is not a supervisor. Congress drafted the NLRA to exclude from its protections only genuine supervisors with true management prerogatives, not minor supervisory employees, professionals, or skilled workers. Yet the NLRB ignored common sense and legislative history in the Kentucky River decisions. For professional and skilled employees, who often provide direction to other employees, the NLRB's action is devastating. A nurse who directs another person to conduct a single, discrete task, such as clipping a patient's toenails, would be considered to have supervisory authority under these recent decisions. So would a nurse who assigns a patient to a nurse for a single shift. A carpenter who tells an apprentice how to form a joint would also be considered to have supervisory authority. These skilled and professional workers have no power to promote, discipline, reward, hire, or fire--and yet they would be supervisors, according to the NLRB, even if they only held the authority to ``direct'' a person on single, discrete tasks just 10 percent of the time. Having been classified as a supervisor without realizing it, these employees may be subject to lawful discipline for trying to organize a union when they thought they were employees with every right to organize. Because of these decisions, over 8 million American workers are denied their fundamental freedom of association today. As the dissent pointed out in one of the decisions, 34 million Americans may fall into this category of workers stripped of their statutory rights by 2012. The impact of the Kentucky River decisions is already being felt, particularly in the health care industry, where respect for workers' rights is critical to efficient health care delivery and high quality patient care. In a case in Utah, an NLRB Regional Director, applying the NLRB's new definition of ``supervisor,'' found that virtually all of the registered nurses in a potential bargaining unit, 64 out of 88, were designated as supervisors, with the remaining 24 nurses excluded only because they had less than one year's service. Those remaining nurses will likely qualify as supervisors after they have completed their first year of nursing. Absurd decisions breed absurd results. As the New York Times explained in an October 7, 2006 editorial: ``[R]esponsibilities like making out a schedule do not amount to management. If they did, interns would be the only non-managers in many of today's workplaces.'' The Kentucky River decisions are not an anomaly for the current Board. In the last five years, the Board has repeatedly ruled to deny or restrict the fundamental rights of entire categories of workers. These include 45,000 disabled workers who lost their right to organize; 51,000 teaching and research assistants who lost their right to organize; and 2 million temporary workers who have had their right to organize severely curtailed. The RESPECT Act will make two simple and clarifying changes to the definition of supervisor under the NLRA. It will: (1) eliminate the terms ``assign'' and ``responsibility to direct'' from the list of supervisory duties; and (2) require that employees possess supervisory duties during a majority of their work time in order to be excluded from coverage under the Act as a supervisor. Eliminating ``assign'' and ``responsibility to direct'' from the supervisor definition will effectuate Congress' intent to define supervisors as only those individuals who have genuine management prerogatives and the real authority to affect employees' terms of employment. As the NLRB has proven, these terms are open to abuse and misinterpretation, far afield from their common-sense and originally intended meanings, by those seeking to roll back workers' freedoms. Requiring that employees possess supervisory duties for a majority of their work time will create a fair, bright-line rule when determining whether an individual is a supervisor. Someone who possesses a modicum of supervisory authority a minority of the time should not be denied their fundamental rights. Madam Speaker, the NLRA guarantees the freedom to organize and collectively bargain for America's private sector workforce. That freedom is a fundamental human right and a proven key to a strong middle class. It is unconscionable that the rights of an estimated 8 million Americans--and many more in coming years--be put at risk by such deeply flawed decisionmaking as we have seen in the Kentucky River line of cases. The RESPECT Act does nothing more than clarify the law to ensure it is not misinterpreted or undermined on a fundamental question of coverage. All workers, including skilled and professional workers, have the right to organize. The RESPECT Act does not allow true supervisors to engage in organizing or collective bargaining. But it ensures that those individuals who are excluded from the NLRA's protections due to their supervisory status do indeed carry the genuine prerogatives of management. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me as we fight to return these fundamental protections to millions workers who deserve the chance to win livable wages, fair benefits, decent working conditions, and a brighter future for their families.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment. It is time to give the best fighting men and women in the world the policy that they deserve instead of the failed policy we have thrust them in the middle of. After years of a blank check, the House of Representatives is finally representing the American people. They have told us to fund these troops, and we do in this bill. But they told us to make the Iraqis stand up and negotiate an end to their civil war, and this bill has in it the benchmarks and the leverage necessary to do that. We have sent the best men and women in the world to execute the worst policy in the world, and finally this House of Representatives is representing the will of the American people. They say fund the troops, and we do. They say change the policy, and we do. And they say let the Iraqis take responsibility for ending their own civil war, and we do. This is a policy as good as the men and women who are doing the fighting.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. and Mrs. Bill and Muriel Elliot for their hard work in creating the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign, which promotes the use of designated drivers. The HERO Campaign, named after their late son, Navy Ensign John Elliot of Egg Harbor Township, NJ, began in 2000 when he was killed by a drunk driver. I also rise to honor Mr. Drew Katz of the Interstate Outdoor Advertising Company of Cherry Hill, NJ. Mr. Katz graciously offered assistance to the Elliott family by providing billboard space to promote the HERO campaign. Partnered together, the Elliott family and Mr. Katz are helping to make the roads a safer place for all New Jerseyans. The Elliot family's commitment to their son and to this cause is truly inspirational. I also thank Mr. Katz for his generosity and commitment to his community. The Elliott family and Mr. Katz's commitment to the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign has served New Jersey well, and I hope that they continue their vital efforts. I thank the Elliot family and Mr. Katz and wish them success with the HERO Campaign in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this Nation has lost one of the great chroniclers of the American experience. I rise today to honor the memory of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and a member of the Kennedy administration. He was 89 years old. Mr. Schlesinger was among the most prominent historians of our time and a widely respected observer of contemporary politics. As an author, he received a National Book Award for ``Robert Kennedy and His Times'' and a National Book Award and a Pulitzer for ``A Thousand Days,'' his memoir/chronicle of President Kennedy's administration. He also won a Pulitzer, in 1946, for ``The Age of Jackson,'' a chronicle of Andrew Jackson's administration. He was also widely described as the ``court philosopher'' of the Kennedy Administration. Madam Speaker, I celebrate the life of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and he will be surely missed. He contributed a great deal toward our understanding of our Nation's past. His legacy of service to his country and his fellow man will surely be remembered for years to come.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds. My friend from Indiana, I would ask if I have in any way misstated the amendment, that what I say about the amendment, is it accurate or inaccurate? Madam Chairwoman, I yield to my friend from Indiana if he cares to answer. Is my characterization accurate?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a strong voice for American workers, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank her for her great work in shepherding this bill along. I deeply respect the ranking member of the full committee, and I know his intentions are very sincere, but I think the Members of the House deserve a record that is accurate. Let me review the five points that he made and set forth what the bill actually says. The gentleman says that the bill does away with secret ballots. That is not the case. If those choosing to organize a union wish to have a secret ballot, they can follow the same procedure that is in the law now: get 30 percent-plus to sign a petition for a secret ballot, and have one. The gentleman says that the bill legalizes coercion by unions. That is not the case. Coercion by a union against a worker is and still will be an unfair labor practice. The bill says if a signature is acquired by coercion and is involuntary, it is not presumably going to be a valid signature and therefore does not count. The gentleman says that the bill takes away the right of privacy from workers. Not so. The same process essentially by which people sign petitions under the present law, they would sign cards under the new bill. Perhaps the gentleman should be more concerned about the loss of privacy of workers during campaigns by employers to coerce and intimidate people to vote against the union. The gentleman says the bill takes away the right to vote on contracts. Absolutely not so. What the bill says is if there is not an agreement for a contract between management and labor, after negotiation, after mediation, then and only then there would be arbitration. It does not take away the right to vote on contracts. Finally, the gentleman says that penalties are somehow out of balance, but I think the gentleman respectfully misunderstands. If in a union-organizing drive the unions are found to have coerced people into signing cards, the cards are invalid and it is the death penalty for the union because they lose the organizing drive. That is the most significant penalty there can be. We are all entitled to our own opinion; we are not entitled to our own facts.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman. Section 6 of the bill makes it clear that if a card is invalid, it will not be counted, and an employee who asks for his or her card back clearly would be an invalid card. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a gentleman who has run a successful small business.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the subcommittee who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of years.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman's point about small business. The minority was given and has taken advantage of a full substitute here. If the minority had chosen to include the provision in the substitute, it was in their prerogative. They failed to do so. I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a strong voice for working people in this country.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, enforce the law. The erstwhile majority wants organized labor to do what its own administration has failed miserably to do. In the last 6 years before this administration took office, there were an average of 587 convictions of employers for hiring illegal workers. Since then, this administration has averaged 73 convictions for a year for hiring illegal workers. In 2004, this administration got zero convictions for hiring illegal workers. Do not force organized labor to do what this administration has failed so miserably to do. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, in closing, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, the author of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, we have no other speakers on our side. We reserve the right to close. And if my colleagues would like to do so, we would yield to them. We will reserve our time.