Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 616 provides for consideration of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, introduces great private market competition, and provides additional reforms to benefit policyholders and taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has said that the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is not fiscally sustainable in its current form. The 21st Century Flood Reform Act helps transition it to a more sustainable program. Importantly, the bill will help foster a robust product market for flood insurance, which allows private insurers to compete, in turn, driving down the price of policies while creating greater consumer choice. This is a win for policyholders and taxpayers alike. Representing Alabama's Gulf Coast, it is important to me and my constituents that they have access to affordable flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private insurer. I appreciate the inclusion of provisions in the 21st Century Flood Reform Act to protect current policyholders while making the program sustainable. I also appreciate Chairman Hensarling's willingness to work with Members whose constituents, such as mine, rely very heavily upon the NFIP to address concerns we raised about the initial version of the bill that passed out of committee. All in all, this bill is a positive step toward reauthorizing our Nation's flood insurance program, which is currently set to expire on December 8. We must take action to ensure coastal homeowners and others in flood-prone areas have access to affordable insurance. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to get a long-term reauthorization across the finish line and signed into law by President Trump. House Resolution 616 also allows for consideration of the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was conferenced between the House and the Senate, reconciling the differences between two different versions. Mr. Speaker, before I go into the substance of the bill, I would like to take a minute to commend the open and regular order process that has taken place from start to finish. As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee, I have followed this bill throughout the legislative process and think we should all be proud of the regular order and the fact that a wide range of members played a role in crafting the final product. I applaud Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the entire Armed Services Committee staff for their dedication to an open process. I also appreciate the countless hours they have poured into this conference report. Just as a quick reminder, we considered 275 amendments during the House Armed Services Committee back in June, and another 210 amendments when the NDAA was considered by the full House in July. In total, 485 amendments have been considered in the House, and, just as important, there was a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and minority amendments. The conference committee continued this bipartisan and collaborative process under the leadership of four chairmen and ranking members. Once again, this year's NDAA is truly a bipartisan and bicameral bill that provides the best for our military and national security. Mr. Speaker, this NDAA follows through on our promise to our servicemen and -women and our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense of the United States of America. The FY18 NDAA conference report authorizes a 10 percent increase in total military spending, reminiscent of the Reagan era defense buildup. The bill authorizes $626 billion for base budget requirements, $66 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $8 billion for other defense activities. That adds up for a total national defense top line of $700 billion. I am incredibly proud to support a top-line number high enough to begin reversing the readiness crisis that has endangered the lives of our servicemembers and made it harder to defend our country. Over the past 8 years, and under sequestration, our military has suffered. We have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and soldiers who can't deploy, all while the number of threats around the world keep rising. I want to acknowledge that this top-line number is significantly higher than the Budget Control Act cap for defense. I look forward to continued dialogue with the Appropriations Committee to raise this cap that has crippled necessary defense spending in recent years. Every day we operate under a continuing resolution or the BCA caps is another day we are failing our men and women in uniform. The FY18 NDAA fulfills the authorization side of the equation, and I am hopeful the appropriations side will follow. The FY18 NDAA increases the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard to repair and restore readiness. The bill also authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships, including three littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship fleet. In a well-deserved benefit for our troops, the NDAA provides for a 2.4 percent pay increase for servicemembers, which is the amount our troops are entitled to under current law. Another small but important provision in this bill eliminates the so- called widow's tax, which requires surviving spouses of servicemembers killed in action to forfeit the survivor benefit pension annuity. The financial burden of this tax is something our military families should not bear. The bill also continues to advance Chairman Thornberry's priority of reforming and strengthening the military's acquisition process to make it more effective and efficient. Importantly, the legislation takes into account the Trump administration's $6 billion budget amendment to authorize more funding for missile defense threats against North Korea, Navy ship repairs, and more troops in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform all over the world are on a mission to protect and defend the freedoms we hold dear. The way I see it, our mission in Congress is to give these brave men and women the resources they need to succeed. The FY18 NDAA does exactly that and is another step in a multiyear process of restoring our military strength to further protect our national security. Ultimately, this bill is about keeping the American people safe and secure. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and both of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of H.R. 2874.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the gentleman that the Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in order during the first session of the 115th Congress; however, in the 111th Congress, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the first session. So, far be it from the case that Republicans have blocked an inordinate number of amendments. We blocked far less amendments than our Democratic colleagues did when they were in control of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is my fellow colleague on the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an additional 30 seconds

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a very happy Auburn Tigers fan.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I represent a coastal area of Alabama, and flood insurance is extremely important to many of my constituents. It is very important to me to fulfill my job on their behalf to make sure that we have a Flood Insurance Program that is there for many years to come. But we know that it is actuarially insolvent. So we have to make changes in the program. As the gentleman from Oregon said, change is hard and reforms are hard. But the gentleman from Florida and, before him, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the sponsor of the bill, made very good points. The reforms we are making in this bill for the Flood Insurance Program will allow it to be successful for years to come and also protect the taxpayers of America. I think we have a responsibility to do that. The other bill under this rule, the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act, represents a very important inflection point. We are now moving to repair the damage we have done to our military these last several years. This is a 10 percent increase for our military so that we can help them rebuild their readiness and the equipment they need to defend us with this ever-increasing matrix of threats, not the least of which is North Korea. We put even more money in this authorization to defend against a missile attack from North Korea. We are at the beginning of something historic here with this bill, and that is rebuilding the United States military, much like it was done 30-plus years ago when President Reagan was in office. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and the underlying bills.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the lead agency for these projects. I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that allows for not only American energy independence, but for American energy dominance. Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the hydropower industry in this region and around the United States. In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is here. Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative oversight regime. So how does this benefit the average American? Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today. Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans put away and keep more of their hard-earned money. Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise under this legislation as we unlock our full potential. Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that. First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy. Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment and promote better public health. Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their protections will remain in place. This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority and one bipartisan amendment. The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity to America's workers. Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle seems particularly important in the context of this legislation. For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the standard that everyone knew and appreciated. Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer policy. Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or ``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards, you can actually be reserved power. Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to understand and follow that. This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories and concerns. Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint- employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.'' This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida; and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers. Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than good.'' I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available. I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades. The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come. This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees, and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone of our local communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and how we have handled legislation. Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their thoughts and concerns. Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864 amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120 bipartisan amendments. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more interested in derailing legislation than actually improving legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome. These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business. Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score political points. The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members. We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House. This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me who has an open House and who had a closed House. There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises we made. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today. Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor today. Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S. Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more. The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we have today are bipartisan bills. Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this. Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle as we have worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American people. I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill, have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us to pass this bill. I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their districts that say: Please pass this bill. This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small, Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work there. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who has already made a distinguished mark here.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their employees across America, that is who is going to be happy. And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing legislation that works for them, not for us. So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly, we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time to the other side so that they could present their side. In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we make some amendments in order and some not. Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing. Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I don't think the American people like that. I think the American people want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work. This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games. The bills that are under this rule are very important bills. I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is to have alternative sources of energy. Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one of the bills addresses that. The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill. So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and pass them. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and contributions of Judge Robert Lee Byrd, Jr. Judge Byrd was born in Birmingham in 1932. He received his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University in 1954, before attending the University of Alabama School of Law. He was in private practice in Mobile for over 20 years and was later appointed circuit judge in Mobile County. Judge Byrd was a dedicated member of the Mobile community. During my time as an attorney in Mobile, I had the privilege of practicing in his court where he conducted himself with immense dignity and professionalism. Judge Byrd recently passed away, but his impact will live on. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share my deepest sympathies with his wife, Mary, and his three daughters. Judge Byrd will never be forgotten.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and for her continued leadership of our committee. Mr. Speaker, today is a big day. Today is an opportunity for this House to stand up for our Nation's workers and to protect the small local businesses, which form the backbone of the American economy. Today is about restoring decades-old labor law. Ultimately, today is about giving clarity to workers and job creators all across our country. I have heard from our friends across the aisle that somehow someone can be an employee without there being an employer. I call that the immaculately conceived employee. There is no such thing under the law, nor has there ever been. This bill does not change the definition of employer. It simply takes the definition of joint employer back to the way it was a few years ago. It is a shame that we are even having to have this bill. But the activist National Labor Relations Board in 2015 issued a decision that fundamentally upended labor law as we knew it. This change didn't come through the democratically elected Congress, but, instead, from a panel of unelected bureaucrats. The NLRB's decision and the resulting regulatory agenda have caused deep uncertainty among job creators. For workers, they are left to wonder who their boss really is. That is an incredibly confusing situation to be in. Under the new joint employer standard, what does it mean to have ``indirect'' or ``potential'' control over an employee? I have practiced labor and employment law for decades and I do not know what that means, so I can only imagine the confusion Main Street businesses are facing due to this standard. Currently, there are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and more to come. This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. So, despite what some on the other side want to believe, this is not an abstract issue. I have visited numerous local businesses in my district, and they are very worried about this scheme. I have heard from workers who want to remain an employee of a locally owned business with an owner who knows them, instead of becoming just another employee in some large corporation. Clearly, I am not the only one who heard these concerns. This legislation is cosponsored by 123 of my colleagues, including Members from both sides of the aisle. This is a bipartisan issue because it isn't about politics. Instead, it is about saving jobs and supporting locally owned businesses. Let me make something crystal clear: this bill does not remove a single protection for today's workforce. Despite the scare tactics being used by big labor bosses and their trial lawyer friends, the same important protections exist under this legislation, and any irresponsible employer can be held accountable. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to take the side of our locally owned businesses, to take the side of our small business job creators, and to take the side of American workers. Let's end the confusion and let's pass the Save Local Business Act.