Trey Gowdy

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who respect the rule of law as the foundation of this Republic, for those of us who proudly worked for the Department of Justice, for those of us who believe the same rules apply to everyone regardless of whether they live simple lives of peace and quiet or whether they live and work in the towers of power, prestige, and authority. The same rules apply to everyone. It is the greatness of this country, Mr. Speaker. It is the greatness, the elegance, the simplicity of a woman who is blindfolded holding nothing but a set of scales and a sword. The chief law enforcement official for this country is on the eve of being held in contempt of Congress because he refuses to follow the law. He refuses to allow Congress to find the truth, the whole truth. For those of you who want a negotiation, a compromise, an extraordinary accommodation, to use the Attorney General's words, for those of you who want to plea bargain, my question to you is simply this: Will you settle for 75 percent of the truth? Is 50 percent of the truth enough for you? Is a third? Or do you want it all? Because if you want all the truth, then you want all the documents. If you've ever sat down, Mr. Speaker, with the parents who have lost a child who has been murdered--and some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been there--it is a humbling, emotional, life-altering experience. All they want is the truth. They want answers. They want justice, and they don't want part of it. They want all of it. And I will not compromise, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to finding the truth. Congress is right to pursue this no matter where it takes us. No matter which administration was in power and no matter what the facts are, we are right to pursue this. And we are wrong if we settle for anything less than all the facts. To my colleagues who are voting ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, let me ask this: Can you tell me, can you tell the American people why the Department of Justice approved this lethal, fatally flawed operation? To those of you who are voting ``no,'' can you tell the American people how the tactic of gunwalking was sanctioned? To those of you who are voting ``no,'' can you tell Brian Terry's family and friends how a demonstrably false letter was written on Department of Justice letterhead on February 4, and where would we be if we accepted that letter at face value? A letter written on Department of Justice letterhead, that is not just another political Cabinet agency. It is emblematic of what we stand for as a country-- truth, justice, the equal application of law to everyone. That letter was written on America's stationery. That is what the Department of Justice is, and it was dead wrong. And where would we be if we took their word for it? Our fellow citizens have a right to know the truth, and we have an obligation to fight for it, Mr. Speaker, the politics be damned. We have a right to fight for it. I wish the Attorney General would give us the documents. I would rather have the documents than have this vote on contempt of Congress. But we cannot force him to do the right thing, and that does not relieve us of the responsibility for us to do the right thing. Even if the heavens may fall, Mr. Speaker, I want the truth. I want all of it. We should never settle for less than all of it, and we have to start today.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Nell Lindsey was a nurse at a local hospital. Her shift had ended, and it was time to go home. She couldn't take her own car because her husband had disabled the car so it wouldn't work. This is the same husband who had broken her jaw on a family vacation, the same husband who had knocked out her teeth in an Applebee's parking lot while her children watched, the same husband who had called their oldest son a sexual-orientation epithet, and put beer in the baby bottle of their youngest child. So Nell Lindsey got a ride home from the hospital from work with a friend of hers. And as they were headed home, they saw an ominous sight, Madam Speaker. They saw the car of her estranged husband. Now, he had been ordered to stay away from her, Madam Speaker, but he didn't care. And there was a conditional bond to stay away from her, but he didn't care. And there was a court order, an order of protection to stay away from her, but he didn't care. And when Nell Lindsey and her friend saw that ominous sight of Marion Lindsey in a car, they did a very smart thing, Madam Speaker. They headed straight for the Inman Police Department. And they're jumping over railroad tracks, and they're running stop signs, and they're running red lights. And Nell gets out her cell phone and she calls 911. And she says, Please help, please help. So they pull into the back parking lot of the Inman Police Department, and she still has the cell phone to her ear, and through the audiotape that we played at trial, Madam Speaker, you could hear Nell Lindsey saying, Please help, please help. And then you heard four gunshots. And when they took her body out of the back seat of that car, she still had the cell phone in her hand. The system failed Nell Lindsey, Madam Speaker. She did everything we tell battered and abused women to do. The courts couldn't save her, the prosecutors couldn't save her. Her husband's on death row, but that doesn't save her. But even in her death, Madam Speaker, she did something good because she spawned changes in South Carolina in the way that we treat violence against women. And with the help of Violence Against Women grants, like the ones that are at jeopardy today, with the help of those grants, and a woman named Lynn Hawkins, who I must concede, Madam Speaker, does not share my political ideology in any way, shape, or form, but she put the political sloganeering and the bumper stickers behind and she said, let's change the system in South Carolina, and we did it. It wasn't in time to save Nell Lindsey, but it was in time to save a graveyard full of other women in our State. So I'm going to ask simply this, Madam Speaker: Can we stop the election-year gimmicks? Can we stop these manufactured wars that pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans? I spent 16 years prosecuting men who raped, stabbed, strangled, shot, and killed women. I have a mother, a wife, a daughter, three sisters, and the images of countless women indelibly imprinted on my mind because they were killed by men who claimed to care about them. This is not about politics to me. If you want to make women safer, then change the way we draw juries, change the discovery rules, improve the rape shield statute. But stop focusing on November's election for just one afternoon and wonder with me what good we can accomplish if we will stop the political games, and if we could pick up some humanity and embrace the fact that, even in a political environment as dysfunctional as this one, we can find common ground when it comes to fighting for those who have no voice, who have nobody to stand up for them. Madam Speaker, the political games have to stop, at least for a day. They have to stop. If this bill fails, it will be because those on the other side were so bent on making a point that they stopped caring about making a difference. Madam Speaker, the Senate bill is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed. Further, to say, Madam Chair, it continues to pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans solely for political reasons. Lady Justice doesn't do that, and politicians shouldn't do it either. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chair, I was not going to talk because I talked yesterday on Fast and Furious, and Representative Chaffetz did a wonderful job. But, Madam Chair, I cannot stand here while demonstrably false insinuations are leveled. I worked for the Department of Justice for 6 years. I worked with ATF for 16 years. I'll put the respect that I have for Federal law enforcement and Federal prosecutor up against anybody in this body. It may well be that the documents we haven't gotten clear all the senior DOJ officials. How will we possibly know that if he continues to withhold documents? So, Madam Chair, let me just ask this. To the average citizen who gets a grand jury subpoena or a subpoena for documents or to compel their presence, what would happen if they ignored it? Madam Chair, what would happen if you got a jury summons and you just decided you weren't going to show up? What would happen to the average citizen if they got a subpoena from a congressional committee and they just decided to ignore it, and their defense was, We gave you some documents? There are 70,000-something documents that the Inspector General has. We have \1/12\ of that. There are entire categories of documents that we do not have. We do not have a single email from the Attorney General of the United States after February 4, 2011. I want you to ask yourself how many emails you have sent and received today. And the number is zero from February 4, 2011, until present? And Congressman Chaffetz is exactly right. There was a demonstrably false letter sent to a Member of Congress. And then the Department of Justice, that I actually value its reputation--we have to have a Department of Justice that people respect. But the Department of Justice took the unprecedented step of having to withdraw a letter sent to a Member of Congress because it was demonstrably false. On February 4, 2011, the Department of Justice, on Department of Justice letterhead, mails a demonstrably false letter denying a tactic called ``gunwalking.'' On the very same day, the criminal chief of the Department of Justice of the United States of America is in Mexico advocating for the tactic of gunwalking. And somehow, we can't ask the Department of Justice to tell us who knew what when? And the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, Madam Chair, said everyone has been punished. Madam Chair, no one has been punished. There hasn't been a demotion. There hasn't been a firing. There hasn't been a sanction. There hasn't been a frowny face on a performance evaluation. There's been nothing. So I'm going to say what I said yesterday, Madam Chair. This is not just another Department in someone's Cabinet. This isn't just some other political appointee. This is the Attorney General for the United States of America. It is the Department of Justice. If they cannot comply with a lawfully-executed subpoena, then there should be sanctions, just like there would be for me or you. So I urge support for Representative Chaffetz's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chairwoman, my mother was a victims advocate in a prosecutor's office when I was growing up. She would come home and lament the fact that defendants could pick any lawyer they wanted to defend them, but the victims of crime were stuck with the district attorney. Her message to me, the lesson she was trying to impress on me, is that crime victims have a right to have a good attorney, too. If you fast forward a couple of years, I went to law school, and I became a district attorney. I tried to hire people to come help me do a good job for crime victims. Madam Chairwoman, I was hiring primarily at that time young female prosecutors--Cindy Crick, Kim Leskanic, Jenny Wells, Susan Porter--many of whom had up to $70,000 in student loan debt, could have and should have gone into private practice and paid their loans back and made a lot of money. But something within them wanted to stand up for rape victims and criminal domestic violence victims and child sex assault victims. So they sacrificed the lure of private practice to come to public service. Madam Chairwoman, it is not without irony that the program that my friend from Massachusetts speaks of is named after a man named John R. Justice, who was a solicitor district attorney in South Carolina. He represented the poorest solicitors judicial circuit in the State. They were understaffed and overworked. He used to tell me, Madam Chairwoman, that he was just sticking his fingers in the hole of the dam to try to keep the water from coming through. But the solicitor justice--God rest his soul--had a vision of trying to encourage people to want to do something as noble as be a prosecutor in South Carolina. So whereas I usually stand off and I talk about cutting this and cutting that, law and order, prosecution, respect for the rule of law are core functions of government. And as much money as we spend on other programs, surely to goodness we can find a little bit of money to help relieve the student loan obligations of women and men who are prosecuting while they're sitting across the table from criminal offense attorneys who make 5 to 7 to 10 times their salary. Surely we can do that, and surely we can give the victims of crime as good a lawyer as the defendants of crime get. I would urge my colleagues to give very serious consideration to the John R. Justice Scholarship program for public defenders and prosecutors. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chairwoman, I would just say, again, that really in times of prosperity, we should be having conversations about the size and the scope of government. And of course you have to have it in times of austerity. I just view the criminal justice system, law enforcement, prosecutors as a core function of government, whether it's State government or Federal Government. And we want to incentivize and encourage good people who are not hamstrung by debilitating student loans to go pursue that, as opposed to just going into private practice where they can make money. I have lived it. I have seen what it can do for our office, and I would hope that my colleagues would give favorable consideration to it. And if not, I take the chairman and the ranking member at their word that they'll give it a look at the appropriate time.

Mr. GOWDY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chairwoman, if the government wants to ask you if you're having trouble keeping your attention or how many flush toilets you have, I suppose they can ask that. But should they really be able to fine you for not answering? And it is of very little comfort to us that the government has seen fit to not enforce that fine. To threaten somebody with the administration of a fine and then never to carry through on it sounds eerily similar, to me, Madam Chairwoman, to blackmail. What's the purpose of putting it on there if you're never going to enforce it? And if you can do it to 250,000 this time, what's to keep you from doing it to 500,000 the next time, and then a million? The purpose of the census, Madam Chairwoman, is to apportion the several congressional districts. So what do you need to be able to apportion the several congressional districts? You need to know how many people of voting age are in a household. You need to know race so you can comport with constitutional provisions. You may very well need to know the gender of the people in the home so you can comport with constitutional provisions. But you don't need to know anything beyond that. We had a subcommittee hearing on this, Madam Chairwoman, and what I find to be ironic--and I never got an answer to it--is this: you don't have to vote. The government can't do a single, solitary thing to you if you don't vote. They can't fine you. They can't put you in jail. But somehow or another they can if you fail to fill out the document that apportions the congressional districts so you can vote. That is tortured logic. And I would say this in conclusion, Madam Chairwoman. If you want to ask about anything other than how many people live here, race, and sex, it's none of the government's business. And that's just the way it is. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chairwoman, for well over a year now, committees of Congress have been trying to answer basic, fundamental questions about an ill-conceived, ill-executed firearms operation called Fast and Furious. A Border Patrol agent was killed, hundreds of Mexican citizens have been killed, thousands of weapons are unaccounted for and likely to be used in future crimes. But the Department of Justice and the Attorney General specifically will not provide documents properly, legitimately requested, so I am left with no choice, Madam Chairwoman, but to offer an amendment cutting the Department of Justice appropriation. Congress has been patient--indeed too patient in my judgment--and I understand that for some everything is a political exercise, but surely the Department of Justice can rise above petty, partisan politics and comply with a subpoena. The Department of Justice expects others to comply with subpoenas, yet they will not do so themselves. For those watching at home, what would happen to them if they ignored a summons for jury duty? What would happen to them if they ignored a grand jury subpoena? What would happen if a committee of Congress demanded documents and they summarily refused to cooperate? Madam Chairwoman, they would be sanctioned, fined, and probably jailed. The Department of Justice is not just one more agency within the Federal Government. And the Attorney General is not just one more political appointee put in place to advance one agenda or the other. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. She can see who is in front of her, she just chooses not to. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for the United States, and that is a role that is far and beyond politics. Citizens must have confidence in institutions of justice, and they must have confidence in the top law enforcement official in the country. And how can they possibly have either if the Department of Justice is withholding documents? Madam Chairwoman, it did not have to come to this. It should not have come to this. But there are basic questions the public and Congress have a right to have answered, such as: Who in the Department of Justice approved the tactic of gun walking? Why was the criminal chief advocating for the tactic of gun walking on February 4, 2011, in Mexico, which is the very same day a demonstrably false letter was written to United States Senator Chuck Grassley denying the tactic. On the very same day Lanny Brewer is advocating for it, a letter is sent under Department of Justice letterhead denying the tactic. How did such a demonstrably false letter ever get drafted and sent on DOJ letterhead? Was gun walking alluded to in the wiretapping applications? And if so, who missed it? When the President said he did not approve of Fast and Furious and neither did Eric Holder, how did he know that? He said that in March of 2011. These are but five questions that we do not have the answer to despite one solid year of asking. So, Madam Chairwoman, this is not about politics to me. It's about respect for the rule of law. It's about answers. It's about accountability. It's about acceptance of responsibility. I will not, I cannot stand idly by while oversight of this body is ignored. It is time we did the jobs we swore allegiance to the Constitution to do, even if others will not. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank my colleague and friend from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, my colleague and friend from Georgia, Mr. Scott, my colleague and friend from the great State of Florida, Colonel West, all of whom are experts, Mr. Speaker, on the policy of ObamaCare. I want to talk to you about something other than policy. I want to talk to you about the law. But I'm going to concede up front, Mr. Speaker, that having health insurance is a wise idea. Having health insurance is a really, really good idea. Walking over from the Longworth office building just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I passed two dozen people who were out jogging or otherwise exercising, and I can't help but conclude exercising is a wise idea. But Congress has not mandated exercise, not yet at least. The week's not over with yet. But so far we have not mandated exercise, despite the fact that it is a good policy. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help, in talking to my wife tonight, to be reminded that remembering our spouses' birthdays is also a wise idea. So far, although the week is not over with yet, Congress has not mandated that we remember our spouses' anniversaries. So, up front, let's acknowledge there's a difference between being a good idea and being a constitutional idea, because, Mr. Speaker, what my question is for Colonel West from Florida that I will ask initially rhetorically, and then I'd like him to answer it, is: Can Congress make you eat beets? Because beets are good for you, Mr. Speaker. You know that. You're a physician. What you eat matters. Can Congress make you eat okra? Can it make you eat cabbage? And if not, why not? If all we're here to talk about is whether or not something is a good idea and there are no constitutional limits to what Congress can do, then my question is: Why not? Why can't we just debate this on the basis of public policy? And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is this: Because we have a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution has specific enumerated powers of what Congress can and, by absence, cannot do. And the Commerce Clause says that Congress can regulate commerce among the several States. And that's what this administration will be arguing this week, that that one phrase, that Congress can regulate commerce among the several States, gives this body the power to force everyone to purchase a private product, that being health insurance. So my question to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: If health insurance is a good idea, how about life insurance? Because heaven knows we don't need any more generational debt in this country, Mr. Speaker. It is not fair to pass on debt to subsequent generations. So, before this week is done, why don't we mandate life insurance? And I've seen study after study after study that good oral health is tantamount to good overall health. So why don't we, before the week is over with, Mr. Speaker, mandate that everyone must purchase dental insurance? If not, why not? Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was a prosecutor in a former life, so I took great note of two Supreme Court cases, Lopez and Morrison. In Lopez, this body passed the Gun Free School Zone Act, saying we don't want guns on junior high and high school campuses. And the Supreme Court of the United States said, that may be a laudatory public policy position, but Congress has no business regulating the campus of high schools and junior high schools. Mr. Speaker, Congress also--and this issue is very near and dear to my heart because I come from a State that has struggled mightily with the issue of domestic violence. We have struggled mightily with that. So Congress passed a federalized Violence Against Women Act. In the United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court said that is a very laudable public policy. But the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give you the power to tell the several States how to handle domestic violence, and they struck it down. So we've got to, in this country, somehow find a way to separate what is good public policy from what is the law of the land, because, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this: if the Supreme Court says that Congress can make you purchase a private product like health insurance, then I beg someone to tell me what are the limits to what we can tell people to do. Can we make them exercise? We all know that's good for you. If I've got to subsidize the health of people who are obese or have hypertension, why can't I make them exercise? Because this is America, and Congress can't make you exercise. They can encourage you to do it, but they can't make you do it. Congress can't make you buy dental insurance, and Congress can't make you buy life insurance, and Congress can't make you exercise or get out of the rain when there's lightning. There are lots of things that we ought to do that Congress can't make us do. If the Supreme Court says that Congress can make you purchase health insurance, Mr. Speaker, that is the end of federalism in this country. There are no limits to what this body can make its citizens do if this law were upheld. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank my other colleagues.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, you don't decide to go to the matinee instead of the 9 p.m. movie and order a cheaper appetizer when you're $142,000 in debt. You make real, dramatic, systemic transformative change. Each one of us received an inheritance, Mr. Speaker, from our parents and grandparents. We received a better, stronger, more vibrant country than the one they inherited, and we have squandered that inheritance. We have become prodigal sons and daughters, except we have a credit card. I hope the generations that come after us will have the courage the generations that came before us had, for we have been profiles in timidity and greed.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank my friend and colleague from the great State of South Carolina, Mr. Tim Scott, for his outstanding work on the Rules Committee. So here we are again, Mr. Speaker, less than 6 months removed from last summer's so-called debt crisis, on the verge of committing another act of generational embezzlement. We are on the verge of assigning another trillion dollars of debt to our progeny because we can't muster the courage to make hard decisions. We're on the verge of $16 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, because we can't bring ourselves to say ``no.'' We're on the verge of $16 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, because we refuse to have a serious conversation about the role of government juxtaposed with the role of the individual. And at times like this, when leadership and moral courage, as my friend from South Carolina, Mick Mulvaney, so eloquently put it, when moral courage and leadership are needed we get slogans more befitting of a student body president race than a campaign to be the leader of the free world. This administration says it wants a ``balanced approach'' but a ``balanced approach'' apparently doesn't include a balanced budget. This administration says it wants a grand bargain, a big, transformative deal, but the details of such a deal would fit nicely on the back side of a postage stamp. And my personal favorite, Mr. Speaker, this administration wants the ``rich to pay their fair share.'' I've heard that phrase several times this morning. What I have not heard, Mr. Speaker, because they never seem to get around to defining who the rich are, and they never seem to get around to defining the word ``fair,'' which may be the most subjective word in the English language. So I would ask, is it fair, is 34 percent not enough? You want a half? You want two-thirds? When will your President define who the rich are and what's fair? And if sloganeering and class warfare were not insidious enough, this administration criticizes those who do have the moral courage to offer a way out. Where is the President's entitlement reform plan? Where is his tax reform plan? Where is his regulatory reform plan? Where is his litigation reform plan? Mr. Speaker, I have seen his reelection plan. Where is the plan to pay down the debt, balance the budget, and offer real opportunity to our fellow Americans who want it and need it? We had a town hall in Greenville, South Carolina, Mr. Speaker, over the Christmas break, and one of the people I work for gave me some good advice. He said, drop the trillions and billions and talk where real people can understand. And he was right. So, Mr. Speaker, assume a family makes $22,000 a year, but the family's expenses are $38,000 a year, and all the while they carry $142,000 in credit card debt. Do you think they really need an increase in their line of credit? Do you think another job or more hours will make ends meet?

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3237) to amend the SOAR Act by clarifying the scope of coverage of the Act, as amended.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this year, this body debated and ultimately approved legislation authorizing scholarships to give needy District of Columbia students the opportunity to leave their public school and enroll in a private school of their choice. Following the House's approval of the SOAR Act, the legislation was enacted into law as a part of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, which was signed by the President on April 15. We are here today because there are several small and technical modifications that need to be made in order for the scholarship program to achieve its goal. This legislation would clarify three provisions: first, the education requirements for teachers of scholarship students; second, how the nationally norm-referenced test would be administered in order to properly collect data to study the effectiveness of the program; and, third, which students participate in the study. On November 3, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved H.R. 3237, the SOAR Technical Corrections Act, by a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague, Ms. Norton, and my colleague, Ranking Member Cummings, for working with us to ensure we had the appropriate language to modify the legislation that is before us today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I would again thank our colleagues Ms. Norton and Mr. Cummings, and I urge Members to support the passage of H.R. 3237. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2297) to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although the United States Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative authority over the Federal District, in 1973 we granted the District of Columbia some significant autonomy by approving the Home Rule Act. Congress still must act, however, before the city can pursue certain activities. This brings us to the legislation before us today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2297 is needed to update zoning laws to allow the District the flexibility to lease or sell real property on the Southwest waterfront to a private-sector developer. There is currently a $2 billion redevelopment plan pending to renovate this area, which is only a short distance from the United States Capitol building. We hope this redevelopment plan will accomplish its goal of spurring economic development and bringing jobs to the city of Washington, D.C. This legislation was approved by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by a voice vote. I again would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Holmes Norton from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member Cummings for working with us on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I would once again thank our colleague Ms. Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Cummings. Mr. Davis, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as my colleague so aptly pointed out, also deserves credit. With that, I would urge all of our fellow Members to support the passage of H.R. 2297, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOWDY. The President in this very Chamber said we should have no more regulation than is necessary for the health, safety, and security of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the President in this very Chamber conceded overregulation has stifled innovation and chilled growth and jobs. Professor Cass Sunstein, hardly a conservative acolyte, said we must take aggressive steps to eliminate unjustified regulatory burdens, especially in today's economic environment. Mr. Speaker, 43 percent of the payroll in this country comes from small business, two-thirds of all the jobs created in the last two decades come from small business. Small business, Mr. Speaker, is the backbone of this economy and the single best way for all Americans, veterans included, but all Americans, to experience the majesty of the American Dream. So one would think that our colleagues would storm the aisle to join us in providing relief to small business, including veterans. One might think our colleagues would help us rush to form a phalanx against an overreaching regulatory apparatus. So, Mr. Speaker, let's stop using veterans as political footballs and start helping all Americans, including veterans. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act of 2011 is a logical reform. It simply asks agencies to do the kind of pre-regulatory analysis they should have been doing anyway. Frankly, the bill seeks to enact much of what the President claims he wants with respect to regulatory reform, since small business creates most of our jobs. Since regulatory compliance costs are higher for them than for larger competitors, Congress passed the RFA of 1980 requiring agencies to analyze regulations in advance. Hardly a revolutionary idea, Mr. Speaker. Know the consequences of your actions before you act, especially when it comes to having a chilling effect on job creation. But the experience over the last 15 years has shown the law needs to be reformed, Mr. Speaker, and updated because agencies aren't getting the message. This bill requires agencies to do what they should be doing anyway, which is to calculate the impact of their regulations on job creators beforehand, to make sure all agencies follow the rules, not some of the time, not when they feel like it, but all of the time. Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens want to work. They want to meet the needs of their families. They want to meet their societal obligations, and we should be doing everything in our power to make sure regulatory agencies ``measure twice and cut once.'' And our job requires and this bill ensures that they get the message. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank Chairman Kline not only for yielding but also for his leadership on this and on so many other issues on the Education and the Workforce Committee. Mr. Chairman, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our fellow citizens want nothing more than to be able to meet their familial obligations and their obligations to the community, when so many of our fellow Americans want nothing more than the most fundamental of all family values, which is a job, and when they look and they see that America is increasingly competing with other countries for work, it is no longer just competition among the States. We are competing with other countries for work. The NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda, thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Mr. Chairman, virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of NLRB overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of a job being lost in Washington State, despite not a single example of a worker losing a single benefit or right in Washington State, the NLRB sued Boeing, seeking to have Boeing close its South Carolina facility, mothballing a $1 billion facility, displacing 1,000 workers and returning the work to Washington State. Then they had the unmitigated temerity, as we recently learned, to joke about it in emails, to joke about a competitor called Airbus, which is Boeing's number one competitor. Wanting work and not getting it is not a laughing matter. Boeing is exhibit A among the evidentiary reasons that the NLRB has overreached its statutory mission, but it is not the only piece of evidence, Mr. Chairman. Currently, union elections take place, on average, within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election. But that's not good enough. The NLRB wants more. So they proposed sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further towards unions seeking employees by promoting rush elections and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 7 to 10 days. The Board severely limits the opportunities for workers to hear all sides of an issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would only have 7 days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of Federal labor law before presenting their cases before an NLRB hearing officer. So Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to simply level the playing field. This legislation requires that no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision. H.R. 3094 acknowledges that full and complete information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will vote. Ironically, some unions have already endorsed President Obama in an election that is well nigh a year off; but somehow 31 days is too long for employers in an election that's every bit as important to them. The hypocrisy and blind advocacy has to stop. The purpose of the NLRA is to balance the rights of employers, employees, and the general public. The NLRA is not calculated to drive up union membership, because they're a loyal constituency for the Democrat Party. Because the NLRB through its filings and proposed rules and regulations has lost all pretense of objectivity in labor issues, fair, even-handed pieces of legislation, such as this one, are necessary.