Trey Gowdy

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GOWDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first thank Mr. Bishop for raising the important issue of frivolous, vexatious litigation. I am thrilled almost beyond words--not quite--almost beyond words that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the deleterious impact that frivolous, vexatious litigation has on our economy. We very much support, Mr. Chairman, a more effective use of rule 2011. We have consistently supported tort reform that correctly sanctions frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. So, again, I thank our colleague from the other side of the aisle for bringing attention once again to the impact frivolous litigation has on our economy. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right vehicle for a number of reasons. The purpose of the underlying bill is to correct the misguided effort of the NLRB to have quick elections, which means the time is compressed for litigants, especially those caught off guard by the legal filing, to respond. What do litigants and their counsel do when they're given an inadequate time to prepare for litigation? They over-plead, they over-answer, they throw everything they can into the answer because to do otherwise is to risk missing an issue and being sued for illegal malpractice or, worse yet, failing to adequately represent your client. So in a very counterintuitive way, the NLRB's rush to have elections is more likely to result in over-pleading than the status quo would be. Mr. Chairman, this amendment also gives increased power to the very agency that we are trying to rein in. That, too, is counterintuitive. To reward an activist, agenda-driven executive branch entity with even more power to wield incorrectly is an invitation we are loathe to accept. This amendment does not even provide all the safeguards of rule 11 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And I heard my colleague and friend on the other side of the aisle make reference to rule 11. If this were simply rule 11, we may very well be standing up to join in support. It's not rule 11. It doesn't provide notice and a reasonable chance to respond. It doesn't provide an appeal procedure. It denies an opportunity to withdraw the frivolous matter before sanctions are imposed. Even current NLRB provisions require due notice and an opportunity for a hearing in allegations of misconduct cases. This amendment, I am sure--I am convinced--is well intended, to root out frivolous filings and pleadings; but it has to be done in an evenhanded, fair manner, not one calculated to skew the balance even more in favor of those seeking unionization and away from job creators. Other than union membership being at a historic low, Mr. Chairman, why the rush to change the rules? Is 31 days too long? Is a 70 percent success rate in elections not good enough? I appreciate the motive behind the amendment, but I must oppose it because of the mechanism; and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOWDY. I just find it instructive again--and we need to give pause and reflect on why we're here. We're not here because Chairman Kline had an idea out of the blue. We're here because an activist, agenda-driven NLRB is dissatisfied with 31 days to have an election. They're dissatisfied with a 70 percent success rate. So what Mr. Kline has done--and smartly so--in this bill is try to get us back to the status quo ante and have a level playing field where employees can have enough information to make what may be one of the most important decisions of their lives. And again I will say to my colleague, rule 11 has built-in procedural safeguards. And we had a very civil, constructive, I thought, conversation about this amendment in committee, and I commend our friend for that. And I commend him for bringing up frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. And I'm happy to work with him on how to get it done. This vehicle, while well intended, is not the vehicle to get it done. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOWDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would strike provisions of the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act that ensure employers have at least 14 days to find legal counsel and prepare their cases for the preelection hearings. Additionally, it would strike the provisions that ensure employers have 35 days to educate their workers and that employees have 35 days to determine whether they wish to join a union. Information is power, and I, frankly, don't understand the antagonism towards information. I don't understand the antagonism towards employers. We give garden-variety, common-criminal shoplifters 180 days to find lawyers--180 days for a shoplifter to find a lawyer--but we can't give employers 2 weeks? Is 2 weeks really too much to ask to find a lawyer? There have been unions, Mr. Chairman, that have already endorsed this President and his reelection bid. Already, 360-something days out, was the first one I noted. So they need 365 days to prepare for an election, but we can't give employers 35 days? You can check out a library book for longer than you want to give employers the ability to prepare for an election. This is an important decision, not only in the lives of the employees but of the employers, many of whom are small business owners. They've got to negotiate the legal labyrinth that is our Federal labor law, and you're going to give them 35 days and 14 to get lawyers. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restrict employers' free speech and will undermine workers' free choice. Information is power. Sometimes that takes time. I don't think 35 days under anyone's calculus is too much time to prepare for an election. If we can give a shoplifter or a speeder or a drunk driver 180 days to hire a lawyer, surely to goodness we can give a small business job creator a couple of weeks. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My first job was delivering newspapers. My job after that was bagging groceries at a local grocery store. My job after that was working at a tobacco warehouse. I don't recall ever being hired by an employee. I don't understand the antagonism towards employers. I don't understand the antagonism towards people who are willing to invest their fortunes and have the unmitigated temerity to want to be successful and hire other people. I don't understand the antagonism towards job creators. Mr. Chairman, I will say it again: We give 180 days to someone who shoplifts from a store to go find a lawyer, but we can't give 14 days to the small business owner who wants to defend against a suit--to negotiate the legal labyrinth that many of the lawyers in this body don't understand, present company included. There are experts in labor law; but unless you have corporate counsel hired, you're going to have to go find a lawyer and educate him on your issues. Mr. Kline gives them a whopping 2 weeks. Fourteen days is eminently reasonable, and 35 days for something as potentially transformative as an election is not too much to ask for, and there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says otherwise. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would invite my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in addressing what I hear from every small business owner back in South Carolina, which is fix the regulatory apparatus, fix the tax structure, fix the litigation structure, quit spending money you don't have. Mr. Chairman, the President, who was standing not 3 feet in front of you, said we should have no more regulation than is necessary for the health, safety, and security of the American people. That's not a Republican that said that; it's the President of the United States. So I would ask the NLRB, what part of health, safety, and security are you trying to fix with quick elections, the placing of posters in the workplace, and other regulations that do nothing except punish job creators? With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her leadership on this issue and on so many other issues on the Education and Workforce Committee. Mr. Speaker, when so many of our fellow citizens are hurting, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our fellow citizens are striving to meet their familial and societal obligations and when all they want is the most basic of all family values, which is a job--and as my friend Tim Scott, my friend and colleague from Charleston, so eloquently put it this morning--the NLRB thinks it's a joke, Mr. Speaker, a joke. They're making jokes about it. Airbus is not just another plane manufacturer; they're a direct competitor to Boeing. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of NLRB overreach, which is the complaint they filed against Boeing. Not a single example of job loss has been cited. Not a single worker has lost a single benefit in the State of Washington. Nevertheless, the NLRB sued Boeing. They seek to have Boeing mothball the facility in north Charleston, displace 1,000 workers, and return the work to a union State. That is exhibit A in NLRB's activist agenda, and I regret to say this: As a former prosecutor who actually values impartiality and fairness, Mr. Speaker, they have become a sycophant of Big Labor. And while Boeing is exhibit A, it is by no means the only evidence of an activist, politically motivated agenda. 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. But unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the rules and regulations governing the election process, shifting the balance of power even further towards those employees seeking unionization. By promoting rushed elections and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, Mr. Speaker, the NLRB severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the 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 case before an NLRB hearing officer. Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires 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's reelection bid, which is a year off. Clearly, they believe they need the time, the 12 months, to inform their members, but somehow a week is enough for employers to inform their employees of all salient facts before an election. The hypocrisy and blind advocacy towards Big Labor has to stop, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the National Labor Relations Board is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, and the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to balance the rights of employers, employees, and the general public. The act is not calculated to drive up union membership because they happen to be a loyal constituency of the Democrat Party. Because the NLRB, through its filing of proposed rules and regulations, has lost all pretense of objectivity in labor issues, fair, evenhanded pieces of legislation, like Chairman Kline's Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, are necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to help us protect American jobs, to stand up for equal access to justice, and promote a level playing field. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his leadership on this issue and so many others on Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, when Odysseus was returning from the Trojan War, he was passing the islands where the sirens sang. Many a sailor had succumbed to their sweet melodious sound and died. So Odysseus made his men put wax in their ears, and he made them tie him up to the mast. Against his will, he made them tie him up, and he did it because he lacked the will to restrain himself. When people take our freedom, we recoil. But when we've proven ourselves to be wholly incapable of exercising that freedom, we should give it up. Congress has proven itself to be hopelessly incapable of balancing the budget. We need to be made to do so because we cannot bring ourselves to make the hard decisions required. As my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who's been a leader on this issue, mentioned in his remarks, six times in 50 years is laughable. You would do better than six out of 50 if you just guessed. Six out of 50 is laughable. We are incapable of balancing our own budget. And when South Carolina, Mr. Speaker--which does have a balanced budget requirement--was facing tough economic times, we had to cut public safety money to prosecutors. I had to cut and furlough employees who were making $19,000 a year. I had to furlough prosecutors who had $100,000 in student loans for 7 days. That's a hard decision to make, but we had to do it for fiscal health. We need to make hard decisions, even if they're career-ending decisions, in this body; but we have proven ourselves incapable of doing it, so we must bind ourselves, even against our will.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, we are $15 trillion in debt. We need to tie ourselves up before we wreck this Republic.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment seeks to require States to maintain a database of all concealed-carry permits that would be accessible to law enforcement officers 24 hours a day. This amendment, aside from being a version of NCIC for law-abiding citizens, is unnecessary for a number of reasons. The State-issuing authority already maintains a database of concealed-carry permits, and a number of States make these databases accessible to law enforcement through the Nlets System, which law enforcement in all 50 States can use to determine whether someone visiting from another State is carrying a valid concealed permit. This system is available to law enforcement officers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Law enforcement officers can also contact other States to determine whether a person has a criminal background, a warrant out for their arrest, or other information that will help determine whether someone poses a safety threat to themselves or the general public. But the fundamental flaw of this amendment is that it continues to place conditions and restraints on law-abiding citizens all the while ignoring the obvious, which is that people intent on doing harm do not register their firearms nor call ahead to report their travel schedule. No database has yet been created which can determine whether a person with a firearm intends to use it in a criminal matter, whether the firearm is carried illegally or not, so officers are trained to be careful in every situation and have the authority to take necessary precautions to ensure the safety of those on the scene of an investigative stop. This amendment, as is true with many other amendments that we have and will consider today, is premised on the flawed view that concealed- carry permit holders pose a threat to public safety. People intent on committing illegal acts will not go to the trouble of obtaining a concealed-carry permit, and statistics back that up. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment prohibits persons who are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon between the age of 18 and 21 from taking advantage of H.R. 822's grant of reciprocity. We continue to believe, Mr. Chairman, that adults who reach the age of 18--which is the age of majority for well nigh everything in this country, save alcohol--are capable of being responsible just as 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds are. They can vote. More importantly, they can serve in the military where they are highly trained to handle firearms in very critical situations. Fewer than 10 States allow people under 21 to receive a concealed- carry permit. One State allows this if a weapon is necessary for the person's job, such as law enforcement, and another if a person gets permission from law enforcement. This amendment eliminates the current practice of many States, including the amendment sponsor's home State of Tennessee, recognizing concealed-carry permits of nonresidents between the ages of 18 and 21, even though their own residents must be 21 to conceal carry. In fact, 14 States recognize all valid permits issued by any States, including those States that permit persons between the ages of 18 and 21. As many as 10 additional States recognize 18-year-old permit holders from other States with which they have reciprocity. Mr. Chairman, America trusts our brave men and women under the age of 21 to volunteer for duty and to defend our country. What this amendment says, however, is you can carry a gun and defend this country overseas, but you can't carry a gun and defend yourself once you get back. This is not consistent with the Second Amendment, nor is it reflective of our views with respect to what 18-year-olds can and should be permitted to do. What is good enough to defend the foundations of this Republic and us, I hasten to add, should be sufficient to defend oneself.

Mr. GOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. GOWDY. The only thing that this debate today has given me cause for celebration for is I now know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are familiar with the concept of States' rights because I have not heard them talk about it for the first 11 months. Do you suppose Tennessee should have a different version of the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment? So why are we treating the Second Amendment like it is in the constitutional trash heap?

Mr. GOWDY. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Tennessee is right. He has from time to time mentioned States' rights, which puts him in a very lonely position on his side of the aisle. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is based on the premise that any person who possesses a gun, including an American who legally purchases a gun and obtains a concealed-carry permit, is a criminal and must seek permission to exercise his or her constitutional rights. It would be nice, indeed, if we could get those who harbor criminal intentions to call ahead of time and inform local law enforcement of their plans. It would, in fact, be ideal if they would let us know which store they were going to rob, which home they were going to invade, which car they intended to steal. That typically doesn't happen, Mr. Chairman, and to require law- abiding citizens to call ahead is mind-boggling. Do we have to call ahead when we plan to assert our First Amendment rights? Do we have to call ahead and inform States we're traveling through of our intention to rely upon our Fourth Amendment rights? What about Miranda? Do we call ahead and reserve our Miranda reservations? Do we need to tell them which road we'll be traveling on, Mr. Chairman--and who do they call and what do they tell them when they call? Do they describe the gun? Do they tell them what caliber? What is law enforcement supposed to do with this information? Does anyone really think criminals ever call ahead and announce their intentions? What happens if a person fails to provide notice, Mr. Chairman? What is the designated law enforcement agency expected to do with this information--maintain a database of all entering nonresidents and track the person's movements inside the State? Should a nonresident with a concealed-carry permit engage in criminal activity within the State, is the State then liable for not preventing it? Would a person who lives in Maryland but works in Virginia be required to call every day, Mr. Chairman? What if it's an emergency trip--the birth of a grandchild? A sickness in the family? Do we just postpone our trip so we can meet the requirements of this amendment or do we sacrifice our right to travel in self-defense because we didn't call quickly enough? This is a practical nightmare. It's a constitutional abomination. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Madam Speaker. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, the Second Amendment to our Constitution was drafted, debated, and ratified in precisely the same manner as the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth, the Sixth, and other amendments our colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold sacrosanct. And consistent with this belief that liberty and the right to arm one's self are inextricably linked, it is settled law that our Constitution protects the right to travel. It protects the right to self-defense. It protects the right to defend the lives of others. Not once, Madam Speaker, but twice the Supreme Court has held the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right. And those rights do not know any geographic boundary. Our right to defend ourselves does not ebb and flow with the vicissitudes of our travel or because we transverse a State line. Despite the fact that these rights are protected in the Constitution, there are still those who seek to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional second-class citizen. Sometimes those efforts to denigrate the constitutional status of the Second Amendment are overt and sometimes they are obscure. And as much as we appreciate the renewed--and I'm sure short-lived--infatuation with States' rights embraced by some of our colleagues on the other side, let me ask you simply this: What limits are you willing to accept with regard to the First Amendment? Does your State want reporters to have to pass a test so they can exercise their First Amendment? Do you want 50 different versions of freedom of religion? What about the Fourth Amendment? Is one State free to dispose of the exclusionary rule because it doesn't agree with it? Do we have 50 different versions of what is a reasonable search and seizure? What about the Fifth Amendment? Do we have 50 different versions of Miranda? What about the Eighth Amendment? Are there 50 different versions of cruel and unusual punishment? We are delighted, Madam Speaker, to have our colleagues rediscover the beauty of the 10th Amendment and the concept of State rights. Eventually, we hope the same for the Second Amendment. This motion to recommit is offered to jettison the underlying bill and further relegate the Second Amendment to a constitutional scrap heap. All of these amendments were dealt with in committee, and the matters of State law classifications are just that, State law. The fact that certain State legislatures refuse to protect their citizens does not mean this body will refuse or abdicate its responsibility to defend the Second Amendment. This bill, H.R. 822, has 245 cosponsors, more than half the Members of this body, and it enjoys that wide and diverse support because it is emblematic of our forefathers' genius. They gave us the fundamental right to travel. They gave us the fundamental right to protect ourselves. They gave us the fundamental right to protect others. And they gave us the fundamental obligation to defend liberty. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, Milt and Suzy Smith from Spartanburg, South Carolina, are parents to three wonderful sons. Doug Smith is a former speaker pro tem of the South Carolina House of Representatives. Stuart Smith has a brilliant real estate mind and is a world-class Sunday school teacher. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of their third son, Chip. Chip Smith is from Spartanburg, South Carolina, and his company, Blue Ridge Log Cabins, employs nearly 100 people in the Fourth Congressional District. Blue Ridge Log Cabins is an innovator and a national leader in the modular log cabin industry and one of the fastest growing, privately held companies in the Nation. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not here to talk about that today. I'm here to talk about something even more significant and special than that. On Sunday, September 25 of this year, ``Extreme Makeover Home Edition'' spotlighted the efforts of Blue Ridge Log Cabins in their season opening episode on ABC. Over 10 million viewers witnessed the donation made by Blue Ridge Log Cabins to Barbara Marshall of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Chip Smith decided to build Steps N Stages Jubilee House to serve as a shelter for homeless female military veterans. Chip's generosity and Barbara Marshall's vision are providing an invaluable service to those who have sacrificed their safety for ours. This 8,000-square-foot facility will provide the most basic necessity to those who cannot provide it for themselves, which is shelter. And when it comes to our veterans, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we encourage efforts like this and help those in need. So, Chip, thank you and your company for putting your time and treasure to use to help others. Mr. Speaker, times are tough and people are hurting. The greatness of the American spirit is that, even in those times, we still reach out to others who are in need. So I am proud to call Chip Smith a constituent. I'm even prouder to call him my friend.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and so many others on the Education and Workforce Committee. Mr. Speaker, the NLRA is supposed to balance the rights of employees, employers, and the general public, but you would never know that from the recent actions of the NLRB. This unelected group of executive branch recess appointees has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and has become, frankly, nothing more than a taxpayer-funded law firm for Big Labor. Boeing is the most glaring example of their overreach, but it is not the only one. At a time when union membership is at a historic low, the NLRB seeks to give Big Labor a historically high level of influence with this administration, whether it's quickie elections or mandating advocacy posters in the workplace or this, the economic death penalty. The NLRB is out of control and it needs to be reined in so it does not do even more damage to this fragile economy. With respect to the bill at hand in which my friend and colleague Mr. Scott seeks to remove a single remedy from the arsenal of the NLRB, leaving a dozen other remedies, this bill simply says that you cannot force Boeing to close a billion-dollar facility, which is already being constructed in Charleston, and fire the thousand workers who have been hired and send the work back to Washington State, which is tantamount to the economic death penalty. Not a single worker has lost a job or a benefit in Washington State, Mr. Speaker, when Boeing started this separate, distinct supply line. The NLRB thinks a company should stay in a union State no matter how many work stoppages there are, no matter how many customers have threatened to go do business somewhere else because they can't get their planes on time, no matter how many fines have been paid because of late delivery of airplanes because of work stoppages, no matter what. No matter how much money is lost, Mr. Speaker, the NLRB thinks that Boeing should have to stay in a union State because it planted a flag originally in a union State. This Congress has limited civil remedies when they have been abused. This Congress has limited criminal remedies whether they have been abused. And this Congress must limit administrative remedies when they are being abused, as they are now. Even the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Speaker, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, acknowledges that the NLRB is out of control. I will ask my colleagues on the other side the same question I asked Lafe Solomon, the general counsel for the NLRB. Can you name me a single solitary worker who has lost a job because of Boeing's decision to start a separate line of work in North Charleston? Can you name me a single solitary worker who has lost a benefit or suffered any recrimination, any reparation because of Boeing's decision? Mr. Speaker, if this administration were serious about job creation, they would have reined in this agency a long time ago. They did not, and we must.