Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My good friend from Texas has introduced an amendment that I wish all of us could have joined with, as well as Mr. Johnson's amendment that was not allowed in order. We've made a complaint not necessarily on one amendment but on this underlying bill. And the amendment now adds yet another analytical requirement to the already numerous analytical requirements of H.R. 3010. I would have liked to have joined Mr. Olson on making this just a job creation amendment, or a job creation bill. But part of the bill's super mandate overrides existing statutes like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, all of which reflect bipartisan legislative agreement to prohibit or limit consideration of costs in the rulemaking process. While I certainly agree with the idea of net job creation, H.R. 3010 does absolutely nothing to create jobs with or without the addition of this analytical requirement. We can't cure this bill, and we might have been able to do so with an amendment by Mr. Johnson that exempts all rules that result in job growth. After all, it was allowed for H.R. 527, the other bill that we are considering today. I don't know why we can't come together, as some would say, and put forward bipartisan amendments that talk about creating jobs. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise today in commemoration, Mr. Speaker, of World AIDS Day; and I thank our minority leader for her eloquent recounting of how far we have come. In our best days, we can look to my dear friend Magic Johnson, who has been a living example of the improvements and the courage of those who are living with the HIV infection; but we recognize that, of the 15 million people medically recommended for antiretroviral medication worldwide, only half of them have access to drug treatment. In the United States, nearly one in five people with HIV, or 240,000 people, don't even know that they are infected. Communities of color and young gay and bisexual men face the most severe burden of HIV in the United States--Magic Johnson, on one hand, and my dying friend on another hand being at the bedside of a person dying with AIDS, who, one, lived with the stigma and didn't have a way out. Today, I will join others and be tested for the HIV virus, and I encourage others to do so. I congratulate my constituents, the Harris County Hospital District and the Thomas Street Clinic, for their 12th annual World AIDS Day. Thank you, Mr. President, for recognizing that 6 million more people need to have access to AIDS prevention drugs. To those who have lost their lives, may I say to you on this day that your life that was lost should not be in vain. We still look for a cure, and we work for a better Nation and an opportunity to provide resources to those around the world and in the United States who still suffer. It is our challenge. We accept that challenge, and I believe someday we will be victorious. To those who commemorate this day because they mourn, I commemorate it with you in your mourning. For those who celebrate life, I, likewise, celebrate life.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am a proud Cougar, and as you well know, Cougars are silent, fast, and deadly. We welcome Southern Miss to Houston, Texas, the 12-0 Cougars, and we plan to give you all the barbecue you can eat as we celebrate the victory of the great Cougars, University of Houston, academic and athletic champions. It's a pleasure to place this wager with you tonight. Cougars--ready to pounce on you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Peace in the valley. Victory for the Cougars.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to think that our colleagues are in their offices communicating with their constituents and doing much of the work that we do and writing probably other great legislative initiatives, and they are paying attention to this debate and they keep hearing the words ``small businesses'' and they want to know why would any of us have a disagreement about small businesses when we have, I think, a consensus that small business are in fact the backbone of America; they are the job creators of America. I recall many of us have initiatives. I have an initiative of visiting small businesses. Just a couple of weeks ago, I donned the clothing of a medical practice. I went to a beauty school and tried to do a little bit of hair design. I went to an energy company. I went on to a small export-import company, and I stood out as a safety officer for a construction company owned by a single mother. So we all speak the language of small businesses. And you would think that my good friends on the other side of the aisle would have looked more closely at how damaging H.R. 527 is because, for those who may be listening in their offices and others, right now you have a three- agency framework of reviewing regulations dealing with small businesses. Now you're going to include that all the agencies have to get into the act in stifling small businesses' activities and their growth and opportunity. Remember now, right now we have three, and then we're going to open up the lot so that every agency now has to go through a regulatory process to determine its impact on small businesses. It expands the use of small business review panels to review rules promulgated by all agencies to include all major rules, and some of these, of course, having the positive impact on our small businesses. What is the significant economic impact? Nobody knows. It forces agencies to engage in wasteful, speculative analysis. It imposes an absurd and wasteful requirement on those agencies. So I have a simple amendment. Ask the question beforehand: What is the economic impact of all of this vast new inclusion of other agencies to come down on our small businesses? It requires my amendment, a GAO study, to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on Federal agency rulemaking. Simple, bipartisan amendment, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to call upon the rational and reasonable thinking of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and really discuss an amendment that speaks the obvious. The underlying bill puts into process a regulatory scheme that delays the implementation of regulations. Whether you agree or disagree with that approach, we all recognize that securing the homeland continues to be a top priority for this Nation. I'm standing alongside some of our first responders looking over one of the Nation's major ports. Many who live in those areas recognize the vulnerability of America through her ports or aviation or mass transit or highways or bridges or dams. Every moment after 9/11 is a new moment in this Nation. My amendment simply says to waive the provisions of this bill, H.R. 527, when it deals with homeland security. I hold in my hand the National Security Threat List that lists the issues that our Homeland Security Department and intelligence communities have to address. The listing is not classified, so I will mention the many tasks that they have to address: terrorism, espionage, proliferation, the moving forward on the question of economic espionage, targeting the national information structure, cybersecurity. Why would we want to interfere with the movement of regulations to protect the homeland under the premise of this bill? I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that would waive the bill's provisions in light of protecting the homeland. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is clear, when I have the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has an enormous history of commitment to small businesses, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, both former chairs, opposing this bill, then we obviously know that it is problematic. What I know of small businesses is that they, frankly, want to have an anchor to promote and propel their business needs. The regulatory scheme and the underlying premise of this bill is to eliminate any anchor for our small businesses. And when you do that, you're clearly undermining their growth and opportunity. I would add, as well, that I challenge as to whether or not this debate today creates any opportunity for small business, provides them access to credit, guarantees any loans, creates any jobs. Absolutely not, and it is absurd that we would suggest that agencies that are trying to promote small businesses are stopping small businesses and, therefore, we want to implode the regulatory scheme. The APA provides an opportunity for due process through the court system. If our colleagues have problems with regulations, they can run to the courts. You don't have to implode the process to be able to address the problem. Let's help small businesses, let's discuss how to create jobs, and let's vote against this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me again appeal to the bipartisanship of my colleagues. This is a very troublesome bill, and this bill interferes with the normal process, if you will, of dealing with the regulatory scheme. Although it's called the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I can assure you that the purpose of this legislation is, one, not to create jobs, and certainly not to help us secure the homeland. The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process allowing special interest lobbyists to second-guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation. This is what Homeland Security regulations would have to go through. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and since my membership on the committee that was a select committee, we've overhauled the government in ways we've never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 are corrected. More than 220 million tons of cargo moved, for example, through the Port of Houston in 2010. That cargo has to be inspected. And the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. Just imagine a regulation dealing with the scanning or the security of that tonnage to be interfered with by H.R. 527. If Coast Guard intelligence had evidence of a potential attack on the Port of Houston and they wanted the Department of Homeland Security to address it or they used a regulation or there was a regulation in process, then it would have to be stopped by this legislation. It is important to recognize that homeland security is not security by appointment. It is not security by ``let me address regulations by having them vetted by H.R. 527.'' This is a commonsense amendment that simply says, as it deals with the homeland security or the securing of our Nation as we look to be better than what occurred in 9/11 where agencies were not communicating with each other, where the fault of the cybersecurity system did not work, and we had the heinous tragedy of losing 3,000-plus of our souls in New York City. As we see the franchising of terrorism where there is the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber, it's important not to have a fettered Homeland Security Department in a regulatory process that is stopped by overlying legislation. This legislation is a job-killer, we already know. Let's not let it be a killer of Americans because it gets in the way of Homeland Security efforts doing the work that is necessary. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that asks simply for a waiver of this legislation as it addresses the question of securing the homeland and the regulatory scheme that is needed by intelligence agencies, our Border Patrol agencies, our TSOs that deal with aviation security, our cargo inspectors. As it relates to that work, our front line, let us waive this legislation. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. The bill would expand the number of rules covered by the RFA and requires Federal agencies to perform additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses. As a senior member of the Homeland Security and ranking member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency, which is why the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should be exempt from this legislation. This bill delays the promulgation of federal regulations, and delays a Federal agency's ability to issue regulations when responding to an emergency and grants the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy additional authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, without providing additional funding. Further, H.R. 527 repeals an agency's authority to waive regulatory analysis during an emergency. The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk. The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk. According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of Federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs. There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens. In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our Nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. The Department of Homeland Security cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how we protect our Nation. Continuing to make advances in homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face. Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. The Coast Guard, under the directive of the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with protecting our ports of entry. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest. More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS. If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill. The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response. There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak. On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people. This bill expands the review that agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations and the review they must conduct of existing rules to include an evaluation of the ``indirect'' costs of regulations, and grants the SBA authority to intervene in agency rulemaking. The measure also expands the ability of small businesses and other small entities impacted by an agency's regulations to challenge those rules in court. Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete. Given the nature of its mission, the Department of Homeland Security is the last agency that needs to be subject to more levels of regulation and scrutiny. Some advocates groups also have expressed concern that by extending the rulemaking process, regulatory uncertainty could increase, which may make it more cost effective for agencies to seek enforcement through the courts, and thereby reduce the public's ability to participate in the process. These costs add to the cost of doing business with the Department of Homeland Security, and eat away at the profits of our businesses, particularly our small businesses which often are not as equipped to absorb additional costs. Moreover, many businesses dealing with national security have higher costs because of expensive equipment, and as such are already working with lower profit margins. The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the security, stability, and the delivery of vital services to the American people. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to slow the promulgation of regulations to a drip. I have offered this amendment to mitigate the uncertainty regarding federal laws and rulemaking in the area of national security because of the increased urgency when dealing with these often sensitive matters. The Department of Homeland Security is the newest federal agency, and as such already is subject to pioneering levels of oversight and scrutiny. I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order to ensure that life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Let me just continue looking for bipartisanship. I am hoping that I can convince my friend from Texas to not desire to have a can of worms, a potpourri of agencies coming out with the hand of oppression on small businesses. This is a simple question that I'm asking. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, simply would be asking the question: What is the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities which will greatly slow down the rulemaking process and substantially empower other competitors to small business to throw sand in the gears of rulemaking that will help small businesses, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, disabled veterans? What is the reason for not agreeing to an important study? It forces agencies to again engage in wasteful, speculative analysis, including an assessment of all reasonably foreseeable indirect economic effects. We can do it ahead of time. Will this kill jobs is the question. It expands judicial review to include all agency actions and not just final agency action. Mr. Chairman, can we not find an opportunity to come together on this? I would much rather have a report to tell me how many small businesses will shut down waiting for agency review of the rules that would be helpful to them. Have we engaged with the Small Business Committee? Has anyone asked the ranking member of that committee, even the chairman of that committee, who are champions of small business? I don't think I have seen the chairperson, but I have seen the ranking member, who listens to small businesses across the country. If there is a regulation that is going to help a small business, this bill kills it. The small businesses are hanging on for dear life. Pass the rule. Pass the rule. Now you have put in all these agencies, dilly-dallying around trying to be able to find a way to stifle the growth of the small business. Mr. Chairman, common sense tells Members that it doesn't hurt to have just this one bipartisan effort to get the answer of the economic impact beforehand. Down in Texas we say, close the barn door before the cow gets out, or the cart before the horse, the horse before the cart. We've got all of that. We've got confusion. I am simply having a simple amendment that would allow the GAO to report on how we can better serve our small businesses and create the jobs that are necessary. I ask my colleagues, including Mr. Smith, to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the ``Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011.'' My amendment would require a GAO study to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect it will have on federal agency rulemaking. In addition, the report must contain information on the impact of repealing the ability of an agency to waive provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act when responding to an emergency. This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 in such a manner that it would result in significant delays in the agency rule- making processes by mandating multi-agency analyses of both direct and indirect costs for rules proposed or finalized by a single agency. My amendment simply requires that the Comptroller General, within 2 years after the enactment of the legislation, issue a report to Congress on the cost effectiveness of the changes implemented by this Act. The report would list all additional costs and resources that each agency will have to expend to carry out this Act and the amendments made by the Act. It would also show the effect of this Act and its amendments on the efficiency of the rule making process, including the amount of time required to make and implements a new rule. This study would report on any impact that this Act or its amendments would have on the ability to implement new agencies in the event of an emergency. Lastly, this study would examine the overall compliance of agencies with the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (RFIA). By requiring that multiple agencies conduct detailed economic analyses of a rule proposed by a single agency, each agency will have to expend time and resources to uncover the indirect economic effects of the proposed rule. This is unduly burdensome on a process that is already sufficient in length, as rules currently require a 30 day period after publication prior to effectiveness. There is one overarching problem with H.R. 527. Although it claims to make improvements, one thing it does not do is provide the needed clarification that the GAO has repeatedly pointed out, and that the agencies have asked for. In the past, there have been GAO reports showing incidents of agency noncompliance with the current regulatory flexibility rules for rule making. The reports cited that this noncompliance is due largely to confusion surrounding the meaning of ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Agencies have expressed the need to better clarification of this clause to aide them in determining when rule making analysis and review is necessary. Another part of this expanded review and analysis called for in H.R. 527 that concerns me is the potential it has to impede upon emergency rulemaking. Every so often, there are instances when an agency has to implement a new rule or regulation in response to an emergency. Under the current law, there is an exception allowing agencies to bypass the review process in the event of an emergency. The provisions of this bill cloud that exception. Furthermore, the rule-making process is made more cumbersome and expensive by requiring multi-agency review. If the purported reason for amending the Regulatory Flexibility Act with this bill is to save the American taxpayers money by including provisions requiring analyses of direct and indirect effects of proposed rules, then it should follow that the costs of implementing such provisions should not outweigh the benefits they provide. My amendment will ensure just that by requiring the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress that includes (1) the additional costs and resources that each agency must expend to maintain compliance with this Act, (2) an analysis of the effect that this Act has on the efficiency of the rule-making process, and (3) an analysis of the potential difficulties that may arise in an emergency situation in which an agency must implement new rules. If the process by which government agencies create rules is changed to require the disclosure of all costs associated with a proposed rule, then shouldn't the Act that makes such changes have its own costs to the American taxpayers disclosed? My amendment will ensure that this disclosure is made to the public upon this legislation's enactment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, in listening to my good friend from South Carolina, it's time to take out the white hanky and begin to cry for the employers against these deafening and deadly workers, some of them veterans and single parents. Hear me very clearly: there are 35 days for the filing of a petition, but there is no limit to the amount of time the employer can delay the election through litigation. If that isn't an imbalance against the vulnerable worker--the worker who is behind a cashier, the worker who is manufacturing a made-in-America trinket of some kind, the textile worker, the returning soldier on the battlefield--then what is? God bless the employers with their constitutional rights. I applaud them. But what this bill is doing and what this section is doing is taking a spear and going on and on and on with dilatory litigation tactics to disallow the organizing that is protected under the Constitution and the due process under the Fifth Amendment. Go ahead, employers, get your lawyers. Move on. But the question is, how long is too long? I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I say to my good friend from South Carolina is that I have the greatest respect for employers. I'd like the gentleman to join me in passing the American Jobs Act to give them payroll tax relief and to give them tax credits for hiring new employees. But you have to ask the question: After this bill's implementation, will workers view their workplaces more favorably? Will their wages match the growth rates of the companies and economy? Will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival? This legislation, frankly, undermines the American workers. Can we all get along? Can we find a way to address the concerns of making sure that we are fair to the employer but not have delay after delay after delay to deny someone his constitutional right of organizing freedom of expression? I think we can. The elimination of the provisions that I have spoken of is a dilatory upper hand of employers to get the better hand of our employees. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. In my hand I have H.R. 3094 and in this hand I have the Constitution. I don't know who you would stand with. Support my amendment, support the Constitution, provide workers the opportunity for freedom and the right to organize. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The question to my colleagues is whether workers come as Republicans or Democrats or if they come simply as Americans operating under a constitutional provision that we all celebrate, and that is the First Amendment. The First Amendment clearly allows the American people to petition, to have freedom of expression and, in essence, freedom to assemble. We also recognize that, in the course of power, there is the worker and there is the employer. The employer, in many instances, intimidates, and the National Labor Relations Board recognized the unevenness of power. Whether they are returning troops and veterans or whether they are single mothers and working families who want to better their lives, they understand that there needs to be fairness in order for this little, small book, the Constitution, to actually operate. My amendment is very simple. My amendment attempts to make an even playing field. It takes away the power of the underlying legislation, which is to limit how long the election may go on--in fact, delay the election, if you will. This amendment strikes the provision that deals with the timeframe in which the election can go on and in which the employer can interfere with that election. Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time to use the timeframe to delay the election. It's a simple premise that you win or lose elections; but if you allow employers to use the hand of intimidation and to stop the election, you take away some of the privileges of being an American. I, frankly, believe that in this time that we're on the floor we really should be debating the extension of the unemployment benefits, and I believe that we should be discussing the passage of the American Jobs Act. We're not doing that. We're here to limit the rights of Americans. So I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment that stops employers from delaying the rights of Americans by participating in delaying litigation, raising their power while limiting the power of the worker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 3094, ``The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.'' My amendment eliminates the provisions in this bill that would allow employers to unnecessarily delay an election. The bill in its current form rolls back decades of earned collective rights for workers and prevents workers from simply voting in workplace elections. This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 3094 is designed to delay and ultimately prevent union representation elections, rendering the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for worker's rights. In order to prevent needless delays in conducting elections I propose my amendment which simply strikes the text which requires that an election must be delayed for at least 35 days from the date the petition was filed. This amendment would restore current law. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed focused on the NLRB decision and their claim to minimum delays, there is no provision in H.R. 3904 to limit the time that an election can be delayed. This would ensure that an election would be conducted as soon as practicable following the pre-election hearing, consistent with the facts determined by the Regional Director. By setting a floor that an election will always be held at least 35 days from the filing of a petition, H.R. 3094 imposes delay for delays sake, even if an election could practically be scheduled before 35 days from the filing of a petition. A witness testified before the Education and Workforce Committee's that: ``This [35 day delay] would apply even where the union and employer are willing to stipulate to an earlier date. Other than facilitating an employer in ramping up an antiunion campaign, it does not appear to have any meaningful purpose.'' The National Labor Relations Act provides workers with essential protections; protections that have resulted in a strong middle class. This law prevents companies from retaliating against workers who exercise their rights, such as the right to strike, petition for better pay, demand safer working conditions, and form a union. H.R. 3094 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define how the National Labor Relations Board should determine a unit for purposes of collective bargaining. In addition, it allows an election to occur sooner than 35 days after the filing of a petition. However, there is no limit on how long an election may be delayed. Delay would provide employers more time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure employees into abandoning their organizing efforts. This legislation would perpetuate undue delays in union elections, a blatant attempt to undermine American worker's right to organize to protect their rights. This bill is an attack on collective bargaining, and on the American workforce as a whole. Delaying elections grants employers the necessary time to use legal and illegal means to discourage employees' interests in forming unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill encourages legal but frivolous appeal litigation, further delaying elections for several months or years. The measure will severely cripple and undermine elections process. A procedure intended to empower workers. Consequently union voters lose zeal for elections and unscrupulous employers are able to manipulate elections for their desired outcome, stalling the plight of workers' advancement. Further, The bill misconstrues the procedure for deciding who is a bargaining unit. What effect will this have on the progress union workers have made over the last 75 years? Employers will use this disruption to gerrymander elections, induce uncertainty regarding elections, thus being able to manipulate workers and flood the ballot boxes with voters not engage in the organizing drive. For 75 years union workers have fought for basic rights to maintain improved and safer workplace environments. How does this measure effect these achievements? After the bill's implementation will workers view their workplace favorably? Will their wages match the growth rate of the company and economy? And will workers feel like American employers, supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community survival? This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that prevent employers from gerrymander elections when employees consider whether or not to form a union. Employees have a right to unionize. They have the right to exercise their rights collectively bargain for competitive wages, benefits, and safe working environments. I am extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to create an atmosphere that forces the voice of hard working Americans to be diluted by their employers. In many cases employees would have to settle for accepting the lowest wages, worst benefits, and harshest working conditions. This bill creates a race to the bottom that is simply not worthy of a great nation, and certainly not worthy of America. Time after time, throughout the 20th century, the nation turned to the labor community to build infrastructure, supply the Armed Forces, and manufacture the materials that constructed our great American cities, and time after time, hard working Americans answered the call and made this country great. It appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to repay the American workforce by forcing them to choose between their rights and their jobs. I will fight, as I have throughout my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by protecting their right to vote in any capacity. My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs, and this bill is no exception. In fact, this reckless legislation threatens American jobs and undermines worker's rights while safeguarding special interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation, and instead focus our efforts on a bipartisan jobs bill that will foster a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to join my colleague, Congressman Clay. And before I do that, let me rise as well to express my support for the Gabe Zimmerman legislation that we will address today and pay tribute to his bravery and certainly his loss. We come to the floor today as partners with many in this Congress against voter intimidation and to speak on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, to collaborate with our many friends across the caucuses and across the interests in the Democratic Caucus, and certainly we hope to include our friends on the other side of the aisle. Since the 2010 election, over 40 States have implemented voter ID, voter suppression laws. Madam Speaker, we are not against knowing who is voting, but we are against turning back the clock of what the Voting Rights Act attempted to do some 40-plus years ago when before that time a poll tax was utilized, or asking those from the African American community how many jelly beans were in a jar. Just recently, I sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding voter intimidation and voter oppression. We rise today to say that we will stand against such oppression and ask the Justice Department to not clear voter ID laws. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as privilege. I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans of good faith to reject and denounce tactics that have absolutely no place in our democracy. We call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latin Americans, and Asian-American voters to stand strong and learn their voting rights granted by law and the Constitution. We call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy. Instances of voter intimidation are not long ago and far away. Just last year I sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to draw his attention to several disturbing instances of voter intimidation that had taken place in Houston. In a single week there were at least 15 reports of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston. As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I called for an immediate investigation of these instances. Many of these incidents of voter intimidation were occurring in predominately minority neighborhoods and have been directed at African-Americans and Latinos. It is unconscionable to think that anyone would deliberately employ the use of such forceful and intimidating tactics to undermine the fundamental, Constitutional right to vote. However, such conduct has regrettably occurred in Houston, and I urge you to take appropriate action to ensure that it does not recur. I am here today in the name of freedom, patriotism, and democracy. I am here to demand that the long hard-fought right to vote continues to be protected A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear into the polling place and cast a voting ballot. Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise, however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters at the polls. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particularly poor track record when it comes to documented acts of voter intimidation. In 1982, a Federal Court in New Jersey provided a consent order that forbids the Republican National Committee from undertaking any ballot security activities in a polling place or election district where race or ethnic composition is a factor in the decision to conduct such activities and where a purpose or significant effect is to deter qualified voters from voting. These reprehensible practices continue to plague our Nation's minority voters.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It is a delight to have been here with the gentlelady from Ohio. We have worked together closely, as I have with the gentleman from New York. I always want to ask him how his fair constituents are dealing. They have some serious mountains to climb, if you will, with their recent hurricane, a very unusual set of circumstances. We joined together to allow those communities to come back. Wouldn't that be a perfect investment of rebuilding infrastructure. Mr. Garamendi, let me thank you for your long-standing history of putting things back together. I'm not going to call you the Humpty- Dumpty man, but recognizing that we can put America back together and make it in America. Let me share some anecdotal uniqueness to this whole question of make it in America. I hope everybody had a wonderful Thanksgiving. It's a special holiday where we find time to say thanks. I heard that the gentleman from New York might have been giving away a ham, made in America. And I know the people who received the ham were grateful for it. I had the opportunity to work with those, we had over 800 turkeys-- made in America--to be able to give to seniors and families. The joy was, of course, that it was in the giving. But more importantly, it was a product that we made from start to finish. Yes, it's food. As we went down the aisles of many grocery stores, since the highlight of that season is eating, people were buying goods in most instances that were made in America. And they bought them. And then, of course, that famous Friday that we can now tout to be the best Friday over a number of years, certainly 2010; $52 billion was spent by Americans in many instances on the electronic goods that were made in America. Steve Jobs is no longer with us, but he created that infrastructure of technology and software and the sophistication of pretty things that many Americans went to buy, some $7 billion over 2010. And the studies indicated that--and that's all right to my good friends out there--that Americans were buying first for themselves those electronic items that they wanted to have for this holiday season. As I begin to look at legislation to talk about jobs, I'm going to try to make the energy industry a little bit more friendly. And we'll be introducing legislation that talks about creating jobs in that industry, but working in the environmental aspect of it--fixing the coastline, for example. As you well know, we have suffered through Hurricanes Rita, Katrina, Ike and the deterioration of the coastline, so if somebody wants to stop us from going down the drain, I want to stop us from a disappearing coastline. I want you to have the beautiful beaches, whether it is in Alabama and Louisiana and Texas, Florida. Those coastlines have been deteriorating. We can find work. Individuals can have work in fixing the beautiful coastlines. Even in South Carolina, I know that the gentleman wants the coastline to be fixed. So there is not a lack of opportunity-to-fix work. I just heard my good friend from Massachusetts in the Rules Committee indicate that there are bridges in the State of Massachusetts--my good friend, Mr. McGovern--that are older than some States and that they need to be fixed. And that would be a sharing of the wealth to many, many different districts and States if we were to engage, as the President wanted us to do, to look at how we do the infrastructure. But making it in America is happening. Right now, in the Carolinas, a young lady is bringing her company back from Sri Lanka, and she is using the textile industries--I don't have its full name, but it begins with ``Mic''--using the textile industry to now make her product. So I came today to say that I have hope. I'm an optimist, and many of the economists that we've been listening to--Jeffrey Sachs, for example, and Mr. Spence, who I think I heard in the last couple of days, has indicated that we worry too much about the deficit and the debt, not to ignore it but we really should be worrying about investing in America, rebuilding, make it in America, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs. And Americans will do what they did on last Friday, November 25, and they went out and they bought goods, by and large, made in America. Let's do more of that. Let's have the incentives that they need. And, by the way, let's add the small business component to it. We had the buy from a small business on Saturday. These small businesses are in America. And if you support a small business, you support one or two or three or four employees. So I am grateful, as I said. I'm going to do this coastline bill. I can see just persons for eons being put to work. I can see moneys going in to reduce the deficit. We'll join that with the drain, if you will, or the infrastructure for our sewage and wastewater. It comes under homeland security, by the way. We have to protect that. The infrastructure of security provides jobs as well. I want to close on this note, which sound as if it's not tied in, but it is. It really is tied in. We have, in the Thanksgiving backdrop, was the acknowledgment--I'm not going to call it failure--by the supercommittee that they could not complete their task. Let me, on the record--I have said it in public settings--thank the colleagues that accepted the challenge. But I want to say to my colleagues, let us not be nonoptimistic. Let us not be unhappy or disappointed or sad. Frankly, the job of the Congress is to formulate the vision going forward on behalf of the American people. Let me tell you why I see we have been given an opportunity. Some people only talk about defense. I talk about 46 million Americans that are on SNAP. Here's our chance. We can take the works of a Jeffrey Sachs. We can take the works of Mr. Spence, who talks about infrastructure investment. We can find these long-term cuts of a trillion dollars, leaving out Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, and we can find them in a way that talks about Bush tax cuts but has a thoughtful way of looking at tax reform, and then we can put our vision forward that includes making it in America. My friends, we make defense products in America. I don't want to be a war promoter--I want our troops home--but I believe in military preparedness. Those are jobs. We have a year to do it. We can throw off the shackles of partisanship and thoughtfully put forward a legislative initiative which the President will not veto if there is a plan that includes deficit reduction. Don't be afraid of doing it on jobs. So I'm willing to say we have been given an opportunity, just like my Cougars are being given an opportunity for a championship this coming weekend at the University of Houston, which will, by the way, create a lot of revenue with folks coming in from all over. But we have been given an opportunity. And I am glad that we're here on the floor to point out that it is not the end, but it is the beginning. I simply ask there be friends on the other side of the aisle that will join us in revenue, job creation, deficit reduction, revenue, job creation. We can pass these bills. We can join the Senate. We can do the payroll tax relief for a little bit and the unemployment, but we can create jobs. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate with you. I'm excited about the legislation that my colleagues have. I know I have worked with Mr. Tonko for all that he has done in the legislative initiative and, also, you. Thank you so very much.