John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and Americans across the country, can get pretty angry when some officials, corporate officials receive extraordinarily high salaries. I'm not here to defend that. What I'm talking about here is, why would you punish the workers because the employers are paying themselves too much money? I don't think we should do that, and that's what this amendment does. It denies workers the opportunity to make an informed decision. We shouldn't be punishing those workers because executives have paid themselves too much money. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. KLINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Of course I always hate to oppose something presented by my Minnesota delegation colleague, a veteran himself, but again I think we have a misguided amendment here. In the last amendment, we were sort of taking an Occupy Wall Street moment to express our outrage at the salaries or bonuses or compensation for executives, and we were going to punish workers because of our outrage. Unfortunately, we're sort of doing the same thing here. If you're a veteran and your employer has harmed any number of your rights under Federal labor law, they've broken the law and action ought to be taken against them. But now with this amendment, this would give this activist NLRB an excuse to undermine the free choice of your coworkers in a union election. I don't think we want to do that. We want to support the rights of all workers. As the distinguished minority whip said, employers and employees ought to get a fair election. We want a fair election for employers and employees, for workers--whether they are veterans or not veterans. I, having spent some time in uniform myself, have a special place for veterans. I want to make sure they get everything, everything that's coming to them. We owe them so much. But this amendment, unfortunately, would end up punishing them and their coworkers in, I think, a misguided effort to help them. We shouldn't do that. Let's support the underlying legislation and oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Again may I inquire as to how much time remains on either side.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It's kind of ironic sometimes, but this Occupy Wall Street sort of inspired amendment is an effort to dismantle a successful union election process and deny workers an opportunity to make an informed decision. Under the guise of fighting greed on Wall Street, this amendment will actually punish workers if their company executives receive bonuses deemed too big by officials in Washington. Mr. Chairman, while most of the time, employer and unions can agree to the terms of the union elections, often a preelection hearing convened by an NLRB official is needed to address questions and concerns raised by both sides. The preelection hearing ensures all relevant and material preelection issues may be addressed before a worker is required to cast his or her ballot in the election, providing workers an opportunity to make an informed decision in the union election. Forcing a vote before these issues can be addressed at the preelection hearing will severely undermine an employee's free choice. This is the workers, the employees we're talking about here. In fact, this amendment may lead to needless delay in the election process. The courts have overturned the results of elections because important issues were not properly addressed at the preelection hearing. No worker should be denied a fair union election process because of the bonuses paid to company executives. Yet that is precisely what this amendment would do. Congress should not be picking winners and losers here, determining that some workers deserve greater protections than other workers. They all deserve protection. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act reaffirms longstanding protections for all workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the points of order.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think there is some confusion here. The other gentleman from Minnesota says that these are talking about veterans who have chosen to have a union. The point is we don't know if they've chosen to have a union. We don't know that. That's what the election is for. And they deserve the time and the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, hear from all sides and make an informed decision. What the underlying bill does, it says you get at least 35 days. And I would remind my colleagues that the current mean time, average time, is 31 days and the median time is 38 days. It's not out of line. But we think a month, 5 weeks, ought to be time for workers to be able to receive the information, ask the questions, challenge information from the employer and from the union organizer, and then make an informed decision. While it's true, certainly, sometimes in combat that you have to make split-second decisions to save your life or the lives of colleagues or to achieve the mission, you shouldn't be required to do that here in making this decision for you and your families. You ought to have time to do it. Because an employer has misbehaved, in the example of this amendment, the employer should be punished for that if he's a broken law, but the employees should not be deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision, and that's what this amendment would do. So, again, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for keeping track of the Minnesotans here as well. I'm sorry, but again we just have a fundamental difference here. If an employer is liable, has made mistakes, has broken the law, they should be punished under the law, whichever law they have violated in violating the rights of employees, veterans or not. But this amendment is an attempt to dismantle a successful union election process that is fair to veterans and nonveterans, to employees and to employers. This amendment, in an attempt to punish employers who have misbehaved, who ought to be punished under the law under another law, is simply going to deny the rights of workers to have the opportunity to make an informed decision. I oppose this amendment and support the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLINE. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is similar to amendments we have seen earlier today. We had an amendment sort of trying to capitalize on the Occupy Wall Street movement and limit workers' rights because of behavior of executives. This motion attempts to rewrite existing rules regarding union access to employer property. Mr. Speaker, the point is the current system has been providing fair elections, as the distinguished minority whip said, for employers and employees. The NLRB's job is to see that employers and employees have fair union-organizing elections. At a time when millions of Americans are searching for work, the Democrats have introduced yet another proposal that will make it more difficult for job creators, employers, to put Americans back to work. Rather than promoting a balanced election process, this motion to recommit will further tilt the playing field in favor of Big Labor bosses. It's time for the Democrats here to stop standing in the way of the Nation's job creators and work on commonsense solutions that will allow job creators to put Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill protects employers' free speech and employees' opportunity to make an informed decision. This motion to recommit undoes that. We need to defeat this motion to recommit for what it is and support the underlying legislation. Let's vote ``no'' on this motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let's clear up a few things today we've heard in this debate. It's very interesting. We clearly have a different view, there's no question about it. We've heard repeatedly that this bill strips workers of their rights. Sometimes my colleagues confuse workers with Big Labor leaders. This bill in fact protects workers' rights--union workers' rights, nonunion workers' rights. The proposed regulations--which apparently are under modification, as we speak, from the NLRB--were in fact an attack on workers' rights, a demand that more personal information be provided union organizers whether or not the workers approved of that, and shrinking the amount of time that workers might have to make a decision on one of the most important aspects in their life to as little as 10 days. This bill protects workers' rights and makes sure they have time to make this important decision. We've heard today that bargaining units would be gerrymandered by employers. In fact, this bill puts us back to the standards that have been in place for decades to make sure that workplaces aren't fractured and fragmented and you have worker against worker, worker against employer, making it harder for employers to run an effective business, making it harder for them to have confidence to hire Americans. We've been told that we're wasting time today and that we ought to be having a jobs bill, which apparently means spending more borrowed money. We're already borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, Mr. Chairman, that we're spending now, and yet apparently you can't create a job in this country unless government does it with borrowed money. Well, we disagree. We think, we believe that we have been moving legislation in this House which will in fact help American job creators put Americans back to work. One of the obstacles is confusion. It's uncertainty. It's worry about the regulatory climate and what is coming down the path. The President of the United States has said this economy needs a jolt, Mr. Chairman. I disagree. It needs certainty. It needs predictability. Employers, employees, and consumers need confidence in the future. They don't need to be jerked. The distinguished minority whip said the NLRB ought to be fair. He said employers and employees ought to get a fair election. I couldn't agree more. Employers and employees ought to have a fair shake. They ought to get a fair election. And that's what this bill does. So the choice today is pretty simple. If you support an employer's right to speak to his or her employees during an organizing campaign, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support a worker's right to make an informed decision in a union election, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support giving workers a say in the personal information, Mr. Chairman, available to union leaders, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. And if you support reining in an activist NLRB and reaffirming Congress' responsibility to write the law, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. I urge my colleagues to stand by our workers and their employers by supporting this simple, commonsense legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, this clearly, in fact, in the language of the motion, is designed to kill the bill. I understand the gentlelady doesn't like the bill, but the characterization of it is incorrect. We heard today on this floor some distinguished Members of the other party say that the NLRB ought to be fair, that employers and employees ought to get a fair election. We agree with that. We have heard today that the majority party has done nothing to improve the economy and help job creators create jobs. Clearly we disagree. Member after Member has stood up here and said we have a plan, we've been advancing legislation, we continue to advance legislation, we have over 20 bills passed by this House sitting over in the Senate waiting for Majority Leader Reid to take them up, jobs that will clear the way for job creators, the private sector, to put Americans back to work. Clearly there is a blizzard of regulations that is descending on the workplace. The Speaker got a letter back from the administration some 2 weeks ago that said there were some 219 regulations in the pipeline, each of which would have an impact on the economy of over $100 million, and I think seven that would have an impact of over a billion dollars, regulations coming from every direction. My colleagues pointed out that even the President of the United States said we shouldn't be having more regulations that don't directly affect the safety and security of the American people, or words close to that effect. The gentlelady, my friend from Wisconsin, said that there was an unfolding plot. Well, I agree, there does seem to be an unfolding plot. It's coming from the administration through the NLRB to advance the special interest of Big Labor bosses. We don't think that's right. That's not giving employers and employees a fair election; that's advancing the special interest of big union bosses. It's not protecting the rights of workers, whether they're in a union or not. Employees and employers ought to get a fair election. The NLRB should not be slanting it, handing it to Big Labor bosses. So this is an effort to kill the bill. I believe it is a good bill that restores practices that have been in place providing fair elections for decades. I would encourage my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and vote against this motion to kill the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for his service. He, like me, made an early mistake and chose to fly and, even worse, to fly helicopters. He just perhaps was better at it than some of us. But this amendment is going in the wrong direction. It's not the percentage. How many percent? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000 percent more money that an executive makes--I don't want to defend that either. And I don't want to defend the leader who eats before his troops. I don't want to defend the leader who thinks he can get it done without the troops. But this amendment takes away the rights and the protections of the employees and the workers. We shouldn't punish the workers because we're mad at the executives. We shouldn't punish the troops because we're mad at the colonels. I agree with the gentleman on that. Let's don't punish the workers. Let's defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer the following Managers' Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on H.R. 2465, the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act, which I also offer on behalf of the Senior Democratic Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. George Miller (D-CA), and the Chairman and Senior Democratic Member of the Committee's Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Mr. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Ms. Lynn Woolsey (D- CA). Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on H.R. 2465, the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act Purpose H.R. 2465 amends the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8101 et seq., the federal statute providing workers' compensation benefits to federal employees who become injured or ill due to a work-related activity. As further discussed below in the Joint Statement of Legislative Intent, the bill enhances the efficiency of the FECA program, which is administered by the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP); improves the integrity of the FECA program; and modernizes two FECA benefit levels that have not been adjusted for inflation in over six decades. Committee Action On May 12, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, held a hearing entitled, ``Reviewing Workers' Compensation for Federal Employees.'' The purpose of the hearing was to review the current state of the FECA program and discuss ways to improve and modernize FECA. Testifying before the subcommittee were: Mr. Scott Szymendera, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Daniel Bertoni, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Gary Steinberg, Acting Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Susan Carney, Director, Human Relations Department, American Postal Workers Union, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Elliot Lewis, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Testimony for the record was submitted by the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. On July 8, 2011, I introduced H.R. 2465, along with cosponsors Reps. Miller, Walberg, and Woolsey. The Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 2465 in legislative session on July 13, 2011, and ordered the bill favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. There were no amendments. The committee received letters of support for H.R. 2465 from the following organizations: the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American Nurses Association, the American Postal Workers Union, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees, the Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group, the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, and the National Association of Letter Carriers. H.R. 2465 represents the committee's initial consideration of reforms to FECA. The committee concluded the FECA reform package advocated by DOL lacked sufficient information to consider the impact of DOL's wider reforms. The DOL Inspector General testified before the committee on May 12, 2011, that before changes to the benefit structure are considered, ``careful consideration is needed to ensure that the percent of benefits ultimately established will have the desired effect while ensuring fairness to injured workers, especially those who have been determined to be permanently impaired and thus unable to return to work.'' The May 12 hearing showed that DOL's reforms could have unintended adverse consequences and highlighted that further assessment would be needed. To that end, on July 8, 2011, the four sponsors of this legislation asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the consequences of administration proposals to: modify FECA related to benefit levels when permanently injured employees reach social security retirement age; reduce benefit levels for individuals with dependents; and establish a three-day waiting period before FECA benefits can begin. GAO findings will inform further consideration of FECA program changes. Joint Statement of Legislative Intent Section 2. Physician Assistants and Advanced Practice Nurses. Section 2 amends FECA Sec. Sec. 8101(3) (definition of ``medical, surgical, and hospital services and supplies'') to provide that the definition of ``medical services'' under FECA may include ``treatment by a physician assistant or advanced practice nurse, such as a nurse practitioner, within the scope of the practice as defined by state law, consistent with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.'' Section 2 amends FECA Sec. 8103 (medical services and initial medical and other benefits) to provide explicitly that a ``physician assistant or advanced practice nurse, such as a nurse practitioner,'' may provide ``medical services'' under FECA ``within the scope of their practice as defined by state law, consistent with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.'' Section 2 amends FECA Sec. 8121(6) (certification of claims) to authorize a ``physician assistant or advanced practice nurse, such as a nurse practitioner, within the scope of their practice as defined by state law,'' to certify a traumatic injury and the probable extent of related disability during the 45-day continuation of pay period covered by section 8118, in a manner consistent with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. Expanding services provided by physician assistants and advanced practice nurses improves program efficiency by allowing injured federal workers to utilize local clinics or other health service providers in which only a physician assistant or advanced practice nurse is on site; expanding the number of providers eligible to provide certification of injury and the probable extent of disability for traumatic injuries with respect to claims for continuation of pay; and expanding eligible medical services providers, which is of particular benefit to those in rural areas and zones of armed conflict. The term ``advanced practice nurse'' may include, but is not limited to, nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse midwives, and nurse psychotherapists, within the scope of their practice as defined by state law. Section 3. Covering Terrorism Injuries. Section 3 amends FECA Sec. 8102(b) (compensation for disability or death of employee) to provide that a disability or death as a result of ``an attack by a terrorist or terrorist organization, either known or unknown,'' is ``deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty,'' under FECA's ``war-risk hazard'' provision. This codifies current OWCP practice of covering such disabilities or deaths as ``war-risk hazards.'' Section 4. Disfigurement. Section 4 amends FECA Sec. 8107(c)(21) (compensation schedule for scheduled awards) to increase the maximum amount payable for ``serious disfigurement of the face, head, or neck'' from $3,500 to $50,000. This amount has not been increased since 1949. The maximum will be adjusted for inflation on March 1 of each year in accordance with FECA Sec. 8146a (cost-of-living adjustment of compensation). Section 4 eliminates the current statutory requirement that disfigurement must be ``of a character likely to handicap an individual in securing or maintaining employment.'' Rather, pursuant to Section 4, scheduled awards will be made solely in proportion to the severity of the disfigurement, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Section 4 will apply to injuries occurring in the 3-year period prior to the date of enactment and for which the Secretary of Labor has not made a compensation determination on disfigurement, or for injuries which occur on or after the date of enactment. Section 5. Social Security Earnings Information. Section 5 amends FECA Sec. 8116 by adding a new subsection (e) authorizing the Secretary of Labor to require FECA claimants, as a condition of receiving FECA benefits, to authorize the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release earnings information to DOL. The purpose of this provision is to enable DOL to discover instances in which claimants are not disclosing earnings information to DOL as they are required to under FECA. The FECA statute anticipates that the Secretary of Labor will require FECA claimants to submit reports of earnings, and further states that a claimant who fails to submit such a report or knowingly omits such earnings forfeits entitlement to compensation under FECA for the period covered by that report. However, the statute currently contains no mechanism whereby DOL can cross-check such reports with claimants' SSA earnings. Receipt of FECA benefits for total disability, when a claimant is, in fact, earning a wage, is antithetical to one of the statute's fundamental purposes. Section 5 will permit DOL to obtain individual earnings reports from SSA, which are needed to verify whether individual FECA claimants have earnings not reported to DOL. Section 5 will also permit DOL and SSA to conduct computer matches between a list of claimants produced by DOL by allowing DOL to provide SSA with such a list and a certification that each of the claimants on the list has consented to the release of SSA earnings information by virtue of and as part of his or her application for FECA benefits. This will conserve scarce DOL resources by avoiding the need to obtain from the claimant and provide to SSA individual consent forms. Ultimately, Section 5 will increase the ability of DOL to detect unreported earnings by FECA claimants. Section 6. Continuation of Pay in a Zone of Armed Conflict. Section 6 amends FECA Sec. 8118 (continuation of pay) to provide continuation of pay for wage loss due to traumatic injury in performance of duty in a designated zone of armed conflict, as defined in this Section, for a period not to exceed 135 days, so long as the employee files a claim for such benefit no longer than 45 days after terminating service in the zone of armed conflict or the employee's return to the United States, whichever occurs later. Section 7. Subrogation of Continuation of Pay. Section 7 amends FECA Sec. Sec. 8131 (subrogation) and 8132 (adjustment after recovery from third party) to authorize the United States to recover continuation of pay benefits received under FECA Sec. 8118, if such damages were paid to a FECA beneficiary by a third party (other than the United States), subject to the existing formula in FECA. This right to recover continuation of pay is in addition to the existing right of the government to secure reimbursement of compensation benefits. Section 8. Funeral Expenses. Section 8 amends FECA Sec. 8134 (funeral expenses) to increase the amount payable for funeral expenses for deaths occurring on or after the date of enactment from the current $800 to $6,000. This amount has not been increased since 1949. The maximum will be adjusted for inflation on March 1 of each year in accordance with FECA Sec. 8146a (cost-of- living adjustment of compensation). Section 9. Employees' Compensation Fund. Section 9 amends FECA Sec. 8147 to allow for administrative expenses for appropriated fund agencies to be paid out of the Employees' Compensation Fund and for a pro-rata share of administrative expenses to be included in agencies' annual chargeback. Currently, DOL charges non-appropriated fund agencies, such as the U.S. Postal Service, for administrative costs on a pro rata basis, while the administrative expenses for all other agencies are appropriated on an annual basis to DOL. This provision will have no net effect on the budget of the federal government. Section 10. Conforming Amendment. Section 10 amends FECA Sec. 8101(1) (definition of ``employee'') to update the law to acknowledge that on May 3, 1979, District of Columbia employees became covered under the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Official Code Sec. 1- 601.01, et seq., instead of FECA. Section 11. Effective Date. This section provides that unless specified otherwise in the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act, the effective date of this Act is 60 days after the date of enactment. CBO Cost Estimate The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting these changes would reduce net direct spending by $22 million over the 2012-2021 period, including $6 million in on- budget savings and $16 million in off-budget savings (to the U.S. Postal Service). Over the 10 year period there would be a very slight decrease in spending subject to appropriation (<$500,000).

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill provides important protections for gun owners, and its time is past due. As a retired marine and avid outdoorsman, I'm an experienced firearms owner and user. I hold a concealed-carry permit in the State of Minnesota, and I believe individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of their home, property, family and person. They have that right. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of mischaracterizations surrounding this legislation. I've heard a lot of it here today. To be clear, this bill does not create a Federal licensing or registration system. It does not create Federal standards, or infringe on the ability of States to make laws for a carry permit, and it does not negatively affect States that have permit-less carry systems. Mr. Chairman, this bill will protect law-abiding gun owners from current confusion caused by the wide array of State laws and preempt the threat of frivolous lawsuits they could face simply by traveling outside of their home State. National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity provides critical recognition that the Second Amendment rights of our constituents do not end when they cross State lines, and this will enhance public safety. I urge my colleagues to stand for the Second Amendment and to stand for the rights of responsible gun owners who engage in gun safety, and I urge them to support H.R. 822.