John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to remember why we are here today. More than a year ago, the President took an unprecedented step despite all of the discussion from the other side of the aisle. No other President made a recess appointment when the Senate was in session, in pro forma session, or any session. So despite how many times President Reagan or President George H.W. Bush or President George W. Bush made recess appointments, this was unprecedented. Now, it's still an open question to be decided. The D.C. Court of Appeals made a ruling that the President's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. And it's going to be an ongoing debate, I'm sure, going forward for days and weeks, the sooner the better, to determine what it means under article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, where it says the Senate is vested with the power to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.'' The Senate determined that the rules of its proceeding said that the Senate was in session. We heard mention today by a number of my colleagues that Senator Reid had announced, when President Bush was in office, that the Senate was going to stay in pro forma session in order to keep the President from making recess appointments. That's an important debate going forward. The problem is, as we stand here today, with a lot of discussion from the other side of the aisle, unfortunately some of which was questioning our motives, my motives, called action shameful, that's a shame. Because what we've got today is a Board that has been ruled unconstitutional by the D.C. court, which by the way is the court that reviews every single challenge to an NLRB ruling. You can't get relieved by a court in San Diego. If you don't like the ruling of the Board, you're going to appeal to the court that has already ruled that that Board is unconstitutional. This is dysfunctional. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I, or anybody else, believe in collective bargaining rights. We have a Board that under the National Labor Relations Act is supposed to be an arbiter, a fair arbiter. It's the place where you go to get a determination; and the problem there is you can't go there to get a determination, or you get one that is immediately suspect and open to appeal to a court that has already said that they're unconstitutional. We already have over 600 rulings by this Board since these appointments were made January a year ago. Every time this Board makes another decision, another ruling, it pours more uncertainty into an economy that is, frankly, still desperately struggling to come out. We've heard accusations about, well, it's the Senate's fault, and I'm sort of inclined to always think that it's the Senate's fault when something doesn't happen. I just remind my colleagues that this is a bipartisan Senate problem. In 2011, a Republican Board nominee languished in the Democrat-led Senate for a year--no hearing, no debate, no vote. So this is not a new circumstance. There is an answer to this: the President of the United States can bring forward nominees that can be confirmed--that can be confirmed-- and then we would have a constitutionally constituted Board to go forward and resolve the disputes that were brought up so many times by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's not what we have now. We have a dysfunctional Board that is worse than useless because they are making decisions which are entirely suspect. Congress should not allow this situation to get worse. The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act is an appropriate response to a horrible situation. This ought not to be Republicans versus Democrats. This is a chance for us to say we have an intolerable situation. This Board needs to stop issuing decisions that are immediately suspect and challengeable to the very court that has ruled them unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1120, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, our speaker has not yet arrived, so I will be ready to close after the gentleman from New Jersey. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I have no objection.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that the speaker we're waiting for has not yet arrived. I'm not sure how many speakers are left on your side. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker reportedly en route from another committee, so I will reserve the balance of my time and give him a chance to get here.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KLINE. I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. KLINE. I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 803.

Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Dr. Heck.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, at this time I'm very pleased and honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished House majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the passion of my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee, on this and on so many issues. It's no doubt personal incomes have been flat in recent years and unemployment remains high: 12 million Americans unemployed, some 22 million Americans underemployed. Unemployment among youth is extraordinarily high. People are trying to get into the workforce, and they can't get in. We need jobs out there. The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation's job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I am.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the committee.

Mr. KLINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We believe that the SKILLS Act is genuine, commonsense reform addressing a real problem that our Nation has faced for years. This authorization expired in 2003; and so under Republicans and Democrats, we've been unable to get legislation passed into law through the committee, through the House, and move it forward. There have been all sorts of reasons for this. Sometimes it was just recognized that it's too hard; but in any case, we haven't been able to move it. And that includes, frankly, under 4 years when the other side had the majority, chaired this committee, and in fact had a majority in the House and the Senate and the White House and were unable to move legislation forward. So I appreciate the calls for bipartisanship. I'm not entirely sure why walking out of a markup engenders further bipartisan support. Nevertheless, that's what we're faced with. This legislation was thoughtfully developed after the committee convened multiple hearings over the last 3 years, examined the testimony of dozens of witnesses, including Governors and State and local workforce investment leaders. This ongoing debate has been open and fair. When we had this bill in the committee last year, amendments were offered by Republicans and Democrats. Amendments passed, as offered by Republicans and Democrats. We have to move this legislation forward. We can no longer afford the failed status quo that wastes taxpayer dollars and prevents people from getting the skills they need to get the jobs that are available today. The SKILLS Act will strengthen the workforce training system, make our Nation more competitive in the 21st century, and help put Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 803, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, the SKILLS Act, and yield myself as much time as I may consume. Despite an increase in hiring last month, our Nation is still experiencing a jobs crisis. Twelve million Americans are searching for work. Nearly 5 million of these unemployed workers have been without a job for 6 months or longer. For many Americans, the hope of a new job grows more desperate the longer they are unemployed. Jack Walerius has not had full-time work for more than 3 years and has lost count of the number of times he has applied for a job. He recently told CBS News: From my perspective, from my eyes, I still see that we're in a deep recession. Today, we have an opportunity to advance reforms that will give workers like Jack a better chance to succeed. Our economy is extremely competitive and constantly changing. Unfortunately, the workforce training system has failed to keep up. It's not surprising when you consider the size of the bureaucracy that now exists. This chart is a snapshot of the current job training system. It includes more than 50 programs spread across nine Federal agencies. President Obama described it as a ``maze of confusing training programs.'' I completely agree. The current system is inefficient and ineffective. For individuals served through the Workforce Investment Act, less than one in five completed training. Fewer than half of those who received employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work. To make matters worse, Federal mandates stifle the engagement and innovation of employers and State and local leaders. Onerous rules prevent workers from accessing the training they need when they need it. And taxpayer dollars are being spent with little accountability. A bloated bureaucracy is standing between workers and the support they need. We've tried the Washington-knows-best approach, and it isn't working. It's time to move in a new direction. It is time for a workforce training system that empowers job creators to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. It is time to give State and local leaders greater freedom to serve their communities. It is time for a workforce training system that spends taxpayer money wisely. It is time to invest less in bureaucracy and more in workers and training. The SKILLS Act will help us reach these goals. The legislation replaces 35 ineffective and duplicative programs with a new Workforce Investment Fund. No more maze of programs. Instead, workers will get help through one simple and flexible source of employment support. The bill strengthens the role of job creators, as well as State and local leaders, who know best the needs of their workforce. Doing so will ensure the skills workers receive can be applied to the jobs of today and the future, not the past. The legislation also makes sure our most vulnerable workers-- including veterans, disadvantaged youth and individuals with disabilities--are being served. Finally, the SKILLS Act provides accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars. If a program demonstrates a pattern of failure, then taxpayers will know about it. Madam Chair, for 10 years, Congress has talked about job training reform but has failed to make reform a reality. It is time to fix the broken job training system and help put more Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to support the SKILLS Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I object.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the author of the SKILLS Act.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, can I now inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?