Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interferance Act

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Because the one Republican amendment submitted to the Rules Committee was not germane and because the Democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, House Resolution 372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. Since the NLRB filed suit against Boeing, I have been reminded of an old saying: ``A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.''

What you see now is exactly that, Big Government killing jobs under the guise of protecting workers. Let me be clear. Despite what opponents will say, this is not a union issue. This is a classic example of government overreach which will, in the end, destroy American jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and an economy which is best described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford this action. Plain and simple, my legislation will remove the NLRB's ability to kill jobs.

The government, especially an unelected board, does not need to be involved in the business decisions of the private sector. In fact, it cannot be. We already live in a country where our corporate tax structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another strike against us.

Today, the NLRB's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my hometown of north Charleston. Let me say that again: 1,100 jobs already created and filled. Who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company from looking to expand, not just in South Carolina, a State where our unemployment rate is at 10.9 percent, but anywhere in the country. This instability is the last thing our job creators need right now.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This commonsense solution will help spur job creation and, more importantly, it will remove impediments to job creation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.


Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. There are a couple of comments I would like to make on my good friend's comments.

For one thing, not a single union employee, not a single employee in Washington State--Puget Sound, Washington State--has lost their job because of the new line of work being done in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Another comment that my good friend made had to do with Medicare and what the Republicans are doing to Medicare. Let us not forget the fact that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact on Medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national health care plan passed by the Democrats where they stripped $500 billion, $500 billion, out of Medicare to pay for the debacle known as national health care.


Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just say to my good friend, Mr. McGovern, that there's no doubt about it that the President's jobs plan does one thing. And it's consistent with what the NLRB would do as well. It doesn't simply ship American jobs overseas. It ships American companies overseas so they do not have to play in the quagmire pit called the regulations that this President and the Federal Government have imposed on businesses.

To quote from the conservative Chicago Tribune: The NLRB's worst decision, however, is its unprovoked ``hit'' job on Boeing. There's no question that whether you're a conservative, a liberal; whether you are a passionate believer in the future of this Nation and this world, here's one thing we all have in common: the decision for the NLRB to attack America's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and indefensible.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).


Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. My good friends on the left continue to talk about shipping jobs out of America. I want to make sure that everyone still recognizes the fact that the great State of South Carolina is still a part of the United States of America. In fact, when you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the Washington State employees now have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant in North Charleston. In fact, if you're talking about creating American jobs in American States--U.S. States--South Carolina--you would simply look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in North Charleston. You would think about the fact that the compounding impact of those jobs in North Charleston could create up to 12,000 new American jobs in our States.

So the fallacy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric


Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Our President wants an up-or-down vote on this one package.

We believe that the fastest and most effective way to show the American people that partisan politics is over and that we're now focused on the American people, we will take those parts, those aspects of the President's bill that we agree with, like regulatory reform like we're doing today, and simply say to the American people that we're listening. We will take, without any question, an opportunity to debate the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make America's corporations more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the games which so often sidetrack things in Washington and pass this important legislation here today.

This is not a question of pro-union--I agree with you--or anti-union. It is a question of right versus wrong.

The NLRB has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and hold employers accountable for unlawful labor practices. There is simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where a private business can establish its workforce.

Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Back to top