[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______


NOMINATION OF WILLIAM B. GOULD IV, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
                     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session to consider Calendar item 476, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of William B. Gould IV, of 
California, to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of 
the nomination of Prof. William Gould, to be Chairman of the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  For 13 years, the NLRB has withered under consecutive Republican 
administrations. Seldom has the Board operated with a full five 
members. Cases have piled up, preventing the timely resolution of labor 
disputes, and frustrating workers' efforts to enforce their rights. 
Today, the Board is in desperate need of leadership, and President 
Clinton could not have made a better choice as his nominee.
  As a matter of fact, Professor Gould stands out as perhaps the most 
qualified nominee in the history of the NLRB. Bill Gould has spent a 
lifetime thinking about and addressing the needs of America's working 
men and women. In his long and successful career, he has practiced 
labor law from every angle. He has represented workers. He has 
represented management. He has represented the National Labor Relations 
Board, working for both Republican and Democratic Members. Clearly, 
this is a man with an unprecedented breadth of experience in the field 
of labor relations.
  Professor Gould stands out as a respected academic, having taught 
labor law courses at Stanford University since 1972. The academic 
community, in a letter signed by 75 labor law professors, says Bill 
Gould is ``an outstanding leader in labor relations * * * uniquely 
qualified for this critical position.''
  Professor Gould stands out as a prolific writer, having authored 6 
books and more than 60 law review articles. Strangely, the National 
Association of Manufacturers says its opposition to Professor Gould's 
nomination ``is premised on [his] extensive writings.'' I have 
difficulty in comprehending how anybody can be opposed to somebody in 
view of their extensive writings. Perhaps NAM would prefer a nominee 
who had never read the National Labor Relations Act, or one who had 
never given thought to the relationship between workers and employers.
  NAM says it opposes this nomination because in some of his writings 
Professor Gould has advocated changes in our Federal labor laws. But is 
not that the very purpose of legal academia, to assess how our laws are 
working and offer thoughtful suggestions as to how they might work 
better?
  Professor Gould's views defy simple categorization as either 
``liberal'' or ``conservative.'' Sometimes he has advocated changes 
that would strengthen workers' rights. Sometimes he has advocated 
changes that would strengthen employers' rights. If there is one 
constant in Bill Gould's writings, it is his dedication to improving 
the state of labor relations in this country. And if one thing is 
clear, it is the absurdity of challenging this man's qualifications.

  Professor Gould stands out as an arbitrator with 30 years experience 
and tremendous respect from lawyers representing both labor and 
management. He has resolved over 200 labor-management disputes, 
displaying a judicial temperament and an unquestioned ability to build 
consensus. These are qualities that will serve him well as Chairman of 
the NLRB.
  For all of these reasons, Bill Gould stands out as an extraordinary 
nominee. But most of all, Bill Gould stands out because of the 
remarkable breadth of support for his nomination. As we all know, 
labor-management relations is often a highly adversarial, pitched 
battle between employer and worker advocates. That is what makes the 
unanimous outpouring of support for Professor Gould all the more 
remarkable. All of those who have worked with him--his peers, his 
fellow practitioners, judges, law school deans, present and former NLRB 
members, and representatives of management and labor who have won and 
lost cases before him--have uniformly praised his intellect, his 
fairness, and his integrity.
  Let me quote just one of these supporters, Elliott Azoff, a 
management labor lawyer from a prominent Cleveland firm:

       Bill understands the need for a neutral to not only be fair 
     but to create a pervasive atmosphere of impartiality. * * * 
     Bill will enforce the National Labor Relations Act as it is 
     written and leave amending of the statute, if that is needed, 
     to Congress, and critiquing of the statute to the rest of us.

  Elliott Azoff's views confirm that people who know Bill Gould 
recognize the difference between reforms he discusses in his academic 
writings, and his ability as NLRB Chair to enforce the law as it is 
written. They recognize that his many years of reflection on our labor 
laws are an asset, not a liability. His extensive record as an 
arbitrator confirms his neutrality and his strict adherence to existing 
law, even when deciding issues on which he has written as an academic. 
There simply is no basis to question Professor Gould's integrity or 
qualifications for this position.
  Bill Gould will seek to enforce the law in a fair and impartial 
manner, promoting labor relations stability and cooperation. I have 
heard the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about Professor 
Gould's nomination. Frankly, I am appalled that some of my colleagues 
would stoop so low to attack a man who is so universally respected. 
Bill Gould is a man of uncompromising integrity, and I urge my 
colleagues to support his nomination to chair the National Labor 
Relations Board.
  I understand that not everyone is in agreement, and I respect the 
views of those who are in disagreement. But I say categorically I think 
that Bill Gould is the man for the job and I hope the Senate sees fit 
to confirm him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the 
nomination of William Gould to be Chairman of the National Labor 
Relations Board. Certainly, William Gould brings high credentials to 
this position. However, I cannot support this nominee for this 
position, which wields such significant power over the lives of 
American workers and businesses.
  This is a nominee who has lent support over the years for radical 
change in labor law. I cannot support a nominee for a position that 
holds significant power and authority over the labor laws of our land 
and a nominee who subscribes to an agenda that will undermine the very 
legal structure his agency will oversee.
  For years, Professor Gould has called for a major overhaul of our 
Federal labor laws. His writings have been very critical of existing 
law, as well as numerous Board and Supreme Court precedents. He has, in 
fact, become one of the Nation's leading champions of labor law reform.
  The National Labor Relations Board is charged with the interpretation 
and enforcement of our Nation's labor laws. It is not and should not 
become a forum for radical labor law reform.
  Professor Gould's recent book ``Agenda For Reform'' lays out a 
blueprint for drastically changing Federal labor law. For example, most 
disturbing is Professor Gould's desire to do away with secret ballot 
elections when workers are asked to decide whether or not they want to 
join a union. He would replace secret ballot elections by having 
workers simply sign cards indicating their support.
  Secret ballot elections are an essential part of our democracy, and 
working men and women are no less deserving of this basic democratic 
right. Workers should never be subjected to coercion in making the 
decision about joining a union.
  Professor Gould will also expand the ability of unions to punish 
workers who want to continue working during a strike. I am deeply 
concerned about a nominee who would place the rights of unions, and 
their ability to strike, over the rights of individual workers who 
simply want to earn a living.
  Professor Gould also believes that permanent replacement workers 
should be prohibited during an economic strike.
  We all know current law permits such permanent replacements. If the 
law is changed, as Professor Gould would have it, we will see many more 
strikes and our effort to encourage labor and management cooperation 
will take a giant step backward.
  Professor Gould also advocates double and triple back pay damage 
awards to remedy unfair labor practice violations. This so-called 
reform dates back to the labor law reform ideas of the late 1970's, 
which were flatly rejected by this body. The increase in damage awards 
would expand litigation and encourage even further division in the 
workplace.
  Professor Gould would expand an employer's duty to disclose 
confidential information to unions, far in excess of what current law 
requires. He advocates increasing access to private property for union 
organizers who are not employees, in direct contradiction to the 
Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.
  I could go on, because these are only a few of the changes that 
Professor Gould advocates. Now, it is one thing to advocate. It is 
another to serve as the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  Madam President, I am sure Professor Gould is sincere in his stated 
hope that he will distinguish these previously expressed views from his 
role as NLRB Chairman. But such strongly held views must shape and 
influence the decisions of one who serves in this role. As NLRB 
Chairman, he has a great opportunity to interpret the law and that is 
the crux of my objection and my concern.

  In fact, Professor Gould once wrote that ``new appointments to the 
Board from 1989 onward can change the law.'' Are we to believe that 
Professor Gould will refrain from exercising the power to reform labor 
law--that he himself acknowledges the Board can do--when he so clearly 
stated his belief in the need for such comprehensive reform?
  I do not believe any of us want to return to a period of labor 
unrest, of strikes and of work stoppages and excessive and protracted 
litigation, all of which will resurface if we have a one-sided and 
activist National Labor Relations Board.
  At this juncture, our economy cannot afford the disruption and 
uncertainty that will result if the Board is used as a platform for 
labor law reform. Both employers and labor unions must have confidence 
in the impartiality of the Board in order for it to function 
effectively.
  Unfortunately, Madam President, I think that Professor Gould has 
failed to instill that confidence.
  The business community is unified in its opposition to the nominee. 
The National Association of Manufacturers, the Labor Policy 
Association, the Society of Human Resource Management, the Chamber of 
Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have 
all expressed their opposition to Professor Gould's nomination. 
Collectively, they represent an overwhelming majority of the businesses 
in America. Some of these organizations have never taken a position on 
a Board nominee, but feel very strongly about Professor Gould. Other 
business organizations have expressed their opposition as well, and I 
would ask unanimous consent that these letters of opposition be made a 
part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 1993.
     Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
     Ranking Republican, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kassebaum: In earlier communications, the 
     National Association of Manufacturers expressed serious 
     reservations regarding the nomination of William B. Gould IV 
     to the National Labor Relations Board but withheld final 
     judgment pending his confirmation hearing.
       On the basis of the hearing, together with a thorough 
     review of his writings, the NAM has concluded Professor 
     Gould's confirmation would not be in the best interest of our 
     members and urges the rejection of his nomination. We believe 
     that employer-employee relations are at a critical juncture 
     where the substantial rewriting or reinterpretation of labor 
     law would be most disruptive, not only to those relationships 
     but the Nation we well.
       The NAM's opposition is premised on Professor Gould's 
     extensive writings, most recently espoused in his book Agenda 
     for Reform, that advocate repeal or substantial change of the 
     law he would be obligated to uphold and administer if 
     confirmed. The NAM appreciates the distinction made by 
     Professor Gould at the hearing between himself as a professor 
     and as a member of the NLRB, i.e., that in the latter role he 
     would enforce the law as written. We are concerned, however, 
     that distancing oneself from such deeply rooted philosophical 
     views is easier said than done.
       Our position on this nomination turns also on the fact that 
     the President will this year nominate candidates for two 
     other Board seats and the very critical position of General 
     Counsel. We are aware of possible candidates for the General 
     Counsel and one of the NLRB seats, both of whose sympathies 
     rest with the trade unions. While it is the President's 
     prerogative to make appointments consistent with his own 
     philosophy, we would hope such considerations would provide 
     at least some balance among Board members and the General 
     Counsel.
       Accordingly, the NAM urges that the nomination of Professor 
     Gould to be a member and chairman of the National Labor 
     Relations Board be rejected.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jerry J. Jasinowski.
                                  ____

                                                 October 19, 1993.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gregg: I am a member of the Board of Directors 
     of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Chairman of its Labor 
     Relations Committee. The Committee has reviewed many of the 
     articles and books written by Professor William Gould IV, the 
     nominee for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). That 
     review, along with Professor Gould's testimony at the 
     Committee's October 1, 1993 hearing, leads us to conclude 
     that he should not be a member of the NLRB. Accordingly, we 
     respectfully urge that his confirmation not be reported out 
     of committee.
       Professor Gould's statements and writings reflect a 
     predisposition toward destruction of many established and 
     fundamental principles of this nation's labor policy, as well 
     as a return to the adversarial and litigious processes of the 
     past. His views conflict with and contravene the evolution of 
     U.S. labor policy which now encourages organized labor and 
     management voluntarily to form long-term, non-adversarial 
     relationships of significant mutual benefit. As Chairman of 
     the NLRB, Professor Gould will hinder that positive 
     evolution.
       The United States must do everything possible to position 
     itself to play a leadership role in the ever-expanding global 
     economic market. U.S. labor policy encourages conciliation, 
     cooperation, and dispute avoidance or resolution, and should 
     not be changed in the wholesale manner recommended by 
     Professor Gould. Members of the NLRB must be dedicated to 
     upholding the rights of individual workers, facilitating the 
     cooperation essential to growth and survival in a highly 
     competitive global economy, and striving for the legal and 
     administrative consistency that discourages conflict and 
     litigation.
       I would like to bring to your attention some of Professor 
     Gould's statements which clearly demonstrate his intent to 
     alter long-established national labor policies. The 
     attachment shows that Professor Gould will use his authority 
     as NLRB Chairman to effectuate the radical suggestions 
     described in his writings.
       In his statement to the Committee on October 1, Professor 
     Gould tried to allay concerns about his radical 
     recommendations for revision of existing labor policy. He 
     noted that in his writings he had extensively expressed his 
     views ``on the shape that labor policy should take if 
     Congress should amend the National Labor Relations Act or 
     other statutes.'' (Emphasis added.) He added that his 
     responsibility was a Board member would be ``concerned 
     solely with the interpretation of the law as it is 
     presently written.'' (Emphasis in original.)
       These statements may be misleading. True, he advocates 
     fundamental changes to the National Labor Relations Act (the 
     Act), many of which would require legislation. However, his 
     writings also clearly show a desire and intent to change the 
     Act through NLRB interpretation and application of the 
     statute. Congress need not amend the Act for Professor Gould, 
     through his Chairmanship of the NLRB, to revamp many well-
     established principles of labor law. We firmly believe, based 
     on his own statements (discussed in the attachment), that he 
     will attempt to make the many substantial labor policy 
     changes he recommends.
       Recently, Professor Gould claimed the Act is in ``complete 
     disarray.'' To correct this, he recommended fundamental 
     changes in well-established NLRB and Supreme Court 
     principles. For Example, he recommends issuance of a Board 
     order requiring an employer to bargain with a union, even 
     though the union does not have the support of a majority of 
     employees. The board has rejected this approach, as have the 
     federal courts. He also recommends broadening the scope of 
     collective bargaining to many topics not now the subject of 
     negotiations between a union and employer (e.g., advertising, 
     decisions on future investments, product design, and any 
     other employer decision that has even an ``attenuated'' 
     impact on employment).
       Professor Gould's testimony on October 1 is inconsistent 
     with prior statements he made concerning NLRB and court 
     interpretations of the law. This could be disregarded but for 
     the awesome power and discretion vested in the NLRB.
       Interpreting Congressional intent, the Supreme Court has 
     consistently held that the Board has broad authority to 
     change the national labor policy as well as the National 
     Labor Relations Act through its interpretations. According to 
     the Court, the Board's interpretation of the law is entitled 
     to ``considerable deference.'' It is therefore easy for 
     Professor Gould to assuage concerns about his intent to 
     refrain from making labor law changes by saying he will be 
     concerned ``solely with the interpretation of the law as it 
     is presently written.'' The Act allows for NLRB changes in 
     the interpretation and application of the law.
       In light of Professor Gould's recommendations to make 
     substantial changes to previous interpretations of the Act, 
     and his clearly expressed doubts about the wisdom of Supreme 
     Court decisions, it must be concluded that he will, through 
     his leadership of the NLRB, attempt to rewrite labor policy. 
     Nothing in his statement or testimony suggests otherwise.
       Professor Gould's testimony, coupled with his numerous 
     written statements over the past several years, establish 
     beyond doubt that he has little regard for existing labor 
     policy formulated over several decades by the NLRB and the 
     Supreme Court, and that he intends to make many substantial 
     changes to the nation's labor policy during his chairmanship.
       The fundamental principle of the Act and the nation's 
     established labor policy is that employees have the right to 
     decide whether they will engage in union activity and select 
     which, if any, union they wish to represent them. Relying on 
     essential individual and collective rights--democratic 
     procedures and majority rule--employees' desires regarding 
     union representation are ascertained by objective evidence, 
     usually an NLRB secret-ballot election among employees. Those 
     elections determine whether an employer must bargain with a 
     union as the representative of its employees. Fair and 
     democratic efforts to determine employee desires must not be 
     considered mere ``roadblocks'' by the person charged with 
     enforcing the law. According to Professor Gould, such 
     elections are mere ``roadblocks.''
       For the above reasons we urge the Committee not to confirm 
     the nomination of Professor Gould.
       We request that this letter be included into the official 
     committee record.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William A. Stone.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1993.
     Hon. Ted Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the over 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) I 
     am writing to express opposition to the nomination of William 
     B. Gould IV to chairman of the National Labor Relations Board 
     (NLRB). Historically, NFIB has resisted expressing viewpoints 
     in the NLRB confirmation process. However, upon careful 
     review of Professor Gould's well-publicized views on labor 
     management relations we believe that this nomination warrants 
     our input.
       NFIB's opposition to Professor Gould's nomination is based 
     on his extensive writings, specifically his views on labor 
     law as expressed in his recently published book Agenda for 
     Reform. Professor Gould recommends significant changes to the 
     National Labor Relations Act, the same law he will be 
     responsible for upholding as a member of the NLRB. Not only 
     do his writings call for the erosion of many long-held 
     employer rights, but in many cases they reflect a strong 
     union bias.
       NFIB members have long opposed drastic revisions in labor 
     law, such as accelerated ``quickie'' union elections or union 
     certification without secret ballot elections, which would 
     make it easier for unions to organize and would reduce the 
     opportunity for workers to make an informed and uncoerced 
     choice on the important issue of union representation. 
     Professor Gould's writings illustrate his contrary views to 
     established precedents on these and other labor law 
     ``reforms.'' Although during his confirmation hearings 
     Professor Gould attempted to discount these views as the 
     writings of an academic, NFIB is concerned that as chair of 
     the NLRB he will use broad interpretations of the law to move 
     in the direction of his labor law reform ``agenda'' through 
     administrative adjudication and rule making.
       In a time when workplace relations in this country are in 
     transition, small business owners across the country feel 
     that any reinterpretation of labor law aimed solely at 
     institutionalizing organized labor's views would be 
     disruptive and detrimental to the relationship that currently 
     exists between employers and employees.
       Thus, NFIB urges the Senate to reject the nomination of 
     Professor William B. Gould IV to be a member and chairman of 
     the National Labor Relations Board.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John J. Motley,
                     Vice President, Federal Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 Society for Human


                                          Resource Management,

                                                  October 8, 1993.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Society for Human 
     Resource Management (SHRM) it is with regret that I must 
     inform you of our opposition to the nomination of Professor 
     William B. Gould IV to the National Labor Relations Board 
     (NLRB). SHRM is the leading voice of the human resource 
     profession, representing the interests of more than 55,000 
     professional and student members from around the world.
       Our decision to oppose this nomination follows a review of 
     Professor Gould's writings by members of SHRM's national 
     Employee and Labor Relations Committee, including his recent 
     book Agenda for Reform. This is the first time that SHRM has 
     opposed a presidential nomination.
       SHRM believes that the views expressed by Professor Gould 
     in his writings, which include advocating dramatic changes in 
     the nation's labor laws, raise a serious question as to 
     whether the Professor would attempt to re-write the law 
     through his decisions.
       Professor Gould's assertion during his confirmation hearing 
     that he will be ``concerned solely with the interpretation of 
     law as it is presently written'', is not helpful. Employers 
     must comply with the statutory provisions of our nation's 
     labor laws as well as NLRB and court interpretations of those 
     laws. Given his authority to interpret the law as NLRB 
     Chairman, Professor Gould would have the power to 
     dramatically change employer obligations under the statute. 
     And because we disagree with many of the Professor's views on 
     the proper formulation of this nation's labor laws, we must 
     oppose his nomination.
       This year, the President will have the opportunity to 
     nominate two additional candidates to the National Labor 
     Relations Board, as well as a candidate for the position for 
     General Counsel. We hope that these candidates are 
     representatives of a more balanced philosophy regarding 
     labor-management issues.
       SHRM urges that the nomination of Professor Gould to the 
     National Labor Relations Board be rejected.
           Sincerely,
                                           Michael R. Losey, SPHR,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would just like to read one letter, submitted by 
the chamber of commerce, which concluded after extensive review of his 
writings that ``Professor Gould's intent is fundamentally to revamp 
well-established, effective national labor relations policies and 
principles through the decisions of the NLRB in a manner that will lead 
to increasing adversarial labor-management relations, severely reduced 
competitiveness, and erosion of employee rights.''
  I am greatly troubled by the lack of confidence that exists in the 
business community for this nominee, a lack of confidence which I 
share. And I believe it is this confidence and this trust that is 
called into question with this nomination, not the extent of Professor 
Gould's knowledge of labor law and not the fact that he has written 
extensively. What is really at issue is the lack of confidence in 
Professor Gould to interpret the law rather than to attempt to move the 
Board in a very different direction.
  I hope that my colleagues would share these reservations and vote 
against this nominee.
  Madam President, I should like to ask that the Record be held open 
for additional statements until the close of business today, although 
we will be voting, I believe, at 4 o'clock, or thereabouts. There is an 
hour's agreed time. But I would like unanimous consent to hold the 
Record open for additional statements until the close of business 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair will remind the Senator there is 2 hours of debate equally 
divided.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just an inquiry. What is the time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 53 
minutes; the Senator from Kansas controls 51 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I do not believe we, the supporters of Mr. Gould, will 
use all of the time. And I imagine that although if we used all the 
time under the time agreement we would vote at 5, I believe we will 
vote earlier. We will try and give the Members sufficient notice. But I 
hope we would be able to vote closer to 4 than 5, so the Members ought 
to understand that.
  Madam President, I yield such time as I might use.
  Madam President, the Senate will vote today on President Clinton's 
nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. The Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources has favorably reported four nominations: William 
Gould as chairman, Margaret Browning and Charles Cohen as members of 
the board, and Fred Feinstein as general counsel.
  I urge the Senate to support their confirmation.
  The National Labor Relations Board is a small agency, but its mission 
is a large one--not only for the parties appearing before it, but also 
for the country as a whole. It is the Agency we depend on to implement 
the rules that bring stability to our system of labor-management 
relations.
  The four persons nominated by President Clinton will bring to that 
Agency a wealth of practical experience in dealing with labor-
management issues, and a high level of expertise that has rarely, if 
ever, been matched in the 60-year history of the Board.
  In selecting these nominees, the President has also chosen 
individuals who will bring a balanced and varied set of perspectives to 
their work. Margaret Browning is a highly respected labor law 
practitioner from Philadelphia whose practice has primarily involved 
the representation of unions and individual workers. Charles Cohen is a 
highly regarded management attorney.
  Fred Feinstein, the nominee for general counsel, has worked on labor-
management issues from a legislative perspective for 17 years as 
counsel to the House Labor-Management Subcommittee. Both Mr. Feinstein 
and Mr. Cohen also have prior experience as attorneys working for the 
Board itself.
  Bill Gould, the President's nominee for chairman of the Board, has 
the distinction of having represented every one of the principal 
interests that come before the Board: employers, unions, individual 
workers, and the NLRB itself.
  Despite Professor Gould's superb qualifications for the position of 
chairman, an opposition campaign has been mounted to try to defeat his 
nomination. It is ironic that he should be the target of such a 
campaign, because he may well be the best qualified chairman ever 
nominated to the Board. Let me review for a moment his background and 
credentials.
  As a practicing attorney early in his career, Mr. Gould worked for 1 
year as a lawyer for the United Auto Workers, then joined the staff of 
the NLRB for 2 years. He served there on the staffs of Chairman Frank 
McCulloch and member Howard Jenkins, both of whom were originally 
appointed by President Kennedy and who served long and respected terms 
at the Board.
  On leaving the Board, Mr. Gould joined the management firm of Battle, 
Fowler, Stokes & Kheel in New York City, where he represented employers 
for 3 years. More recently, he has taken time from his academic duties 
to represent individual workers on a pro bono basis in a series of 
significant race discrimination suits against both unions and 
employers.
  In addition to this extensive and extraordinary background as a 
practitioner of labor law, Professor Gould for the past 25 years has 
had a brilliant career as a professor at Stanford Law School. He has 
taught labor law to thousands of law students and has authored 6 books 
and more than 60 scholarly articles on the subject.
  His work has established him as a preeminent expert on a wide variety 
of labor law-management relations issues--which is why more than 75 
faculty members in this discipline from universities and law schools 
around the country have joined in supporting his nomination. They call 
him an outstanding leader in labor relations who is uniquely qualified 
for this critical position as Chairman of the NLRB.
  At the same time, during the past 30 years, Professor Gould has 
earned a nationwide reputation as a fair and thoughtful arbitrator. He 
has been a member of the prestigious National Academy of Arbitrators 
since 1970. He has been selected by management and labor to settle more 
than 200 disputes, involving every sector of the economy--including in 
recent years, numerous player salary disputes in major league baseball. 
In every way, his selection by President Clinton is a home run, and the 
Nation is fortunate that a person of Professor Gould's ability and 
character is willing to accept this call to public service. The test 
that President Clinton applied was obviously the test of excellence--
and if the Senate applies that test as well, Professor Gould should be 
confirmed by a vote of 100 to 0.
  Those who would like to see his nomination defeated have attempted to 
characterize Professor Gould as having a bias toward labor that will 
prevent him from fairly and impartially carrying out his duties as 
Chairman of the NLRB. But his record as an arbitrator refutes any such 
claim. According to statistics prepared by the Bureau of National 
Affairs, in his published arbitration decisions, Professor Gould upheld 
the position of management in 50 percent of the cases, and ruled in 
labor's favor in only 30 percent of the cases. The rest were split 
decisions. That record is hardly the kind of record that indicates bias 
toward labor.
  In fact, Professor Gould's experience in arbitration is probably the 
best indicator of how he will perform in the role of chairman of the 
National Labor Relations Board. As an arbitrator, he has been called 
upon to interpret and apply the law of the workplace, as set forth in 
the terms of collective bargaining agreements, to the facts of 
particular cases. His record has earned him the respect and widespread 
support of the parties who have selected him, and also of his peers.

  The high regard in which he is held by those who know his work in the 
arbitration field is reflected in the many letters the committee has 
received from fellow arbitrators praising Professor Gould's integrity 
and reputation for impartiality. The comments of Arthur Stark, a past 
president of the prestigious National Academy of Arbitrators, are 
typical:
  According to Mr. Stark, Bill Gould as an arbitrator has been 
acceptable to both management and labor representatives and has 
retained that acceptability over the years. His ability to see and 
understand both sides of the complex issues which arise in often hotly 
contested disputes is exactly what is required of an NLRB member and 
chairman.''
  Anthony Sinicropi, another past president of the academy, writes that 
Professor Gould enjoys the respect of both the labor and management 
community and would steer this historically important governmental 
quasi-judicial body in a direction to meet the challenge of today and 
tomorrow.
  Eva Robins, also a past president of the academy, praises Professor 
Gould for his personal integrity, knowledge, and his ethical standards.
  Dallas Jones, the current president of the academy, lauds Professor 
Gould's judicial temperament and says he will make an outstanding 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  As Professor Gould himself pointed out at his confirmation hearing, 
you do not get work as an arbitrator if either labor or management 
thinks you are unfair or biased toward one side or the other. Over and 
over, both labor and management have placed their trust in Professor 
Gould to resolve their disputes. That is the most persuasive evidence 
the Senate could have that he will be a fair and impartial Chairman of 
the National Labor Relations Board.
  In the months since his nomination was announced, the Labor Committee 
has received a remarkable outpouring of letters in support of his 
confirmation.
  And as these letters made clear, Professor Gould is viewed by those 
who know him best, and who have dealt with him professionally, as a 
responsible, a fair, and a practical person who will promote respect 
for the NLRB and the law, and will generate a much needed atmosphere of 
evenhandedness in the contentious field of labor management relations.
  It is interesting to note--in light of some opponents' claims that 
Professor Gould is antibusiness--that some of the highest praise he has 
received is contained in more than two dozen letters the committee has 
received from representatives of management. Here are typical comments 
from letters submitted by leading management attorneys:

       [His] reputation in the rough and tumble world of labor 
     relations is one of impeccable honesty and integrity and his 
     sense of fair play has produced the highest standard of 
     impartiality and neutrality in labor affairs.--Arthur B. 
     Smith, Jr., Murphy, Smith & Polk, Chicago.
       [His] reputation for scholastic excellence and objectivity 
     spans both coasts.--Martin J. Oppenheimer, Poskauer Rose 
     Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City.
       [Gould] is especially attractive to a management lawyer 
     because is firmly in the middle ground between labor and 
     management . . . His reputation for ability, integrity and 
     fairness is beyond question.--Frederick A. Morgan, San 
     Francisco, CA.
       Bill understands the need for a neutral to not only be fair 
     but to create a pervasive atmosphere of impartiality . . . 
     Bill will enforce the National Labor Relations Act as it is 
     written and leave amending of the statute, if that is needed, 
     to Congress . . .--Eliot Azoff, Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland.

  It is unfortunate that the confirmation of this outstanding nominee 
has become embroiled in excessively ideological and partisan arguments 
that have little to do with the real challenges that confront the NLRB 
in its mandates to apply the labor laws fairly and responsibly to the 
realities of a changing economy and new developments in the workplace.
  Those on the other side of the aisle who seek reassurance that 
Professor Gould is indeed committed to fair and impartial enforcement 
of the law can take reassurance from the words of former Republican 
Congressman Tom Campbell from California, who served in the House from 
1989 to 1993.
  Tom Campbell is now a colleague of Bill Gould's at Stanford Law 
School, and he has written to all the members of the Labor Committee to 
endorse Professor Gould's nomination. He calls Professor Gould ``an 
honest man of superb intelligence and integrity.'' As Tom Campbell 
writes:

       Professor Gould and I do not always agree on labor law 
     policy. However, I can without the slightest hesitation 
     testify that he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. 
     He will carry out the National Labor Relations Act as it has 
     been interpreted by the courts and as it was enacted by the 
     Congress. Where, as a policy matter, he may wish the Act to 
     be interpreted differently than it has been, I am confident 
     he will proceed in the judicially appropriate fashion . . . 
     Where the precedent is controlling, I have no doubt Professor 
     Gould will follow it, even if it means a policy outcome 
     different from what he might have preferred if he were in a 
     position to draft the statute. He has a brilliant mind and an 
     enviable reputation for tolerance of opposing views.

  President Clinton has given us an excellent nominee for Chairman of 
the National Labor Relations Board. Finally--and this is the icing on 
the cake--Bill Gould has a lifelong love of baseball, and in particular 
the Boston Red Sox.
  I suspect that the Red Sox may be seeing a little more of Bill Gould 
in the years ahead--it is a lot easier to get to Fenway Park from 
Washington than from Stanford.
  In sum, Bill Gould has the rare combination of experience, ability, 
independence, impartiality, and judgment to be an outstanding Chairman 
of the National Labor Relations Board, and I urge the Senate to confirm 
him.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, before I yield, I certainly 
appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts wanting to have an additional 
fan for the Red Sox. But it is not a question, let me say, of Professor 
Gould's honesty or integrity. That is not in question. I think he is 
held in high regard by all. But I would like to particularly respond to 
the Senator from Massachusetts talking about Professor Gould's role as 
an arbitrator. An arbitrator's role is very different from that of the 
chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. An arbitrator takes a 
very narrow issue and usually, in many ways, splits it in half. I think 
that the role of chairman on boards such as the NLRB does allow for 
one's policy views to play a role in the decisionmaking process.
  Professor Gould himself has acknowledged that.
  So I wanted to comment on the difference that exists between the role 
of an arbitrator and the role that one would play as chairman of the 
NLRB.
  I yield whatever time the Senator from South Carolina would like to 
have at this time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the nomination 
of Mr. William Gould to be the Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board. Based on the views expressed by Professor Gould in his writings, 
his testimony, and his responses to submitted questions, I cannot 
support his nomination to be Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board.
  As you know, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent 
agency consisting of five members who act primarily as an adjudicatory 
body of prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by 
employers and unions. It is also responsible for conducting secret 
ballot elections of employees to determine whether or not they want to 
be represented by a labor union.
  Madam President, Professor Gould has recently written a book entitled 
``Agenda for Reform.'' This ominously titled book does not merely 
identify, define, and discuss the issues confronting the existing 
relationship between employers and employees. Instead, it vividly 
outlines his vision for the future labor relations in America, as he 
would like it to be.
  For example, Professor Gould states in his book that the decline of 
unions ``erodes the fabric of democratic institutions and is thus 
profoundly worrisome to all who value pluralism and a system of checks 
and balances in the workplace. * * *''
  We must question Professor Gould's concern with the decline of unions 
in this country. Under our labor relations system, workers have the 
right to vote for a union or against a union in their workplace. The 
fact that the vast majority of Americans have rejected a unionized work 
environment tells me that workers do not place the same value of union 
representation as does Professor Gould. In contrast to Professor Gould, 
I trust workers themselves to vote as they see fit.
  The Congress has established standards under our Federal labor laws 
for workers to choose whether they want union representation. I support 
those standards. But when those workers exercise their free choice and 
reject a union, I think we should respect that choice without 
denigrating it.
  Professor Gould finds the decline of unions to be worrisome. I hope 
that he does not plan on taking it upon himself to redress this 
worrisome condition through the National Labor Relations Board.
  Madam President, we must also question whether this nominee will 
attempt to legislate or define labor policies that are within the 
jurisdiction of Congress.
  Professor Gould clearly stated during his confirmation hearing that 
he would follow congressional intent if he were confirmed to chair the 
National Labor Relations Board. However, Professor Gould repeatedly has 
written that the National Labor Relations Board has the authority to 
make important labor relations policy. In a 1987 edition of the San 
Diego Law Review, Professor Gould states that there is an,

     * * * obvious but frequently unpalatable truth that federal 
     labor law, framed as it is in broad ambiguous language 
     addressing matters about which Congress has been unable to 
     provide definitive policy judgments, is federal labor policy 
     defined by the NLRB and ultimately the Supreme Court. The 
     Court is deeply divided on many aspects of this ongoing 
     policy debate.

  In the Labor Law Journal, in an article entitled ``Fifty Years Under 
the NLRA: A Retrospective View,'' Professor Gould stated that ``new 
appointments to the Board from 1989 onward can change the law * * *'. 
In the Stanford Law Review, he also states the he ``believe(s) the 
Board needs to be changed much more than the law--although the law 
ought to be strengthened.''
  How can Professor Gould claim that he will be impartial, and that he 
does not have an agenda for reform when his statements make clear that 
he favors changing labor law policy through judicial activism.
  Obviously, Professor Gould is a very accomplished labor lawyer. He 
has been a Stanford Law School professor for over 20 years. He 
impressed members of the Senate Labor Committee with his knowledge of 
our Federal labor statutes. However, I remain concerned that he will 
use his position on the Board to put into practice the many labor 
reform ideas that he has advocated over the years.
  Madama President, the National Labor Relations Board is a quasi-
judicial body. Both employers and employees must have confidence in the 
impartially of the Board in order for it to function effectively. I 
believe the strong held views and positions Professor Gould has 
advocated for so long, make a strong case that it will be difficult for 
him to act as an interpreter of the law and not an advocate.
  Therefore, Madam President, I do not intend to support this 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might 
take.
  Madam President, in my earlier statement, I pointed out the very 
strong and enthusiastic support of members of the National Academy of 
Arbitrators, a very prestigious group of men and women who are involved 
in the field of arbitration. It is highly regarded and respected, and I 
quoted from a series of letters our committee has received from both 
the current president and several past presidents of the Academy who 
all have been very supportive of Professor Gould.
  Some question was raised about the relevance of Mr. Gould's 
experience as an arbitrator. Is this really a useful measurement in 
terms of demonstrating the impartiality of this nominee? And there was 
some suggestion that arbitration is really nothing like adjudication of 
NLRB cases because all the arbitrator is really doing is splitting the 
difference between the two parties.
  Of course, if that was all that arbitration was--that the two parties 
were divided and the understanding was that the arbitrator was not just 
going to take the matter at issue and split the difference, you would 
not need an arbitrator. The parties could do that themselves.
  The point of arbitration is that when you have a disagreement between 
the parties as to how the words of the contract should be applied to 
the facts of a particular case, the arbitrator performs that function 
of interpreting the contract and applying it to the facts, just as a 
judge applies the words of a statute to the facts of a case.
  So, Professor Gould's experience and record as an arbitrator is, I 
think, reflective not just of the ability, professionalism and 
integrity of the nominee, but also his qualifications to serve on the 
NLRB.
  I would just mention very briefly some of the issues that have been 
raised by those who have expressed reservations about Mr. Gould's 
confirmation.
  One was the issue of the card check, which is a means of determining 
the desire of employees to be represented by a union. Of course, the 
card check was the primary means by which employees obtained union 
recognition prior to 1947. It was completely legal and commonly 
utilized. And it is a respected method of determining who then has 
majority support for a union in a number of other Western countries, 
including Canada.
  The assertion that this is a radical idea is something that I would 
really question. It was in the 1978 Labor Reform bill. That bill only 
failed by a few votes because of a filibuster.
  So this concept is something that generally those who are familiar 
with labor law reform have some position on. Some support it; others do 
not, but it is not a radical idea.
  Then there is the issue that has been raised about Professor Gould's 
support for legislation to ban the permanent replacement of strikers. 
More than 55 Members of the Senate have expressed their view that there 
should be a change in current law on this issue. The President of the 
United States himself has stated his support for banning the permanent 
replacement of strikers, so his position is the same as that of this 
nominee. The idea this is evidence of the radical viewpoints of the 
nominee I find difficult to accept.
  The concept of awarding double back pay to workers who are illegally 
discharged for union activities was part of the 1978 labor law reform 
bill too. It was debated and considered. It is widely understood and 
recognized that there is an anomaly in the fact that in cases of 
employment discrimination on the basis of union activity, the illegal 
firing of an individual for supporting a union is treated entirely 
different than we treat illegal discrimination or firing an individual 
on the basis of gender, race, religion, and ethnicity. In those kinds 
of discrimination cases, we impose a variety of different penalties on 
employers, in addition to back pay. The exception is that where the 
discrimination is on the basis of union activity, the only remedy is 
back pay.
  There is a very substantial body of evidence to suggest that the 
penalties for labor law violations are generally considered by many in 
management to be just a cost of doing business. The employers know that 
if there are certain individuals who are out there trying to organize, 
they can fire them and stop the organizing campaign in its tracks. 
Since the worst that can happen is that they may be told to rehire the 
union supporters later on, after the organizing campaign has been 
defeated, and gave them some back pay. Many see that as just a cost of 
doing business. It is worth it to the employer to take that risk if it 
means they can keep the union out. The view that back pay is not an 
effective deterrent to illegal conduct by employers is a very widely 
held view.
  So the views of Professor Gould that were just criticized here--
really are very much in the mainstream of debate and discussion in 
terms of labor law reform.
  Just to get back to what has been both the stated position of the 
nominee as well as those who support him, it is his strong commitment 
as Chairman of the Board to interpret the law as passed by Congress 
rather than change the law.
  Given the extraordinary comments we have received praising of his 
basic integrity, I think that this country will be very favorably 
served when his nomination is approved.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am happy to yield to the Senator 
from Wyoming however much time he would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I just want to speak briefly.
  Prior to confirming Professor William Gould to be Chairman of the 
National Labor Relations Board, which I think we will do momentarily, I 
suggest that my colleagues take a very good look at some of his 
writings. I have, and I have strong concerns about this nominee.
  I have talked with our fine ranking Member, Senator Kassebaum, and 
have the deepest respect for her views on things that come before her 
areas of jurisdiction. I trust her implicitly.
  I have gone into my own examination of material on this person who is 
going to be responsible for leading the regulation of collective 
bargaining and union organizing activities in the private sector.
  I just want to take a few moments just to say that a few weeks before 
his nomination William Gould published a book called ``Agenda For 
Reform,'' in which he strongly criticized the way the Board has 
operated, and described in some great detail how current law, 
precedents, and Board procedures should be changed.
  I took labor law on the GI bill at Colorado University in the summer 
program, and my professor was Archibald Cox, so naturally my 
credentials are unimpugnable, and I know either of my colleagues did 
not know that, and if Arch Cox were listening he would chuckle about my 
work in his class. Arch Cox was a great professor of labor law and 
taught me much during that session of summer school.
  In looking at what this man is saying, the views he espouses in his 
book would take the current balance in labor-management relations and 
turn it right up on its ear. His extremist, activist approach to labor 
law certainly bothers me, and I know it bothers others. His views are 
quite clear and unambiguous. It is virtually impossible to take his 
message out of context. That excuse simply will not do this time.
  He advocates the elimination of secret ballot elections in which 
employees decide the question of union representation, and inserting in 
its place signature cards collected by union organizers.
  He does not feel that union members should be able to resign from a 
union during a strike.
  He believes that unions should have complete access to company 
financial information at all times.
  He believes that unions should be able to organize a company's 
management as well as its workers, an extraordinary adventure.
  While these are troubling enough, I stumbled across one that really 
stood out, and that is Professor Gould has been highly critical of the 
Supreme Court's decision in NLRB versus Wooster Division of Borg-Warner 
Corp. In this 1959 landmark decision, the Court drew a distinction 
between ``mandatory'' and ``permissive'' subjects of collective 
bargaining. Employers and unions are required to bargain over mandatory 
subjects such as wages, hours, and key conditions of employment. Either 
party may insist on its position, and, if necessary, may use economic 
force to enforce those demands, such as a strike or lockout.

  On the other hand, employers and unions are not required to bargain 
over ``permissive'' subjects such as capital investments or 
discontinuation of a product and things that do not have to do with the 
basic issues of collective bargaining, which is wages, hours, and 
conditions of employment. So the parties then can voluntarily 
incorporate provisions concerning ``permissive'' subjects into a labor 
contract, but neither party is obligated to bargain over such 
provisions and neither party may use economic force to insist on these 
provisions.
  However, Professor Gould advocates eliminating the distinction 
between ``mandatory'' and ``permissive'' subjects of bargaining. On 
page 178 of his book, ``Agenda for Reform'', he states, ``The 
demarcation line between mandatory and non-mandatory subject matter 
should be eliminated and the right to bargain on all issues should be 
made available to the parties.''
  I am concerned with those views because the distinction between 
``mandatory'' and ``permissive'' subjects of bargaining is not found in 
the National Labor Relations Act itself. Rather, it is a board-created 
rule of interpretation that the Supreme Court upheld in Borg-Warner. 
The Board can and does revise such rules, and the courts usually defer 
if they find the new rule rational and consistent with the act. As the 
Supreme Court stated in its NLRB versus Curtin Matheson Scientific 
decision, ``a Board rule has precedent even if it represents a 
departure from the Board's prior policy.''
  Essentially, Professor Gould's position, if it became Board policy, 
would tilt current labor law toward permitting more economic strikes by 
providing more reasons to strike.
  With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in the Board's decision 
on this issue, all parties must be ensured that their views and 
arguments are given due consideration. Professor Gould has already 
prejudged this critical issue.
  I would simply add that the Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board is not an arbitrator who is there to split the difference in 
narrow factual disputes. The NLRB, and particularly its Chairman, have 
broad authority and discretion to interpret Federal labor law and shape 
its course. It is absolutely essential that both employers and labor 
unions have confidence in the impartiality of the Board in order for it 
to function effectively. William Gould, in my view, has failed to 
instill any part of that confidence.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am happy to yield as much time as 
the Senator from Oklahoma would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time is 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 35 
minutes. The Senator from Kansas controls 36 minutes and 31 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to compliment my friend and 
colleague, Senator Kassebaum, from Kansas, and also Senator Simpson, 
from Wyoming, for their statements.
  Madam President, I will oppose this nomination of William Gould as 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. I do not do that with a 
great deal of joy. I do not like opposing nominations and I have really 
opposed very few in my career in the Senate.
  But I believe that Professor Gould is one of the Nation's leading 
champions of radical labor law reform. I am really surprised that this 
administration would name as Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board someone who has no hesitation whatsoever about giving labor union 
rights higher priority than the rights of individual employees and 
management.
  Madam President, Professor Gould has made clear in his writings his 
intent to alter long-established national labor policies. His most 
recent book, ``Agenda for Reform''--and I have a copy of that here 
today--is a manifesto on how he will redirect labor law for this 
country. The book contains several examples of the vision that William 
Gould has set forth, which are very troubling to me and should be very 
troubling to anybody if they believe in consistency in labor law and if 
they consider that this nominee is appointed to be Chairman of the 
NLRB.
  For instance, the nominee believes that employers should not be 
allowed to hire permanent replacement workers during an economic 
strike. Gould stated that the Mackay decision, which holds that it is 
not an unfair labor practice for an employer to continue operating his 
business during a strike by hiring permanent replacements for economic 
strikers, is ``badly flawed''. On page 202 in his book, ``Agenda for 
Reform,'' he says:

       The Court and Congress should not be bound by half-century-
     old opinion. As we move toward the twenty-first century, we 
     should attempt to establish more civilized standards in 
     labor-management relations, a more competitive and 
     cooperative environment inextricably tied to such standards, 
     and an order in which we can compete effectively with 
     Germany, Japan and other countries.

  He said we should not be bound by half-century-old opinions, both the 
court and the Congress. So he is more than willing to use the court and 
the Congress to change the 50-year-old statute.
  Another example is Professor Gould's advocation of the use of 
authorization cards, a notoriously unreliable indicator of employees' 
desire to join a union, instead of the current process of secret ballot 
elections. In addition, Gould recommends expanding the ability of 
unions to punish workers who choose to continue to work during a 
strike. These are troublesome restrictions of an individual's right to 
work at best.
  Professor Gould further advocates in ``Agenda for Reform'' allowing 
union representation of less than a cohesive group of employees or a 
minority group of as little as 20 or 30 percent of employees. He says:

       Additionally, the Act (The Labor Relations Act) should be 
     amended so as to allow nonmajority organizations to represent 
     employees and to be consulted and share information about 
     employer decision making that affect employment conditions 
     where 20 to 30 percent of the employees have petitioned the 
     Board to this effect. Under such circumstances consultation 
     and communication should be mandated.

  That is on page 141 of the professor's book.
  Think of what he just said. He said if 20 or 30 percent of the people 
sign a card by petition that that 20 or 30 percent should automatically 
have recognition. What about a secret ballot? What about a right for a 
majority of the employees? Does that mean somebody can come by and have 
an organizational election and walk by and say, ``Please sign the 
petition,'' and maybe they do because they do not want to offend the 
person, or for whatever; they really have not thought about it.
  What about the right to a secret ballot? What about the individual's 
rights to really select who should represent them. And should we not 
have majority reputation?
  The professor advances union resurgence by utilizing OSHA reform. In 
the ``Agenda for Reform'' on page 94, Mr. Gould states:

       Legislation introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy in 1992 
     would amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act and 
     mandate employee committees charged with the responsibility 
     in the health and safety area. If this legislation is enacted 
     in the future, another institutional basis for representing 
     worker interest relating to employment conditions independent 
     of union majority rule would exist.

  Think of that. This is ``another institutional basis for representing 
worker interest relating to employment conditions independent of union 
majority rule.''
  In other words, the majority does not rule. We are going to have a 
small group come in, and this is another basis for union representing 
workers interests even if they do not have a majority. Wow. I thought 
we believed in secret ballots and majority rule.
  Professor Gould also advocates controversial changes to the remedies 
available to a reinstated employee in instances of unfair labor 
practices. Gould favors double or triple backpay awards to be paid by 
employers. He also thinks labor reforms should make clear that backpay 
remedies are not available to all workers.
  Let me rephrase that. He also thinks that labor reforms should be 
made clear, that backpay remedies are available to all workers, whether 
here in the United States legally or not.
  In other words, he favors significant fines and penalties, double and 
triple penalties, and they should be available to workers, both legal 
and illegal.
  Further, Mr. Gould supports expanding employers' duties to disclose 
confidential information to the union. He believes there should be 
disclosure of information regarding decisionmaking that could 
conceivably have an impact on employment conditions, namely investment, 
closures, advertising, and basic product decisions.
  The Supreme Court has held that the National Labor Relations Board, 
and particularly its Chairman, have broad authority and discretion to 
interpret and change Federal law through its interpretations. 
Therefore, Congress need not amend the National Labor Relations Act to 
make major changes in labor policy. I am not so sure I concur with the 
Supreme Court's decision, but that is prior decisions.
  The use of the National Labor Relations Board as a platform for major 
labor law reform will result in uncertainty and disruption, which our 
economy cannot afford right now. The Board must exhibit impartiality to 
function effectively. I am afraid, with Professor Gould, we do not have 
impartiality. I think by his writings he has proved there is not 
impartiality.
  This nomination is opposed by many. It is opposed by the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Labor Policy Association, the Society 
of Human Resource Management--which to my knowledge has never opposed 
any Presidential nominee--the Chamber of Commerce, and the National 
Federation of Independent Business. They have all expressed their 
opposition to this nominee, I think for good reason.
  (Mr. KENNEDY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. NICKLES. I wish my colleagues had enough time to look at these 
writings that are in Professor Gould's own words. If they did, if they 
would really look at the statements he has made, I find it hard to see 
they could support this nominee. This is not a nominee who is unbiased. 
This is not a nominee in my opinion who will be fair and impartial in 
making many decisions. And this person is nominated, again, to be 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, which is a particularly 
powerful position, I am afraid, for advancing his agenda for reform.
  I compliment my friend and colleague from Massachusetts who is now 
presiding. I understand part of his statement is supporting his 
nominee. I notice the nominee supports many pieces of the Senator's 
legislation and supports them energetically. But I have a problem when 
we have nominees that want to legislate through a board, or through a 
commission. Obviously, by some of his writings, he plans to be very 
active in advancing his agenda for reform, which I hope my colleagues 
will reject when we vote on this nomination.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Gould for Chairman of the National 
Labor Relations Board. I thank my friend from Kansas for yielding me 
this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think 5 minutes will be just fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support President Clinton's 
nomination of Stanford Law School Prof. William B. Gould IV, to be 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  We have heard a number of different comments on the floor, and it is 
the Senator's first amendment right to express his or her viewpoint. Do 
not think anybody is fooling anybody. We all have different values and 
represent, I suppose, different viewpoints.
  But the fact of the matter is, Professor Gould by any standard is a 
nominee of outstanding achievement, outstanding achievement 
representing business, representing labor, and representing government 
in labor relations. He is a leading arbitrator and he is a leading 
scholar and he has been a leading lawyer. Frankly, I think if you 
review his writings--and we have already essentially presented to the 
Senate for the Record a range of recommendations from distinguished 
lawyers, crossing the broadest spectrum of political opinion in the 
United States of America imaginable--what you see is a record of 
evenhandedness.
  It certainly is true that, by definition, not every Senator will 
agree with every view that Mr. Gould has presented in his writing or 
presented in his work as a scholar or as a lawyer. On the other hand, 
if we were to find such a person--and I do not know that we ever really 
can find such a person--we would not find such a person with such a 
distinguished career. This is a man who has been enormously successful 
in many different, but I think very important, walks of life that 
converge to make him a candidate who will probably end up being one of 
the great Chairmen of the National Labor Relations Board.
  As a former professor, maybe I put more weight on his scholarship. 
But it is there for all of us to examine. I certainly am impressed with 
the letters of recommendation and the acclaim he has received from very 
distinguished lawyers. And I am certainly impressed with the fact that 
he has such strong recommendations on all sides, as I said before, from 
labor, from management, from government.
  Finally, I want to end with a personal note. I did have an 
opportunity to be at the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee 
when there were some very, I think, difficult, tough, and fair 
questions--including questions raised by the Senator from Kansas. I 
deeply respect Senators that ask those tough questions. The Senator 
from Kansas is a perfect example of someone who takes this job very 
seriously. But I was equally impressed with the knowledge of this man. 
I mean, the way in which he handled the questions with grace, his 
background, the depth of his knowledge. I do not think we can have a 
better candidate.
  I certainly hope my colleagues will vote for William Gould. It is 
long past time we move forward. I believe what historians will write 
about this man, and I feel strongly about this, is that he will go down 
in history as a truly evenhanded, highly intelligent, profound thinker, 
and I think a truly great Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board. I certainly hope he will have strong support by my colleagues in 
the Senate.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the request for the time to be charged 
equally?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is correct. I suggest the absence 
a quorum and that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask I be provided time to speak on behalf of Prof. 
William Gould, nominee as Chairman of the National Labor Relations 
Board.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time does the Senator require?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. About 5 to 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in October of last year I introduced 
Professor Gould during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Labor 
and Human Resources Committee. And my support for his candidacy is just 
as strong now as it was then.
  He made clear during his confirmation hearing that he pledged to 
uphold congressional intent in his performance as Chair, and I have no 
reason to doubt him in this regard.
  Like many others in California who know of Professor Gould's work--he 
hails from my alma mater, Stanford--I believe he has a balance of 
scholarly achievement and practical experience in labor law which 
prepare him very well for the challenges of chairing the National Labor 
Relations Board.
  Having said that, I must also say that to me what seems to be going 
on in this debate is really a battle over ideology. And the underlying 
question is, what should the National Labor Relations Board be?
  In my view, the National Labor Relations Board should be a centrist 
board which is reflective and knowledgeable about the needs of working 
men and women, and also the needs of the management sector.
  There is some good evidence that Bill Gould fills this bill. Let me 
share with you a letter that I have received from a management 
advocate--not a labor advocate--a management advocate. He is president 
of the Pacific Maritime Association. That is an association which 
represents maritime management on the west coast. His name is William 
Coday. I would like to read this letter, which was written to support 
the appointment of William Gould IV, labor law professor at Stanford 
Law School as Chair of the NLRB:

       I am a member of the Missouri, St. Louis, and American Bar 
     Associations and a former chairman of the Labor Law Committee 
     of the St. Louis Bar Association. Since my graduation from 
     Washington University Law School in 1956, I have represented 
     management in the field of labor relations and presently 
     represent the maritime industry on the west coast. I have had 
     extensive practice before the NLRB throughout these 37 years.
       In the labor law field, Bill is a scholar; that is well-
     known. Moreover, he is reachable as a person and has a sense 
     of humor. Speaking as one who has always represented the 
     management side, I feel we need someone like Bill to lead the 
     Board back to a more centrist view. In the past decade, the 
     Board has become so conservative as to forfeit its 
     credibility to the labor movement. Management interests are, 
     in turn, jeopardized as we return to a ``law of the jungle'' 
     mentality.
       I realize that Bill has been criticized for some of his 
     writings. This is unfair. All legal scholars have 
     traditionally opined as to what the law should be in addition 
     to analyzing what it is.
       As a lawyer and a scholar, he knows the difference between 
     interpreting and effectuating the National Labor Relations 
     Act, versus the Congress' exclusive role of amending.
       Bill Gould is a fine choice for this position. He would 
     play a lead role in bringing the NLRB back to the stature it 
     once had. Please support him. Very truly yours, William E. 
     Coday.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Pacific Maritime Association,

                             San Francisco, CA, December 30, 1993.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This letter is written to support 
     the appointment of William B. Gould, IV, Labor Law Professor 
     at Stanford Law School, as Chair of the National Labor 
     Relations Board (NLRB).
       I am a member of the Missouri, St. Louis, and American Bar 
     Associations and a former Chairman of the Labor Law Committee 
     of the St. Louis Bar Association. Since my graduation from 
     Washington University Law School in 1956, I have represented 
     management in the field of labor relations and presently 
     represent the Maritime Industry on the West Coast. I have had 
     extensive practice before the NLRB throughout these 37 years.
       In the labor law field, Bill is a scholar; that is well-
     known. Moreover, he is reachable as a person and has a sense 
     of humor. Speaking as one who has always represented the 
     management side, I feel we need someone like Bill to lead the 
     Board back to a more centrist view. In the past decade, the 
     Board has become so conservative as to forfeit its 
     credibility to the labor movement. Management interests are, 
     in turn, jeopardized as we return to a ``law of the jungle'' 
     mentality.
       I realize that Bill has been criticized for some of his 
     writings. This is unfair. All legal scholars have 
     traditionally opined as to what the law should be in addition 
     to analyzing what it is. As a lawyer and a scholar, he knows 
     the difference between interpreting and effectuating the 
     National Labor Relation's act versus the Congress' exclusive 
     role of amending.
       Bill Gould is a fine choice for this position. He would 
     play a lead role in bringing the NLRB back to the stature it 
     once had. Please support him.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 William E. Coday.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to also quote from a 
letter by a Prof. Herman Levy of Santa Clara University School of Law, 
and William H. Simon, professor, Stanford School of Law, that was 
printed in the Los Angeles Times. I think it puts to rest some of the 
charges that we have heard on the floor.
  The letter points out that Bill Gould has become the object of 
``extremist attacks that frequently distort the record.'' It goes on to 
say that ``Paul Craig Roberts' Column Right, on October 31, was an 
unsavory example of that.''
  Then the letter points out that:

       Roberts begins by asserting that Gould's views are 
     ``similar'' to those of a judge whom he states is an 
     apologist for black criminals. Reminding us of the Willie 
     Horton rhetoric of the 1988 Presidential campaign, Roberts 
     suggests that Gould, who would be the first black Chairman of 
     the National Labor Relations Board in its nearly 60 years of 
     existence, is eccentric or radical.
       Roberts could not be more off the mark. As a law professor 
     and arbitrator, who has rendered a majority of awards in 
     favor of employers----

  A majority of awards in favor of employers.

     Gould has been consistently viewed as both moderate and 
     impartial.
       Roberts says that Gould will ``* * * restrain management's 
     ability to communicate with the work force prior to a union 
     certification vote.'' In fact, in Gould's recent book----

  Which has been widely quoted on this floor.

     ``Agenda for Reform,'' he has written that labor law reform 
     should expand employer free speech rights in union 
     organization efforts--not limit them.

  This is the problem with quoting from a book. You can take it out of 
context. Authors say many different things in a book. Here is something 
which is diametrically opposed which Mr. Gould has said which has not 
been quoted on this floor.
  The letter goes on:

       Roberts further asserts that Gould favors compelling all 
     workers to accept union representation where only a minority 
     favor it. In fact, the proposal to which Roberts refers quite 
     clearly applied to ``members only'' bargaining. Gould 
     suggested that Congress require that, where 20 to 30 percent 
     of the work force so requested, employers bargain 
     collectively, but only with the consenting workers.
       Roberts' suggestion that Gould does not support the secret 
     ballot is equally unfounded. Gould favors the secret ballot 
     in all union elections. His proposal that unions be 
     recognized without elections applies only where a 
     supermajority of workers--60 percent--have voluntarily signed 
     authorization cards.
       All of these proposals have been advanced as suggestions 
     for legislative revision, not as interpretations of existing 
     law, which Gould, as Chairman, would be sworn to uphold.

  And if I might add, Mr. President, as he has said he would uphold. 
Roberts' suggestion that Gould would betray his duty to enforce enacted 
law is completely unsupported character assassination.
  Then these two law professors who know Bill Gould go on to write:

       We know Gould as a man of unimpeachable integrity and as 
     one who has consistently brought a balanced, moderate 
     approach to labor-management relations. His nomination 
     represents one of the best opportunities to diminish conflict 
     and polarization which have plagued labor and management for 
     most of this century.
       Signed, Herman Levy, Professor, Santa Clara; William Simon, 
     Professor, Stanford Law School.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 1993]

                          Labor Board Nominee

       President Clinton has nominated our Colleague and friend, 
     Prof. Bill Gould of Stanford Law School, to be chairman of 
     the National Labor Relations Board. Because Gould's writings 
     support freedom for workers to affiliate with labor 
     organizations of their own choosing and the collective-
     bargaining process--the explicit goals of the National Labor 
     Relations Act--he has become the object of extremist attacks 
     that frequently distort the record. Paul Craig Roberts' 
     Column Right (Oct. 31) is an especially unsavory example.
       Roberts begins by asserting that Gould's views are 
     ``similar'' to those of a judge whom he states is an 
     apologist for black criminals. Reminding us of the Willie 
     Horton rhetoric of the 1988 presidential campaign, Roberts 
     suggests that Gould, who would be the first black chairman of 
     the National Labor Relations Board in its nearly 60 years of 
     existence, is eccentric or radical.
       Roberts could not be more off the mark. As a law professor 
     and arbitrator, who has rendered a majority of awards in 
     favor of employers, Gould has been consistently viewed as 
     both moderate and impartial.
       Roberts says that Gould will ``* * * restrain management's 
     ability to communicate with the work force prior to a union 
     certification vote.'' In fact, in Gould's recent book, 
     ``Agenda for Reform,'' he has written that labor law reform 
     should expand employer free speech rights in union 
     organization efforts--not limit them.
       Roberts further asserts that Gould favors compelling all 
     workers to accept union representation where only a minority 
     favor it. In fact, the proposal to which Roberts refers quite 
     clearly applied to ``members only'' bargaining. Gould 
     suggested that Congress require that, where 20% to 30% of the 
     work force so requested, employers bargain collectively, but 
     only with the consenting workers.
       Roberts' suggestion that Gould does not support the secret 
     ballot is equally unfounded. Gould favors the secret ballot 
     in all union elections. His proposal that unions be 
     recognized without elections applies only where a super-
     majority of workers--60%--have voluntarily signed 
     authorization cards.
       All of these proposals have been advanced as suggestions 
     for legislative revision, not as interpretations of the 
     existing law, which Gould, as chairman, would be sworn to 
     uphold. Roberts' suggestion that Gould would betray his duty 
     to enforce enacted law is completely unsupported character 
     assassination.
       We know Gould as a man of unimpeachable integrity and as 
     one who has consistently brought a balanced, moderate 
     approach to labor-management relations. His nomination 
     represents one of the best opportunities to diminish the 
     conflict and polarization which have plagued labor and 
     management for most of this century.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much respect some of the 
opponents on this issue--particularly Senator Kassebaum. I in no way, 
shape, or form attribute any of this to her. But I do think what is at 
stake here is to try to continue a very conservative bent to a board 
which I happen to believe should be centrist in nature.
  I think William Gould's appointment offers the opportunity to see 
that this Board does become centrist. From everything I know about this 
man, his practical application of law would indicate to me that he will 
carry out the laws, that he will be fair, that he will be moderate, and 
that he has the ability to bring together people of different 
persuasions.
  It should be no surprise that someone who has represented 
management--Mr. Coday--has written urging his support. I hope he is 
confirmed by this body.
  Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator from Kansas have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield whatever time 
the senior Senator from Kansas would like.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to explain why 
I intend to vote against the nomination of William Gould to be the next 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  But before doing that, Mr. President, let me first say a word about 
the NLRB itself. The NLRB is the Federal Agency charged with enforcing 
and interpreting our Federal labor laws. In fulfilling this 
responsibility, the NLRB acts as a quasi-judicial body, deciding issues 
on a case-by-case basis.
  Although the majority of cases that come before the NLRB are 
straightforward and can be decided with a minimum of controversy, 
occasions do arise giving the NLRB the opportunity to break new ground 
and shape labor policy through precedent. This is where the important 
policy battles are fought. And that is why the composition of the NLRB 
is so critical to maintaining the careful balance between labor and 
management that has characterized our system of collective bargaining 
for nearly 60 years.
  In his writings, Professor Gould has unfortunately expressed many 
controversial views that could become the law of the land solely 
through the NLRB adjudication process, and without congressional 
action.

  For example, Professor Gould criticizes the Supreme Court's Ruling in 
the patternmakers case, which made clear that union members have a 
right to resign from the union at any time, even during the course of a 
strike. In Professor Gould's view, this ruling ``Heavily tips the 
scales in favor of the individual worker's rights,'' apparently 
believing that protecting workers' rights, including the right to 
resign, is a bad thing. Instead, Professor Gould would prohibit union 
resignations once the decision to call a strike is made. In this way, 
he would sacrifice individual rights for the solidarity of the union, 
subjecting dissenters to stiff fines and other forms of union 
discipline.
  Professor Gould has also argued that employers have a duty to 
disclose financial information to unions that is much broader than the 
disclosure requirement currently imposed by the NLRB. More 
specifically, he has urged Congress to overturn the Supreme Court 
decision prohibiting unlimited union access to company information. If 
an employer resists union demands for sensitive company data, citing 
competitive pressures, Professor Gould claims that the NLRB is free to 
require full disclosure. In Professor Gould's own words, and I quote:

       Disclosure of the true basis for the employer's position 
     should not only be required--periodic disclosure without a 
     union request should be obliged, [including] all decision-
     making that could conceivably have an impact upon employment 
     conditions, namely investment decisions, advertising, and 
     basic product decisions * * *.

  Professor Gould would further hamstring business by requiring 
employers to bargain over all subjects that may somehow affect the 
employment relationship, not just the traditional mandatory subjects of 
bargaining such as wages, hours, and other key terms and conditions of 
employment. In addition, Professor Gould believes the NLRB has the 
authority to order employers who have committed repeated unfair labor 
practices to bargain with unions, even if the union has failed to 
enlist the support of a majority of employees and has lost a 
representation election. In other words, Professor Gould would give 
full bargaining status to a union that has failed to demonstrate that 
it has won the support of at least a majority of the workers it claims 
to represent.
  Mr. President, Professor Gould has staked out other troubling 
positions that confirm his prounion bias. For example, he publicly 
supports a ban on the permanent replacement of economic strikers, 
thereby overturning the well-established Mackay Radio precedent. He 
also supports giving unions access to company property during an 
organizing campaign and questions the current system of secret-ballot 
elections to determine union representation. Instead, Professor Gould 
advocates the use of authorization cards, enabling unions to be 
automatically certified without the benefit of a secret-ballot 
election. The authorization-card approach is notoriously unreliable, 
and often subjects workers to threats and other forms of intimidation.
  Mr. President, I do not question Professor Gould's intellect, nor do 
I have any doubts that he will be confirmed later today. Once 
confirmed, I wish him the very best.
  But Professor Gould's writings and his public statements are clear 
and convincing evidence that he possesses a long-standing prounion bias 
that renders him incapable of acting impartially as chairman of the 
NLRB. Quite simply, Professor Gould has a prounion agenda that he will, 
no doubt, aggressively advance once he assumes his new position at the 
NLRB. For these reasons, I will vote against confirmation.
  Mr. President, I am certain the nomination will be approved, but it 
should not be approved. I hope those of us who want balance on the NLRB 
will vote against the nomination.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I express appreciation to the 
Republican leader for his thoughtful comments. This is not an 
inconsequential nomination, and as the Senator from Massachusetts 
pointed out earlier, the National Labor Relations Board is a very 
important body. I hope that our colleagues who have been listening will 
give careful thought to some of the questions that have been raised 
today.
  I urge those who have reservations about the agenda that has been put 
forward in the past and the views of William Gould think carefully 
about his nomination as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. 
I urge that they vote against this nominee.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask for the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


            statement on the nomination of william gould iv

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of 
William B. Gould IV as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. 
William B. Gould, who is currently the Charles A. Beardly Professor of 
Law at Stanford University, has a rich and distinguished record in the 
field of labor law. In addition to his impressive academic career, 
Professor Gould has successfully arbitrated some of the country's most 
well known and contentious labor disputes, including the 1992 and 1993 
salary disputes between the Major League Baseball Players Association 
and the Major League Baseball Players Relations Committee. In the past, 
Professor Gould has been a practitioner on all sides of labor issues. 
He has represented management in labor law disputes with a law firm in 
New York City, and practiced for the United Auto Workers in Detroit. He 
also previously served as an attorney for the NLRB. His diverse 
background and expertise prepare him well for the obstacles facing 
labor-management relations in an increasingly competitive global 
market.
  Unfortunately, Professor Gould's nomination has become the target of 
numerous misconceptions. His critics charge that Professor Gould would 
seek to change striker replacement laws. However, in his confirmation 
hearings, Professor Gould reaffirmed that his primary responsibility as 
Chairman of the NLRB would be to interpret--not change--the current 
labor laws. Opponents also argue that Professor Gould would prevent 
employees from resigning from unions. On the contrary, Professor Gould 
certainly respects the fundamental right of an employee to freely 
participate in labor organizations.
  Throughout his career, Professor Gould has been called upon by both 
employers and unions to arbitrate their disputes, and has established a 
reputation for being fair and impartial. His unique combination of 
academics and practical experience would, therefore, make Professor 
Gould an excellent addition to the NLRB.


              statement on the nomination of william gould

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will oppose the nomination of William 
Gould as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. I do so 
reluctantly because I believe Professor Gould to be a fine man and a 
distinguished scholar.
  This nominee, however, has a troubling record. While this record 
includes 30 years' worth of what many would consider controversial 
writings, one really need not look back more than a year, to the 
release of a book by William Gould titled ``Agenda for Reform.''
  The book is truly what its title suggests: It is an agenda for 
reforming labor relations and labor law in this country.
  The distinguished Senator from Kansas, ranking minority member of the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, has effectively made out the case.
  Supporters of this nominee have argued that Professor Gould's 
advocacy of radical changes in this Nation's labor laws should not 
weight against him because this position will give him authority to 
apply and interpret, but not rewrite, the law.
  This argument, however, should not carry the day.
  Having reviewed Professor Gould's writings, I am persuaded, and in 
agreement with Senator Kassebaum, that such strongly held views must 
unavoidably inform and shape the decisions of one who serves in this 
quasi-judicial position. This is of particular significance in labor 
law, where the National Labor Relations Act leaves so much room for 
interpretation to the members of the Board.
  Furthermore, it is fairly clear that in certain fundamental areas of 
the law in which Professor Gould has strongly held views, his views 
will, in fact, lead to the overturning of many case precedents.
  I would hardly expect to be in complete agreement with this 
administration's nominee to this or any other position.
  What is, indeed, troubling to me, however, is that the areas in which 
it is most clear that Professor Gould will change current caselaw are 
those involving fundamental protections of the rights of individual 
employees; the right of employees to choose or not choose a union as 
their bargaining representative, and the right of employees to engage, 
but also to refrain from engaging in, union activities.
  Professor Gould has suggested a balance between the rights of 
individual employees and the need for union solidarity. His critique of 
current law strongly suggests to me that he is prepared to tip that 
balance much too strongly toward union solidarity and against 
individual rights.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say that I have carefully 
considered the arguments in favor of this nominee, including his record 
as an arbitrator. Those arguments, however, are not sufficient to mute 
the strong views expressed by the nominee himself on major issues in 
labor law which he will be in a position to significantly influence if 
confirmed as Chairman of the Board.


                the nomination of prof. william gould iv

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the nomination of Prof. William Gould to the National Labor Relations 
Board. Professor Gould's views on labor law are well documented, so I 
am confident that my decision to oppose his nomination is well founded.
  Most Americans are not familiar with the work of the National Labor 
Relations Board. This five-member Board was created by the National 
Labor Relations Act of 1935. The board administers the Nation's labor 
law and is vested with the authority to prevent or remedy unfair labor 
practices committed by employers and unions and to safeguard employees' 
rights to organize and have union representation.
  The Board functions much like a judicial body. It acts when formally 
requested to do so. Individuals, employers and unions can all bring 
cases to the Board. It decides issues on a case-by-case basis rather 
than issuing regulations. These decisions and their precedents have a 
strong impact on the laws governing the workplace and the relationship 
between labor and management. So, you can see why it is important that 
the Board be impartial.
  Professor Gould's nomination runs counter to this notion. His views 
regarding past Board decisions and labor law, in general, are well 
documented and clearly defined. I find his views troubling, if not 
alarming. On the eve of his nomination to the Board, his book, ``Agenda 
for Change,'' was published. This book outlines not only his 
controversial views regarding labor law but also his opinions regarding 
the many past decisions rendered by the National Labor Relations Board. 
In his book, Professor Gould advocates substantial changes to current 
law, which has been in place for nearly 50 years. He even advocates 
overturning a number of previous Board decisions.
  Many of my colleagues have already provided examples of Professor 
Gould's views, so will not speak at great length about them. However, 
in brief, Professor Gould believes that employers should not be able to 
hire permanent replacement workers during a strike. This body has 
failed to pass legislation permitting this practice, but Professor 
Gould has written that under the authority of the Board, the NRLB could 
prevent employers from hiring replacement workers, with or without 
legislation.
  Professor Gould also advocates a change in the law which governs the 
process by which employees vote for union representation. Under current 
law union representation can be gained, if the majority of workers vote 
for representation. This election is supervised by the National Labor 
Relations Board and is a two-step process. A majority of workers must 
first sign authorization cards inviting organization activity but union 
certification is achieved only after a secret ballot. This two-step 
process protects individual rights by allowing workers two 
opportunities to either support or reject union representation. 
Professor Gould advocates an amendment to the National Labor Relations 
Act which would significantly change this process.
  Professor Gould advocates the use of authorization cards alone as a 
way to elect union representation. Unfortunately, authorization cards 
have not been a reliable indicator of a worker's desire for union 
representation. There have been numerous examples of abuse of 
authorization cards in the union organizing effort. Only a secret 
ballot protects the rights of workers to accept or deny union 
representation. I am fearful that Professor Gould rejects the concept 
of individual rights as well as the right to work laws which govern 
many of our States, including my own State of Iowa.
  Professor Gould's nomination to the National Labor Relations Board 
tarnishes the impartiality of the Board. His views are well known and 
it appears clear that he will pursue his agenda to change and influence 
current labor law, if confirmed. It is disturbing to me that as we try 
to foster a better relationship between labor and management we are 
about to confirm an individual who seems unwilling to fairly evaluate 
this relationship.


   statement on the nominations of william b. gould iv, margaret a. 
             browning, charles i. cohen, and fred feinstein

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, the National Labor Relations Board 
must prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by employers and labor 
organizations, and conduct fair employee representation elections. As 
such, it is charged with the supremely difficult task of assuring the 
peaceful resolution of labor-management disputes, protecting the rights 
of both employees and employers, and ensuring that American industry is 
prepared to meet the challenges of the competitive global marketplace.
  I have reviewed Prof. William Gould's background and writings. I have 
met personally with Professor Gould. And I have been very impressed by 
his scholarship, his substantive knowledge of labor relations law, and 
his profound commitment to public service. While I certainly do not 
agree with all his views and writings, Professor Gould is clearly 
qualified to serve on the National Labor Relations Board and I believe 
he should be confirmed.
  Professor Gould is a nominee of outstanding achievement in the labor 
relations field. As a practicing attorney, he has represented business, 
labor, and Government in labor relations matters, and he has attained 
national prominence as a leading arbitrator and scholar. I am 
convinced, from his record and from his testimony before the Senate 
Labor Committee, that Professor Gould will enforce the law in a fair 
and impartial manner.
  Professor Gould's record as an arbitrator, in particular, satisfies 
me that he will decide cases that come before him so as to promote 
stability and cooperation between labor and management. The president 
of the National Academy of Arbitrators has stated that Professor 
Gould's record as an arbitrator demonstrates that he ``possess[es] a 
judicial temperament'' and has earned ``the acceptance of both the 
labor and management communities.''
  Mr. President, I know that some of my friends and colleagues in this 
body believe that Professor Gould should not be confirmed because of 
his writings on how our labor laws might be changed. But I think it is 
important that we separate Professor Gould's role as an academic, from 
the adjudicative role he would serve on the NLRB. Throughout the 
confirmation process, Professor Gould made clear that as a member of 
the Board, he would be bound to apply current law, as written, and that 
he would not substitute his policy preferences for those expressed by 
Congress.
  Indeed, the professor explained during hearings before the Senate 
Labor Committee that, in his view, one of the most important steps to 
achieving stable and cooperative labor-management relations is to 
provide both workers and businesses with the assurance that current law 
will be faithfully enforced.

  Mr. President, in October I joined with Senator Kassebaum and my 
Republican colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee in 
withholding my complete support for Professor Gould's nomination until 
President Clinton consulted with us and with the business community 
regarding the remaining nominees for the Board.
  At that time, I made it clear that I supported Professor Gould's 
nomination. But I also said it was my belief that we should confirm 
Professor Gould only after the President had sent to Congress a 
complete package of nominees for the remaining open positions on the 
Board.
  Because it is essential that both labor and management have 
confidence in the Board's ability to address grievances in a fair, 
consistent, and even-handed manner, I was troubled by the fact that the 
business community did not support Professor Gould's nomination. It was 
my hope that they would support the nominee for at least one of the 
positions yet to be filled on the Board.
  Subsequently, President Clinton did consult with several of my 
Republican colleagues and with the business community regarding the 
remaining Board nominations. After seeking our input, the President 
selected Charles Cohen to fill one of the Board vacancies. Mr. Cohen 
was recommended and endorsed by me and by other Republican members of 
the Labor Committee, including our distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Kassebaum. He was also recommended and endorsed by the business 
community.
  Mr. Cohen is a lawyer. He has represented management clients in 
private practice here in Washington, DC, for nearly 15 years. He 
currently serves as managing partner of the Washington, DC, office of 
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. Before entering private 
practice, he held numerous positions with the NLRB for 8 years during 
the 1970's.
  Margaret Browning, the nominee for the other vacant seat on the 
Board, has represented labor unions in private law practice since 1979. 
She and Mr. Cohen bring to the NLRB combined experience of 36 years in 
the labor law field.
  Both these nominees a wealth of experience and knowledge that will be 
very beneficial to the Board.
  Frederick Feinstein, who has been nominated for the position of 
general counsel, has served as staff director and counsel to the House 
Labor Subcommittee under three different chairmen since 1977. Before 
coming to the Hill, he worked as a field attorney for 2 years with the 
NLRB's regional office in Winston-Salem, NC. I believe Mr. Feinstein is 
knowledgeable and well-qualified to serve as the NLRB's general 
counsel.

  Mr. President, all these distinguished nominees share with me the 
very strong belief that we need to reform the decisionmaking process at 
the NLRB. In testimony before the Labor Committee and in private 
meetings, all have stressed their strong conviction that steps must be 
taken to expedite the adjudication of unfair labor practice charges at 
the Board.
  Mr. President, the current system that we have created for processing 
unfair labor practice claims is protracted, burdensome, untimely, and 
therefore fails to provide meaningful relief to parties involved in 
labor disputes. Last year, I introduced a bill--S. 598, the Justice for 
Permanently Displaced Striking Workers Act of 1993, that would set 
strict timetables on the NLRB's processing of certain unfair labor 
practice claims. It is my hope and belief that these nominees will do 
whatever is in their power under current law to decide ULP cases as 
quickly and efficiently as possible.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I am not in total 
philosophical agreement with all these nominees. But I strongly believe 
that the President of the United States is entitled to some deference 
in his choice of nominees as long as they are qualified. I am now 
satisfied that the President has made every effort to install a 
qualified and even-handed decisionmaking body at the Board.
  In this regard, I urge my colleagues to confirm Professor Gould, Mr. 
Cohen, Ms. Browning, and Mr. Feinstein to serve on the NLRB in a 
bipartisan manner.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the nomination of William B. Gould IV to be the Chairman of 
the National Labor Relations Board. My reasons for supporting this 
nomination are simple and straightforward. William Gould is a nominee 
of exceptional ability who will bring to the NLRB not just the 
thoughtness and intelligent that come from spending more than 20 years 
as a law professor, but also the practical experience of having served 
as an attorney and arbitrator. His nomination is an example of 
President Clinton's continued commitment to excellence in his 
appointments.
  I would like to a brief moment to enumerate just a few of the 
qualifications that distinguish this nominee. Professor Gould comes 
before the Senate with the unique experience of having represented, at 
one time or another, all perspectives that appear before the NLRB. 
Professor Gould began his career in 1961 as an attorney for the United 
Auto Workers. He left that job in 1962 to serve for 3 years as an 
attorney for he NLRB. Following his tenure with the NLRB, Professor 
Gould represented management for 3 years at a distinguished law firm in 
New York City. Never before has a nominee for the NLRB possessed such a 
breadth of experience in the labor field, experience that will serve 
him well during his tenure.
  Of course, Professor Gould's career didn't end in the 1960's, a 
Member of the prestigious National Academy of arbitrators since 1970, 
Professor Gould has arbitrated more than 200 labor disputes, including 
the 1992 salary disputes in major league baseball. During that time, he 
has earned the respect of labor and management alike for his sound 
judicial temperament.
  Finally, William Gould has served as a professor at one of the 
Nation's most prestigious law schools, Stanford Law School, since 1972. 
He has taught labor law to hundreds of students while writing six books 
and more than 60 scholarly articles in the field. His work establishes 
him as a leading expert on a wide variety of labor issues, including 
the National Labor Relations Act and NLRB practice and procedure.
  However, despite this distinguished record, some opponents have tried 
to paint Mr. Gould as a radical nominee who, once in office, will seek 
to undo the very foundations of our Nation's labor laws. The fact of 
the matter is that nothing could be further from the truth. Has Mr. 
Gould, in the past, suggested possible legislative changes in current 
labor relations law? Of course he has. As a professor at Stanford 
University and a noted labor law scholar, that was his job. As stated 
by former Republican NLRB member John Raudabaugh--who, I might add, was 
a management attorney and Bush appointee--Professor Gould's writings 
indicate that he ``was simply doing what academics do best--writing and 
theorizing about structural changes that might improve the state of 
labor relations.
  But the mere fact that Professor Gould has, while serving as 
professor, suggested changes in current labor law does not mean that he 
would use his position on the NLRB to make such changes. In fact, Mr. 
President, the record clearly demonstrates that the opposite is true.

  While appearing before the Senate Labor Committee, Mr. Gould stated 
in response to specific questions that, if confirmed, he would concern 
himself ``Solely with the interpretation of the law as it is presently 
written.'' He went on to state that ``Both as an arbitrator and as 
chairman of the board, my role is to decide cases based upon the facts 
and relevant law. In neither capacity is the fashioning of legislation 
part of the job description. That is the appropriate role for 
Congress.'' Clearly, these are not the words of a wild-eyed radical 
just waiting to get his hands on the Nation's labor laws.
  But of course, Mr. President, you need not take my word for it. You 
can look to the statements that have poured in to the Senate Labor 
Committee from unions and management alike in support of Professor 
Gould's nomination. I would like to take a moment to read just a 
sampling of these statements of support.
  According to the current president of the National Academy of 
Arbitrators, Professor Gould's record as an arbitrator demonstrates 
that he ``Possess[es] a judicial temperament that has earned him the 
acceptance of both the labor and management communities.'' More than 75 
labor relations academics have supported his nomination, calling him an 
``Outstanding leader in labor relations * * * uniquely qualified for 
this critical position.''
  A management attorney from Cleveland, OH, states that Professor Gould 
will ``Enforce the National Labor Relations Act as it is written and 
leave amending of the statute * * * to congress * * *''
  Another management attorney from San Francisco, CA, states Professor 
Gould is ``Especially attractive to a management lawyer because he is 
firmly in the middle ground between labor and management * * * his 
reputation for ability, integrity, and fairness is beyond question.''
  Mr. President, I could continue ad nauseam with examples of such 
statements because, as I stated, the Labor Committee has received an 
outpouring of support for this nomination. However, in the interest of 
time, I will ask that the lengthy list of individuals and organizations 
who support this nomination be entered into the Record following my 
remarks.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to state for the record who 
Professor Gould is. Despite the efforts of some opponents to paint him 
as such, Professor Gould is not the ardent advocate of radical labor 
law reform who is simply waiting for the opportunity to dismantle the 
NLRB. Rather, he is a prominent arbitrator, a distinguished academic, 
and an individual of the highest integrity who has stated he will, if 
confirmed as Chairman of the NLRB, concern himself solely with 
interpreting the present law. He is an individual who has earned the 
respect and trust of both management and labor.
  And finally, in the words of Tom Campbell, a fellow labor law 
academic and former Republican Member of Congress, Professor Gould is 
an individual who is ``Superbly qualified * * * has the deepest respect 
for the rule of law * * * has a brilliant mind * * * [and] will carry 
out the National Labor Relations Act as it has been interpreted by the 
courts and as it was enacted by the Congress.''
  Mr. President, I can think of no individual more qualified to serve 
as Chair of the NLRB than the individual who has been nominated by the 
President, Prof. William Gould. I am proud to speak in support of his 
nomination, and I urge that he be swiftly confirmed.
  There being no objection, the list of supporters previously referred 
to was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                   Supporters of Prof. William Gould


                                Academia

       Robert N. Covington, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt 
     University, Nashville, TN. Dated August 5, 1993.
       Charles B.Craver, Merrifield Research Professor, The George 
     Washington University, Washington, D.C. Dated September 2, 
     1993.
       Jack H. Friedenthal, Dean, The George Washington 
     University, The National Law Center, Washington, D.C. Dated 
     September 9, 1993.
       Alvin L. Goldman, Salmon Professor of Law, University of 
     Kentucky, Lexington, KT. Dated August 23, 1993.
       Herman M. Levy, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University, 
     Santa Clara, CA. Dated August 25, 1993. (Letter signed with 
     75 other supporters): Dean Roger Ian Abrams, Rutgers Law 
     School; Peter L. Adomeit, Western New England College, School 
     of Law; Reginald H. Alleyne, U.C.L.A. School of Law; Florian 
     Bartosic, University of California, Davis, School of Law; 
     Robert Belton, Vanderbilt University, School of Law; Herbert 
     N. Bernhardt, University of Baltimore, School of Law; Merton 
     C. Bernstein, Washington University, School of Law; and 
     Ronald C. Brown, University of Hawaii.
       Norman L. Cantor, Rutgers Law School; Robert N. Covington 
     Vanderbilt University, School of Law; Charles B. Craver, 
     George Washington University, National Law Center; Kenneth G. 
     Dau-Schmidt, Indiana University, School of Law, Bloomington; 
     William F. Dolson, University of Louisville, School of Law; 
     R. Wayne Estes, Pepperdine University, School of Law; Samuel 
     Estreicher, New York University, School of Law; David E. 
     Feller, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; 
     and Barbara J. Fick, Notre Dame Law School.
       Joel William Friedman, Tulane University, School of Law; 
     Jennifer Friesen, Loyola Law School; Julius G. Getman, 
     University of Texas, School of Law; Raymond Goetz, University 
     of Kansas, School of Law; Dean Michael J. Goldberg, Widener 
     University, School of Law; Stephen B. Goldberg, Northwestern 
     University, School of Law; Richard A. Gonzales, University of 
     California, Hastings, College of Law; Dean Robert A. Gorman, 
     University of Pennsylvania, Law School; and Joseph Grodin, 
     University of California, Hastings, College of Law.
       Michael Harper, Boston University, School of Law; Roger 
     Hartley, Catholic University, School of Law; Dean Timothy J. 
     Heinsz, University of Missouri, School of Law; Stanley D. 
     Henderson, University of Virginia; James E. Jones, Jr., 
     University of Wisconsin, Law School; Leo Kanowitz, University 
     of California, Hastings, College of Law; Thomas C. Kohler, 
     Boston College, Law School; Robert F. Koretz, Syracruse 
     University, College of Law; and Douglas Leslie, University of 
     Virginia, School of Law.
       Lance M. Liebman, Columbia University, School of Law; 
     Robert F. Koretz, Syracuse University, College of Law; J. 
     Keith Mann, Professor of Law Emeritus, Stanford University, 
     School of Law; Stephen A. Mazurak, University of Detroit, 
     Mercy School of Law; John P. McCrory, Vermont Law School; 
     William F. McHugh, Florida State University, College of Law; 
     Robert G. Meiners, California Western, School of Law; Leroy 
     S. Merrifield, George Washington University, National Law 
     Center; and Gary Minda, Brooklyn Law School.
       Charles J. Morris, Professor Emeritus, Southern Methodist 
     University; William P. Murphy, University of North Carolina, 
     School of Law; Walter E. Oberer, University of Utah, College 
     of Law; Quentin O. Ogren, Loyola Law School; Cornelius J. 
     Peck, University of Washington, School of Law; Daniel H. 
     Pollitt, University of North Carolina, School of Law; David 
     Rabban, University of Texas, School of Law; John E. Sanchez, 
     Nova University, Shepard Broad Law Center; and Eric J. 
     Schmertz, Hofstra University, School of Law.
       Don W. Sears, University of Colorado, School of Law; Eileen 
     Silverstein, University of Connecticut, School of Law; Clyde 
     W. Summers, University of Pennsylvania, Law School; Donald T. 
     Weckstein, University of San Diego, School of Law; Steve L. 
     Willborn, University of Nebraska, College of Law; Calvin 
     William Sharpe, Case Western Reserve University, Law School; 
     William H. Simon, Stanford Law School; and Madelyn C. Squire, 
     Howard University, School of Law.
       Theodore, J. St. Antoine, University of Michigan, Law 
     School; Katherine Van Wezel Stone, State University of New 
     York at Buffalo; W. Gray Vause, Stetson University, College 
     of Law; Lea Vander Velde, University of Iowa, College of Law; 
     Paul Weiler, Harvard University, Law School; June M. 
     Weisberger, University of Wisconsin, Law School; Marley 
     Weiss, University of Maryland, School of Law; Dean Harry H. 
     Wellington, New York Law School; and Martha S. West, 
     University of California, Davis, School of Law.
       Willard Wirtz, University of San Diego, School of Law; 
     Donald H. Wollect, McGeorge School of Law, University of the 
     Pacific; Stephen G. Wood, Brigham Young University, Law 
     School; Jayne Zanglein, Texas Technology University, School 
     of Law; and Michael J. Zimmer, Seton Hall University, School 
     of Law.
       Jean T. McKelvey, Professor and Coordinator of Off-Campus 
     Graduate Credit Courses, Cornell University-NY State School 
     of Industrial and Labor Relations, New York, NY. Dated 
     September 8, 1993.


                              arbitrators

       Board of Arbitration, U.S. Steel Corporation and United 
     Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, PA. Alfred C. Dybeck, 
     Chairman. Dated September 10, 1993.
       Kagel and Kagel, San Francisco, CA. John Kagel, Neutral 
     Arbitrator. Dated September 13, 1993.
       National Academy of Arbitrators Ann Arbor, MI, Dallas L. 
     Jones, President, Dated September 14, 1993.
       Frances Bairstow, Arbitrator, Clearwater, FL, Dated August 
     15, 1993.
       Richard Mittenthal, Labor-Management Arbitrator, Bingham 
     Farms, MI, Dated August 3, 1993.
       Riley and Roumell, Detroit, MI, George T. Roumell, Jr., 
     Labor Arbitrator, Dated September 24, 1993.
       Eva Robins, Arbitrator, Attorney at Law, New York, NY, 
     Dated September 2, 1993.
       Arthur Stark Arbitration, New York, NY, Arthur Stark, 
     Member and Former President of the National Academy of 
     Arbitrators (NAA), Dated August 2, 1993.


                 current and former members of congress

       Tom Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, CA, 
     (Former Representative in California's 12th Congressional 
     District, 1989-1993), Dated September 15, 1993.
       Representative William L. Clay, Michigan's 1st 
     Congressional District, Dated September 7, 1993.


                                 judges

       U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Kentucky, Tennessee, 
     Ohio, and Michigan, Judge Damon J. Keith, Dated September 21, 
     1993.
       U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Ann 
     Arbor, MI, Judge Charles W. Joiner, District Judge, Dated 
     September 9, 1993.
       U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, New 
     York, NY, Judge Morris E. Lasker, Dated September 1, 1993.


             national bar association, inc., washington, dc

       Paulette Brown, President, Dated August 24, 1993.


                       management representatives

       Elliot S. Azoff, Attorney; Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, 
     OH, Dated September 23, 1993.
       Arthur P. Menard, Attorney; Cuddy, Lynch & Bixby, Boston, 
     MA, Dated September 8, 1993.
       Stanley E. Tobin, Attorney; Hill Farrer & Burrill, Los 
     Angeles, CA, Dated September 10, 1993.
       Basil A. Paterson, Attorney; Meyer, Suozzi, English & 
     Klein, P.C., Mineola, NY, Dated September 23, 1993.
       Frederick A. Morgan, Partner in the Labor Department; 
     Frederick A. Morgan, San Francisco, CA, Dated September 14, 
     1993.
       William J. Emanuel, Attorney; Morgon, Lewis & Bockius, Los 
     Angeles, CA, Dated September 13, 1993.
       Arthur B. Smith, Jr., Attorney; Murphy, Smith & Polk, 
     Chicago, IL, Dated September 14, 1993.
       Robert McAlpine, Director Policy & Government Relations; 
     National Urban League, Inc., Washington, D.C., Dated 
     September 22, 1993.
       Stuart H. Bompey, Attorney; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 
     New York, NY. Dated September 14, 1993.
       Martin J. Oppenheimer, Chairman of the Labor and Employment 
     Department; Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn, New York, 
     NY. Dated September 8, 1993.
       Saul G. Kramer, Co-chairperson of the Labor and Employment 
     Department; Kroskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York, NY. 
     Dated September 14, 1993.
       Edward Silver, Member of the Firm; Proskauer Rose Goetz & 
     Mendelsohn, New York, NY. Dated September 9, 1993.
       R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Attorney; R. Lawrence, Jr., Atlanta, 
     GA. Dated September 13, 1993.
       Morton H. Orenstein, Attorney; Schachter, Kristoff, 
     Orenstein & Berkowitz, San Francisco, CA. Dated September 2, 
     1993.
       Richard Martin Lyon, Attorney; Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather 
     & Geraldson, Chicago, IL. Dated September 9, 1993.
       Dr. Edward J. Miller, Senior Vice President; Tri Valley 
     Growers, Modesto, CA. Dated September 7, 1993.
       Neal Sullins, Senior Attorney; Weyerhaeuser, Takoma, WA. 
     Dated September 13, 1993.
       Arnold E. Perl, Management Labor Attorney; Young & Perl, 
     P.C., Memphis, TN. Dated September 13, 1993.


                  Professional Sports Representatives

       Boston Red Sox, Boston, MA, James ``Lou'' Gorman, Senior 
     Vice President General Manager. Dated August 20, 1993.
       Golden State Warriors, Oakland, CA, Al Attles, Vice 
     President and Assistant General Manager. Dated September 7, 
     1993.
       Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, New York, 
     NY. Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel. Dated August 23, 1993.
       The Oakland Athletics Baseball Company, Oakland, CA, 
     Richard L. Alderson, President and General Manager. Dated 
     September 10, 1993.
       San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco, CA, Carmen A. Policy, 
     President. Dated September 1, 1993.
       Seattle Mariners, Seattle, WA, Charles G. Armstrong, 
     President. Dated August 24, 1993.


                                 unions

       Council of GSA Locals, Council 236, American Federation of 
     Government Employees, Aubum, WA, Bruce G. Williams, Executive 
     Vice President, Council #236. Dated August 18, 1993.
       United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-
     CIO & CLC (UFCW), Washington, D.C., William H. Wynn, 
     International President. Dated July 2, 1993.
       Gwend Johnson, Member of Communications Workers of America 
     and the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Washington, D.C. 
     Dated September 24, 1993.

             Additional Supporters of Prof. William Gould.


                                academia

       R. Wayne Estes, Professor of Law, Pepperdine University, 
     Malibu, CA, Dated September 21, 1993.
       Jay S. Siegel, Harvard University Center for Business and 
     Government, Boston, MA, Dated September 22, 1993.


                              arbitrators

       Anthony V. Sinicropi, LaQuinta, CA, Dated October 1, 1993.


                               attorneys

       David A. Cathcart, Los Angeles, CA, Dated October 15, 1993.


    civil rights organizations--joint letter of September 30, 1993.

       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Council of 
     La Raza; National Urban League; and Women's Legal Defense 
     Fund.


                       management representatives

       Lloyd C. Loomis, Los Angeles CA, Dated September 27, 1993.
       Maureen E. McClain; Kauff, McClain & McGuire, San 
     Fransisco, Dated September 10, 1993.
       Patrick N. McTeague; McTeague, Higbee, Libner, MacAdam, 
     Case, & Watson, Topsham, ME, Dated October 1, 1993.
       George E. Preonas; Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 
     Los Angeles, CA, Dated September 22, 1993.


                                 unions

       AFSCME Council 31, Chicago, IL, Rosetta Daylie, Associate 
     Director, Dated October 7, 1993.
       AFSCME/OHIO, Worthington, OH, Jacqueline L. McClellan, IUR. 
     Dated October 1, 1993.
       Amalgamated Service and Allied Industries, Washington, 
     D.C., Clayola Brown Manager/Secretary-Treasurer. Dated 
     September 27, 1993.
       American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
     Employees. AFL-CIO, Indianapolis, IN, Stephan Fantauzzo, 
     Executive Director. Dated September 28, 1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Baltimore Chapter, 
     Baltimore, MD, Mary Jones, Chairperson. Dated September 30, 
     1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Central Alabama Chapter, 
     Birmingham, AL, Frank Paige, Chairperson. Dated October 4, 
     1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Buffalo Chapter, 
     Buffalo, NY, Robert Massey, Chairperson, Dianne Flakes, Vice 
     Chair, Ron Wofford, Communications Chair. Dated October 8, 
     1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Columbus Chapter, 
     Columbus, OH, Danny N. Martin and Marlene Hill-Powell. Dated 
     October 1, 1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Joliet Chapter, 
     Lockport, IL, Eveleyna U. Washington, President. Dated 
     October 11, 1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Midwest Region 6, IN, 
     IL, MN, WI, Cordelia Lewis, Representative. Dated September 
     29, 1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Toledo Chapter, Toledo, 
     OH, Anita R. Barton, Chapter Chairperson. Dated October 7, 
     1993.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Washington, DC, William 
     H. Simons, Treasurer. Dated September 27, 1993.
       DC 1707, New York, NY, Bettye W. Roberts, President. Dated 
     October 1, 1993.
       Local 743, Chicago IL, Robert T. Simpson, Jr., President. 
     Dated October 6, 1993.
       United Food and Commercial Workers, New York, NY, Robert H. 
     Wilson, President. Dated September 27, 1993.
       UFCW, Washington, D.C, William H. Wynn, International 
     President. Dated October 18, 1993.


                           political caucuses

       The National Black Caucus of State Legislators, Washington, 
     D.C., Senator Regis F. Groff of Colorado, President. Dated 
     September 24, 1993.
       National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 
     Harry C. Alford, Chairman & CEO. Dated September 27, 1993.


                  professional sports representatives

       Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Milwaukee, WI, Allan H. 
     Selig, Chairman-CEO. Dated September 28, 1993.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased President Clinton chose to 
nominate someone of Mr. Gould's stature and experience to the post of 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. If I recall, it has 
been quite some time since the NLRB has been led by someone with his 
balanced experience. I am sure this past experience is an indication of 
the openmindedness he will bring to his new post.
  Over the years, Mr. Gould has been involved in all facets of labor 
relations. After over a decade of what some might call business-
oriented control of the NLRB, it is refreshing to have a nominee to 
this post with experience in both labor and management.
  I would also note that Bill Gould began his distinguished career as 
an undergraduate at the University of Rhode Island.
  While I received numerous letters supporting Bill Gould's nomination, 
many quite enthusiastic in fact, one letter in particular sticks out in 
my mind. Along with his many professional qualifications, Lou Gorman, 
general manager of the Boston Red Sox, felt compelled to note Mr. 
Gould's longtime devotion to the Red Sox. While not directly connected 
to the position of Chair of the NLRB, being a Red Sox fan for 47 years 
certainly indicates a sense of diligence and dedication, two attributes 
he may find useful in Federal service.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to express my unqualified 
support for the nomination of William Gould IV to chair the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  I am excited at the intelligence and sense of fairness that he will 
bring to the National Labor Relations Board, which needs new leadership 
to guide its mission in resolving labor-management conflict and to do 
its part to promote the economic well-being of all Americans.
  You will hear a lot about Mr. Gould and his views--he is a prolific 
author of many scholarly and popular press articles--but the one theme 
that stands out is his fundamental belief in the strengths, for both 
management and labor, of democracy in the workplace.
  He has had a career that has provided him varied vantage points from 
which to view the development of labor-management relations since his 
graduation from Cornell Law School and study at the London School of 
Economics in the early 1960's.
  He worked as assistant general counsel for the United Auto Workers, 
served as a staff attorney for the NLRB, and represented management at 
a private law firm in New York.
  He has served as a distinguished professor of law at Stanford 
University since 1972.
  A member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, Mr. Gould has 
presided over 200 arbitration cases in nearly a quarter of a century. 
He was first admitted to the academy at the age of 33, one of the 
youngest members ever to join. That broad experience has taught him how 
to find the delicate balance between competing interests. He has helped 
to settle more than 200 labor disputes, across a broad array of 
occupations.
  He has demonstrated a fair hand. In fact, as an arbitrator, he has 
ruled in favor of employers in 59 percent of the cases. He realizes the 
critical role labor-management cooperation will play as our industries 
face the restructuring needed to flourish in the international economy.
  He supports easing restrictions preventing companies from forming 
more labor-management committees to work out their differences before 
they lead to strikes and in order to promote workplace efficiencies.
  He knows, as a baseball fan and as an arbitrator in the 1992 salary 
disputes in major league baseball, that management cannot hit a home 
run without players willing to run the bases.
  Mr. Gould has studied all aspects of our labor laws and their effects 
on this Nation. Within this single nomination, you have combined the 
openmindedness of the scholar and the practical experience of the 
negotiator.
  I am also impressed that he understands the role of the Chairman of 
the National Labor Relations Board. He knows this job is not to set 
policy but to follow the law as passed by this Congress.
  As he said at his confirmation hearing: as Chairman,

       My charge is to interpret existing law as it is written * * 
     * my role is to decide cases based upon the facts and 
     relevant law. In neither capacity is the fashioning of 
     legislation part of the job description. That is an 
     appropriate role for Congress.

  His priorities as Chairman of the NLRB are: One, to establish a more 
efficient administrative agency where it does not take an average of 
300 days from filing of a charge of unfair labor practice to a 
determination by the Board. We cannot afford administrative logjams 
contributing to already difficult conflict resolution.
  Two, as an avid proponent of informal dispute resolution, Bill Gould 
will extend this remedy to the time before the complaint of unfair 
labor practice is issued by the Board's general counsel.
  His third priority, as he said at his confirmation hearing, is above 
all others, and that is--

       * * * to eliminate or substantially diminish the 
     polarization between the parties and to make the Board into 
     an agency which as the full confidence or both labor and 
     management, the Federal judiciary, as well as the general 
     public.

  Mr. President, I can think of no more appropriate job description for 
the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  I think the comments of a bay area lawyer quoted in a story on Mr. 
Gould in the San Francisco Chronicle summed it up the best when he 
said:

       What you're going to see is somebody whose fundamental 
     interest is protecting employee rights, but that's 
     counterbalanced by the reality that if you don't have 
     employers you don't have employees.

  I urge my colleague to confirm William Gould to serve as Chairman of 
the National Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I expect that we will move toward a vote in the very 
near future. I will just make a final few comments and then suggest the 
absence of a quorum so that the leader can move us into a vote 
situation.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment very briefly on a couple of 
matters that have been raised by some in the Chamber this afternoon as 
issues which should give some pause to support this nomination.
  My good friend, Senator Nickles, was pointing out that Mr. Gould 
supported legislation to require joint safety and health committees to 
develop cooperation between employers and employees to deal with the 
issue of health and safety in the workplace.
  It is true that we have legislation before our committee to require 
this. But this is a process now which is already followed in a number 
of States, including the State of Washington and the State of Oregon, 
and the business communities in those States have been wholly 
enthusiastic in support of that concept.
  What we have seen in those States has been a significant reduction in 
workmen's compensation and lost time from workplace injury and illness, 
increased safety, and less regulation imposed on many of those 
industries. So this is something that we will have an opportunity to 
debate, hopefully, in this Congress.
  Second, Mr. President, Joe Dear, the Assistant Secretary of Labor who 
is running the OSHA program at the Labor Department and who was 
formerly Commissioner of Labor in the State of Washington, testified 
before our committee that rather than being an instrument to promote 
unionism, requiring safety and health committees had a contrary effect; 
that one of the elements that causes employees to support creating a 
union is an unsafe workplace, and that where there is a safety and 
health committee that employees can use to get a safe workplace, there 
is less pressure for them to move towards unionization.
  Now, the fact that Mr. Gould supports safety and health committees 
does not seem to me a very radical idea, and it is again an idea that 
the administration supports, and, hopefully, we will have bipartisan 
support when we are able to consider the legislation in the Chamber.
  Third, a question was raised about whether Professor Gould would 
change the law with regard to what is or is not construed a mandatory 
subject of bargaining. That question was put to Mr. Gould specifically 
at his confirmation hearing before the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee: ``Would you place any limit on the subject matter of 
bargaining under your view of labor law?''
  Mr. Gould's answer, which is part of the hearing record, at page 37 
was:

       The elimination of the distinction between mandatory and 
     permissive subjects for bargaining is not a policy that is 
     open to the Board, and any legislative modifications of the 
     current law would come to the Board in the context of 
     concrete legislation which would reflect legislatively 
     determined standards in this area.

  He recognized quite completely that if there was going to be some 
changes in that aspect of the law, it has to be done legislatively and 
not by the NLRB.
  Finally, Mr. President, there has been at least some attempt--
hopefully not persuasively--to characterize Mr. Gould as being some 
kind of ``radical'' in terms of his understanding of labor law issues.
  I have a copy of a Law Review article by Prof. Charles Fried, of the 
Harvard Law School, entitled, ``Individual and Collective Rights in 
Work Relations. Reflections on the Current State of Labor Law and Its 
Prospects.''
  As the Members here would know, Professor Fried was Solicitor General 
in the Reagan administration and has what I think could fairly be 
described as quite conservative views in the labor law area. In fact, 
in this article Professor Fried is extremely critical of what he 
describes as certain ``radical left legal scholars'' and their views on 
U.S. labor law. It is interesting to note that Professor Fried has a 
footnote, footnote 17, in which he cites a particular article written 
by Professor Gould where he goes out of his way to make clear that 
Professor Gould is not one of the so-called radical scholars he is 
criticizing.
  For a discussion of such and such an issue, he writes in the 
footnote, ``see generally Gould.'' And then he adds in parentheses, 
``Not a radical legal scholar!'' And he actually has an exclamation 
point here for emphasis.
  So here we have a distinguished scholar with strong conservative, 
Republican credentials who has actually studied and is familiar with 
Gould's academic writing emphatically rejecting the notion that Bill 
Gould is somehow out of the main stream. I think this demonstrates that 
the exaggerated statements that have been made to the effect that there 
is something extreme or outside the mainstream about Professor Gould's 
views really do not hold water.
  Mr. President, I thank the Members for their attention.
  Let me finally I just point out that when these nominees are 
confirmed, there will be two Bush appointees still on the Board and 
then there will be three of President Clinton's three nominees, who 
include Charles Cohen, who is a Republican. I think The Board will be 
ably and capably led by Professor Gould, who has demonstrated 
extraordinary integrity and professional competency, and a fundamental 
commitment to the rule of law over a long and distinguished career, and 
I very much hope that the Senate will approve his nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Shall the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of William B. 
Gould IV, of California, to be a member of the National Labor Relations 
Board? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] and the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senator in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--38

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Durenberger
     Glenn
     Mikulski
     Pryor
  So, the nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the following nominations which the 
clerk will report.

                          ____________________