[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1600-H1609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3246, FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS 
                       AND EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1998

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 393 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the

[[Page H1601]]

     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3246) 
     to assist small businesses and labor organizations in 
     defending themselves against government bureaucracy; to 
     ensure that employees entitled to reinstatement get their 
     jobs back quickly; to protect the right of employers to have 
     a hearing to present their case in certain representation 
     cases; and to prevent the use of the National Labor Relations 
     Act for the purpose of disrupting or inflicting economic harm 
     on employers. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from south Boston (Mr. Moakley), 
my very good friend, who I am happy to say has just arrived in the 
Chamber, and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for debate purposes only.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3246, the Fairness for 
Small Business and Employees Act of 1998, under a structured rule 
providing for an hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  The rule makes in order one amendment by the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). The rule provides that the amendment shall 
be considered as read and debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and an 
opponent.
  The amendment shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for a division of the question. Further, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, although this is a structured rule, it would also be 
correct to characterize it as a very fair rule. As Members know, H.R. 
3246 amends a broad cross-section of the National Labor Relations Act. 
The Committee on Rules required Members to prefile their amendments in 
advance, in an effort to ensure that the House would have a focused 
debate on the issues specific to this legislation.
  Four amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules, and of those, 
three were actually withdrawn. In fact, two amendments filed by the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), were withdrawn as a 
result of a motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), which the Committee on Rules adopted by a voice vote. Those 
two amendments would have added 20 minutes and 60 minutes, 
respectively, to the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, for their 
very thoughtful work on this bill in moving it forward.
  If enacted, the bill will end abusive practices against workers by 
organized labor and the Federal bureaucracy. It will level the playing 
field for small businesses, small unions, and employees by creating an 
impartial National Labor Relations Board.
  It will also end the practice of what is known as salting, whereby 
professional agents and union employees are sent in to nonunion 
workplaces under the guise of seeking employment, only to inflict harm 
on those employers.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me say, this is, I believe, a very fair and 
balanced structured rule. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, 
which makes in order this fair and commonsense bill which will provide 
relief for small businesses, for labor organizations, and employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have not named this bill very 
well. They call it the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, 
but it is neither fair, nor is it for small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose the 
bill. This is bad news for American workers, particularly construction 
workers, and it seriously undercuts the National Labor Relations Board. 
This bill hurts workers' rights to bargain collectively by allowing 
businesses to refuse to hire or even fire people who have been members 
of unions or who have worked in union shops.
  Let me repeat this, Mr. Speaker. This bill allows employers to refuse 
to hire people they suspect might be affiliated with a union. In other 
words, Mr. Speaker, it allows businesses to fire workers who might 
report unlawful conduct, but it allows businesses to keep hiring 
outside union busting consultants. That is all right.
  Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that these so-called union organizers do a 
good day's work. They show up on time. They work hard. They follow the 
rules. They are not standing around the water coolers passing out 
leaflets all day. They do their jobs satisfactorily. If they do their 
job satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker, they should not be fired for union 
activities or affiliations. After all, Mr. Speaker, these people come 
to organize employees, not to eliminate their jobs, as my Republican 
colleagues will imply.
  But, because some employers fear the power of collective bargaining, 
they want to be able to refuse to hire someone or even fire someone for 
suspicious siding with the unions. This bill allows them to do that, 
Mr. Speaker, and that is patently wrong.
  It also gives employers a powerful tool to slow down workers' choice 
of unions. This bill makes taxpayers pay the legal fees under the 
National Labor Relations Act whenever the business wins. Mr. Speaker, 
making taxpayers pay, even in cases where the National Labor Relations 
Board's position was substantially justified, is in violation of the 
``American rule'' under which each party to a suit pays their own 
costs.
  There is no reason to think that the NLRB is bringing up frivolous 
cases. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last year the NLRB won 83.7 percent of the 
cases which went to the courts on appeals, so they are not just taking 
any old case lying around. When they do take a case, they prosecute it 
very well.
  Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Back in 1935, the National 
Labor Relations Act was enacted to encourage the practice and procedure 
of collective bargaining. But because ``unions are essential to give 
laborers opportunity to deal on an equality with their employer,'' in 
other words, collective representation, it promotes American economic 
and social good.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues talk about unions as if they were 
a dirty word. They imply that union organizers are only out to destroy 
businesses, and, Mr. Speaker, that absolutely is not true. Organized 
labor has just as much of an interest in keeping

[[Page H1602]]

people's jobs as employees who have an interest in keeping businesses 
running.
  Collective bargaining is not a tool to destroy companies, and neither 
are unions. Unions give workers a voice at a time when the gap between 
rich and poor is ever widening, so we need all the unionizing we can 
get.
  Unions raise living standards, they help close the wage gaps between 
women and people of color, they fight discrimination, and promote civil 
and human rights. But as it stands today, Mr. Speaker, about 10,000 
working Americans get fired every year just because they support 
unions. This bill is just one more attack on the working people's 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a giant step backwards in worker-employer 
relations. It gives employers even more ways to trample the rights of 
workers to organize and bargain collectively, and, along with this 
rule, should be defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, all we are trying to do is make sure that small 
businesses have the exact same rights that the gentleman and I do in 
hiring practices in our offices.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I concur, Mr. Speaker. That is all I am here for, is to 
make sure that unions and collective bargaining agents and employers 
have all the same rights.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to protect the rights of 
employees, the small labor groups, organizations, and, of course, the 
backbone, the backbone of the United States of America, the small 
businessman and woman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us call this bill for what it is. It is shameful 
union-bashing. That is what it is. At least our Republican colleagues 
are consistent about being anti-worker, anti-union, anti-middle class 
persons. This amends the National Labor Relations Act to permit 
employers to refuse to hire a person who seeks employment in a nonunion 
firm to organize the workers into a union.
  This is an anti-union bill. It is a bill to restrict workers from 
organizing, make no mistake about it. It makes it much more difficult 
to organize workers for better pay benefits, punishes workers for their 
affiliations with organizations outside of the workplace, and infringes 
on their right to free speech.
  The President is going to veto this bill in its present form. The 
bill absolutely should be defeated. It is an absolute disgrace. It 
overturns the unanimous 1995 Supreme Court decision that said 
``Employees or job applicants attempting to organize a workplace have 
the same employment protections as any other employee or applicant.''
  This, again, is shameful union bashing. This body should reject it, 
and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the American tradition has been to organize 
all kinds of groups everywhere in this country. The National Labor 
Relations Act was intended to encourage people to organize on the job. 
This is a bill to discourage people from organizing.
  What it says is that an employer can discriminate if the primary 
purpose of a person was furthering other employment or agency status. 
50 percent of their intent is not to work for the employer. In that 
case, there is no protection.
  Who is going to interpret this, and under what circumstances? If 
someone is fired, it is up to the NLRB to present a prima facie case 
showing that the employee applicant on whose behalf the charge of 
discrimination has been filed is not a person who has sought employment 
with such a primary purpose.
  This is going to discourage organization. That is its purpose. There 
is reference in the report of the majority to paid union organizers. 
This applies to anybody, anybody at all, anybody who is seeking 
employment.
  It also refers in the majority report to the fact that in some cases 
an employee may disrupt projects or disrupt the workplace. Look, in 
those cases the employer has the absolute right to discharge somebody 
if they disrupt a project or if they disrupt the workplace.
  The real tip-off is right here on page 6. It says ``These agents,'' 
and it does not have to be an agent, it says here that they often 
attempt to persuade bona fide employees to sign cards supporting the 
union. The purpose here is to try to discourage people from signing 
union cards.
  Look, this is a deep disappointment to anybody who believes in the 
right of people to organize. This is class warfare. I have heard a lot 
of the Members of the majority talk on the floor about class warfare. 
That is what they are engaging in here, class warfare against working 
families, blue collar families, and increasingly, white collar 
families.
  They should never have brought this to the floor. It will never pass, 
if it does the House, the Senate and be signed by the President. I do 
not know whose interest Members are trying to serve. It is not the 
interests of typical American working families.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Naperville, Illinois (Mr. Fawell), 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not take a great deal of time. I think that some 
kind of reply to these rather exaggerated statements that have already 
been made by the Members of the other side of the aisle is in order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have four bills here that are included in one termed 
the Fairness for Small Business Act. From my viewpoint, and I think 
when we have the debate here we will find that we have relatively 
benign and very reasonable suggestions for improvement that will be 
good for employers, be good for employees, be good for labor 
organizations also. Truth in employment is not something that is bad, 
and in this bill it deals with salters, and we do have a problem.
  Not all unions are involved in salting tactics, but what we simply 
say, and we do not repeal the Supreme Court decision in Town and 
Country whatsoever. We simply say that if there is a bona fide 
applicant that is applying, then the full accord of the Town and 
Country Supreme Court decision takes effect. That applicant is deemed 
to be an employee.

                              {time}  1700

  In no way can the nonunion shop discriminate in any way against that 
applicant because the applicant may be a member of a union or even a 
paid employee of the union.
  What we do say is that if that applicant is not a bona fide 
applicant, if the person is seeking employment with the employer and 
the primary purpose of seeking employment is furthering another 
employment, for instance if one is full-time employed by the union, as 
is oftentimes the case with the salters, then we will say that if the 
facts show that the primary reason, that is, more than 50 percent of 
the reason for one applying is because they want to further some other 
employment, then we are suggesting that is it not common sense that 
under those circumstances the NLRA would not cover that kind of a 
situation, and only in that kind of a situation.
  Then we also suggest for the small businesspeople of America, and for 
the small labor organizations, too, that if when there is a charge 
brought to the National Labor Relations Board and the general counsel 
decides that there is going to be a complaint that is issued, whether 
it is an unfair labor practice against a labor organization or unfair 
labor practice against an employer, and we are talking about small 
employers and small labor organizations that have less than 100 
employees and net worth of less than $1.4 million, under those 
circumstances, if the small business or the labor organization actually 
wins the case, then the loser is the National Labor Relations Board 
which is financed by the taxpayers

[[Page H1603]]

against these small businesses and against these small unions, then 
under those circumstances we are suggesting that the small business 
should be reimbursed for the legal fees because they cannot afford to 
continually try to defend themselves and oftentimes as many as 40 or 50 
unfair labor practice charges.
  Then we have several other bills, too, that I am not going to go into 
at this time. But suffice it to say that if Members will look carefully 
at this, it does not do any credit to call this union bashing. These 
are bills that we have worked on for quite some time. There is some 
bipartisanship to it. There is some opposition, obviously, but it is 
not union bashing. And hopefully we can have a debate that can be 
heightened over that kind of rhetoric.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the latest in a series of efforts by the 
Republican majority to undermine working men and women in this country. 
First the Republican Majority tries to silence the voices of rank-and-
file Americans under their phony campaign finance reform bill. Now they 
want to give employers the power to hire and fire workers based solely 
on their support for union representation.
  Again, we have very damaging legislation clothed in an innocuous 
title. This bill is called the Fairness for Small Business and 
Employees Act of 1998, but it is not fair, it is not limited to small 
businesses, and it certainly does nothing for employees.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this bill permits employers to 
discriminate against workers on the basis of the worker's union 
support. It would permit and even encourage employers to interrogate 
applicants on their preferences for union representation and refuse to 
hire the applicants on that basis.
  This bill overturns the unanimous 1995 Supreme Court decision. The 
Court said that a worker can be a company's employee and simultaneously 
work in support of union representation. But the Republican majority 
does not like the Supreme Court decision and they do not like labor 
unions so they plan to overturn the Court's decision with the passage 
of this bill.
  The Republican majority says that this bill is necessary to prevent 
abuses by employers. This is nonsense. Employers already have more than 
enough power to control what goes on in the workplaces. Current law 
already provides that employers may prohibit union solicitation during 
working hours. Current law allows employers to prohibit their employees 
from even discussing the union during work time. Current law allows 
companies to require employees to attend meetings, listen to campaign 
speeches and watch campaign videos. Current law allows employers to 
fire employees who refuse to listen or dare to ask questions in such 
captive-audience meetings.
  Mr. Speaker, the message of this bill is that employers can never 
have enough power over their workers. The message of this bill is that 
employers' decisions to hire or fire employees can be based solely on 
that employee's beliefs and their desire to have a unionized workplace 
and their activities outside of nonworking hours. The message of this 
bill is regardless of how hard one works, how much they produce, how 
impeccable their record of service, they can be fired for wanting and 
seeking a better representation for themselves and their co-workers by 
having a union in the workplace.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is antidemocratic, it is antiworker, it is 
antiunion, and my colleagues ought to vote against it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong 
opposition to this bill. If there were ever a bill written to bust the 
unions, this is it.
  Working families organized unions to give themselves a voice and to 
protect their safety. Unions provide workers with peace of mind because 
they know their leadership at the negotiating table with management is 
necessary to get the highest possible wages, the best possible health 
care and pension benefits. Without these collective bargaining 
guarantees, working men and women will not be afforded a place at the 
bargaining table to ensure the highest possible living standard for 
themselves and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes three steps backwards. It reverses a key 
provision of the National Labor Relations Act which prohibits employers 
from discriminating against who they hire. What this bill says is that 
if an employer suspects a person is applying for a job to organize a 
union, then the applicant is out the door. Imagine the leeway an 
employer would have to turn away job applicants. An employer's 
convenient excuse not to hire a person of color, for example, is 
because that person might be a union representative. This bill would 
gut the National Labor Relations Act to the point of ineffectiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania will offer 
an amendment to attempt to eliminate the ambiguity. The amendment 
states that any ``bona fide'' applicant will be protected under the 
NLRA. What subjective criteria would an employer use to determine who 
is a ``bona fide'' employee? This is ludicrous.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be on the floor. Job applicants 
should never be discriminated against if they belong to a union, if 
they support a union, or if they want to participate in union 
organizing activities. This bill is a clear, shameless attempt to ban 
organized unions at nonunion workplaces. It is an attempt to deny 
collective bargaining rights to workers who want the right to organize.
  Finally, this bill is an attempt to tear down the unanimous 1995 
Supreme Court ruling that says that it is illegal to deny employment to 
a paid union organizer, or to fire that person, if the person applies 
for a job for the purposes of organizing a union in a nonunion 
workplace.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
bill. Its purpose is to bust unions, to bust the people that are in 
them, and to weaken the labor laws which were written to improve the 
lives of America's working families. We should not allow it. Let us 
fight with all we have got.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) the ranking member on the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is 
appalling that we would limit amendments on a bill that tramples the 
rights of millions of workers and their families. It is no exaggeration 
that this bill rips the heart out of the National Labor Relations Act 
and says a good deal about the priorities of the majority.
  Rather than working on measures that will improve the lives of 
working families, this legislation would jeopardize the great progress 
the NLRA has made in providing workers with better wages, benefits, and 
working conditions.
  The enactment of the historic National Labor Relations Act was 
prompted by a severe and violent labor unrest. Back then, labor laws 
were stacked against workers. Management had the law on its side. The 
courts readily gave them injunctive relief, and the police also used 
excessive force to break strikes.
  The NLRA created a careful balance of rights for employees and 
employers. This bill guts that law which has brought so much 
opportunity and stability for working families and, incidentally, for 
employers.
  Mr. Speaker, we should emphatically reject this rule and I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just respond briefly to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay), my good friend from St. Louis, and say that we in 
the Committee on Rules planned to make every amendment that was 
submitted in order. And while I found the gentleman's remarks very 
interesting, the one little caveat, the gentleman did say that he did 
not want to offer amendments and that he just did not like the bill and 
did not want to do that when we were holding the hearing up in the 
Committee on Rules. I think

[[Page H1604]]

it is important for the Record  to show that.
  Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to make the gentleman's amendments in 
order and, in fact, we did make them in order, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) offered the motion that unanimously passed 
in the Committee on Rules that, in fact, allowed for the withdrawal of 
those two amendments which had been submitted by the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to quote me, I wish 
he would quote me accurately.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman to 
clarify that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, what I said to the gentleman was, first of 
all, it is not an open rule because the committee required preprinting 
in the Record.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the second thing I said before the Committee 
on Rules is that no amendments whatsoever could make this bill worth 
passing by this body, and that is how I wanted to be quoted. We cannot 
fix this piece of trash that we are now deliberating.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if we had an open rule, 
the gentleman would not offer any amendments. And we have now a very 
well-structured rule that would have made the amendments that the 
gentleman talks about offering and did initially submit in the 
Committee on Rules in order, and he has chosen not to do that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it 
would have permitted other Members who might have wanted to offer 
amendments to offer them. I said in my opening statement before the 
Committee on Rules that this should not even be considered by this 
body.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the opportunity for all 
of our colleagues to submit amendments to us, as we had announced 
earlier on the House floor. And so I think that we have pretty well 
clarified the issue.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, we are going through an exercise in futility. 
We do not know whether the Senate will take it up or not, but we know 
that the President has declared that he will veto this piece of 
legislation, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not 
have enough votes to override a veto.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I think the very 
hard work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has brought forth thoughtful 
legislation, and we are going to work our will here in the House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the minority whip.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a thinly veiled 
attack on America's organized workers. It is a Republican retribution 
bill. If one disagrees with the Republican majority, it will not be 
long before they are under investigation or under attack right here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not just an antiunion bill, it is un-
American. This bill will allow employers to discriminate against and 
deny employment to workers based solely on their connection with a 
union.
  What happened to freedom of speech? What happened to freedom of 
assembly? What happened to freedom of association? This bill is a naked 
attempt to intimidate American working families. It is a shame, it is a 
disgrace, and it has no place on this House floor.
  I urge my colleagues to kill this bad un-American bill. Get it off of 
the floor, and send it to the trash heap dump right now.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, any list of all-American, to-die-for rights will find 
the right to organize there at the top of the list. This bill tears up 
the right to organize, throws it in the dumpster.
  How many violations of basic rights can the majority cram into one 
bill? The answer is, as many as it will take: freedom of speech, 
freedom of association, the right to organize, due process. How many 
ways are there to break unions? We will find a litany of them in this 
bill, including a brazen new employer right to discriminate against a 
worker who wants to organize a union in their company.
  We want to start a union today? We already take our job in our hands. 
Ask the 10,000 who are unlawfully fired every year for union activity. 
We have blocked labor law reform to balance and bring fairness to labor 
law in this Chamber for 20 years. Now we are trying to kill what is 
left of the right to organize.
  What do they want? We are already down to only 14 percent of workers 
organized in unions in this country. Have we forgotten that collective 
bargaining is a legitimate and time-honored part of the market system? 
In America, trying to organize a union should not make one a second-
class citizen. Defeat this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to pursue clarification on 
this issue, I yield 4 minutes, once again, to my friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can clarify what the issues are.
  I think I showed up in the wrong room. We are arguing about things 
that have nothing to do with the legislation that we have before us, 
and we are being accused of union bashing and all that; and I hear my 
colleagues say that a union member can no longer be engaged in 
organizing, that there is no ability to be involved in collective 
bargaining and things of this sort.
  All that we are trying to clarify here, while keeping in complete 
accord with the Supreme Court decision in Town and Country where it was 
made very clear that an employer cannot discriminate against any 
applicant on the basis of the fact that he may be affiliated with a 
union or that he may even be a paid employee of a union.
  The Supreme Court said there is not inherently a conflict. Now, there 
could be a conflict, but not inherently a conflict. So all we are 
trying to do, and I think almost every reasonable person would say 
that, however, where we have an applicant where it can be said that the 
primary reason that he is there is not because he wants to really go to 
work for that employer; the primary reason he is there is because he 
wants to further the interests of another employer.
  Now, that is all we are trying to say. And I think inherently an 
American concept that would, any one of us, as a Member of Congress, 
think is right that we should hire someone who wants to work for us, 
and the primary reason they want to work for us is because they want to 
further the interests of another employer. That is all that we are 
asking, and that is a factual question.
  Bear in mind that when a complaint is lodged of an unfair labor 
practice and the issue is whether or not the applicant was bona fide or 
not, guess who will make the initial decision in that regard? It will 
be the National Labor Relations Board, the general counsel, that will 
determine whether there is even a cause of action or a complaint that 
should be issued. Now that is what we are talking about here.
  There is an old saying, ``If the facts are with you, pound the facts; 
if the law is with you, pound the law; but if you do not have either, 
pound the table.'' And I am hearing a lot of pounding of the table 
here, but I hope we can get back on something that is relevant.
  Every once in a while, as an attorney, I would like to think that we 
are talking about the issue that happens to be before us. And we are 
straying way out. And my colleagues make good points with labor 
organizations I think but not much, I think, as far as common-sense 
debate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are trying to put a smiling face on this effort to hurt the American 
worker and talk about it in some kind of legalese because they are a 
bunch of lawyers. But nobody is going to be fooled around here. There 
are a lot of lawyers

[[Page H1605]]

over the years that tried to hurt the unions, and nobody is going to be 
fooled by what they are saying on the other side of the aisle here.
  I remember a time when there were Republicans, particularly in the 
Northeast, who supported the average worker. But this Republican 
leadership is at war with America's workers. And since I consider 
workers the backbone of America, I think it is fair to say that the 
Republican leadership is at war with America and what it represents.
  The Republican bill will allow employers to discriminate against 
people they suspect of trying to organize their workplace, and the 
employer can refuse to hire them, or fire them if they have already 
been employed, because of their union ties. If this country adopts the 
principle that union organizing is somehow against the public interest, 
then we are in serious trouble. America's strength is its middle class, 
and that middle class will dry up without organized labor. We will 
start to see lower wages, fewer pensions, and less health care benefits 
for workers.
  Mr. Speaker, let us stop the union busting. If we do not provide the 
ability of workers to organize, we will be in serious trouble as a 
nation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remaining I 
have and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Is the gentleman from California interested in yielding 
me any time, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. Rothman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the closed rule and 
the underlying antiworker bill. This debate is about fairness and the 
basic rights of hard-working Americans. If this bill passes, a worker 
could be fired just for trying to improve working conditions by 
organizing his or her fellow workers; or a worker may not even be hired 
in the first place, even though he or she is the most qualified 
applicant, just because the company executive thinks that that person 
might organize workers in the future.
  In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it is unconstitutional for 
American executives to fire or discriminate against those who they want 
to silence. But these corporate executives refuse to take no for an 
answer, so they are trying to bring this bill to the floor.
  H.R. 3246 defies what we fundamentally believe as Americans. It gives 
companies a license to discriminate against hard-working Americans who 
only want to be able to speak out and stand up for their rights, who 
want a safe work environment and who want to express their desire for 
reasonable health care for themselves and their family, and a livable 
wage.
  I strongly urge that my colleagues vote against this rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 22 million small businesses 
thrive in America, thanks to the free enterprise system. Today, the 
bill before us, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, will 
further guarantee a fair and level playing field for all employees.
  Many of America's small businesses are crippled by a tactic known as 
``salting.'' Salting has nothing to do with how our food tastes, 
believe me. But it will raise their blood pressure if they are a small 
business owner. Salting occurs when a union agent, which is known as a 
``salt,'' applies for a job in a nonunion workplace. The agent 
intentionally conceals his true objective, which is to sabotage the 
company and drive them out of business because it is nonunion.
  Now, that is not American. I think my colleagues would agree. But 
some salts are straightforward and just come right out during the 
hiring process and interview and they identify themselves as union 
agents and they demand, if they are not fired, they will then file a 
grievance against the company. Either way, Mr. Speaker, this is 
criminal. It is not the American way.
  Let me give an example of how salting destroyed a company in my home 
State of Texas. A nonunion electrical company in Dallas, about 30 
employees, was hired to work on a school construction project. They 
advertised the jobs in the newspaper. The local electricians union saw 
the ad and paid union agents to go and apply for a job. The electrical 
contractor hired these agents, unaware that they had an ulterior 
motive. The agents then proceeded to destroy the company.
  They staged small strikes by leaving the job for 3 or 4 hours, but 
returning just before they could be replaced. They also sabotaged the 
electrical work and went on to file close to 50 grievances against the 
company, eventually driving it out of business.
  This bill will put a stop to malicious activity like this and protect 
small businesses in their efforts to hire loyal, hard-working 
employees. The small businesses will no longer fear the threat of 
destructive lawsuits filed by union agents.
  This protection is long, long overdue. We are just asking, please, 
unions, obey the law, stop terrorizing working men and women. Small 
businesses are the backbone of this Nation and they deserve honest, 
hard-working, and dedicated employees. They deserve protection against 
unscrupulous union practices.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule on 
this legislation. The rule blocks any amendment that might solve the 
problems created by the bill. The fact is that current law provides 
that employers may dismiss any worker, including an organizer, if that 
worker does not work.
  The Fawell bill specifically permits employers to refuse to hire 
workers who seek to organize the workplace. This legislation does not 
bring fairness to the workplace. It reverses the unanimous Supreme 
Court decision that stopped companies from firing or refusing to hire 
employees simply because they are union organizers.
  By reversing their decision, this bill undoes 100 years of progress. 
It returns the United States to a time when the government had not 
learned the meaning of basic employee rights and helped unscrupulous 
robber barons trample workers' rights. It returns the United States to 
a no-balance existence between employees and their employers.
  I have experienced what happens when this balance is not protected. 
My mother worked in a sweatshop in New Haven, Connecticut, during the 
early part of this century, slaving over a sewing machine for next to 
nothing. America must not return to this low point in our history. This 
bill will allow our firms to discriminate against hard-working men and 
women who are exercising their basic right to organize.
  American families are struggling. They scramble to make ends meet. 
This bill gives workers an untenable choice: Lose job opportunity or 
give up your basic right to organize for decent pay, safer workplaces 
and a secure retirement. Either way, it is American families who lose.
  Our Nation is stronger when everyone who wants to work is able to 
work. I urge my colleagues to reward work and vote against this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, once again, may I inquire as to the 
remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield time to my friend 
if he were to have maybe one more speaker and I would yield him one 
minute if that would be an arrangement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The generosity of my colleague is just overwhelming.
  Mr. DREIER. Do not say I did not offer.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H1606]]

  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my colleague from north 
Texas. Although I have to admit the free enterprise system is great, 
what concerns me about this bill is, it removes the free enterprise 
system from the employees. The Fairness for Small Business Employees 
Act of 1998 more appropriately should be called the antiworker freedom 
bill of 1998.
  This Republican bill allows businesses to fire or refuse to hire 
employees based on their union affiliation. What concerns me is that 
this will now be used, if I went and applied right now for a job in a 
printing company because maybe I had at one time been a union member 
and maybe still am, I could not be hired based on that purpose, Mr. 
Speaker. And that is what this bill is allowing us to do.
  I call the sponsors' attention to page 4 of the bill, where it says 
``a bona fide employee applicant.'' That language in there will allow 
that person making that hiring to say, you are not a bona fide employee 
just because you happen to maybe have been a union member or maybe a 
current union member, even if you are not an organizer.

                              {time}  1730

  Furthermore, it would allow employers to discriminate against people 
who might try to organize in the workplace by simply refusing to hire 
them. How can you discriminate or even determine someone who might be a 
union member or former union member? These type of characteristics are 
not determined by physical characteristics, such as eye color or hair 
color. What is next? Maybe we are going to discriminate against 
individuals because maybe their religious beliefs maybe have more 
propensity to be a union member. Maybe Christian employees should not 
apply for businesses that maybe have a different religion. Is that what 
we are getting to in our country?
  I think we are taking away the freedom of employees, in some cases 
the freedom of businesses to be able to say, ``We're not going to hire 
you based on you may be a union organizer.'' I think that would leave 
such a gaping hole in our law. This rule does not allow us to amend 
that, Mr. Speaker. That is what is wrong with this rule.
  This bill would overturn a unanimous 1995 Supreme Court decision 
which held that a union organizer employed by a company was entitled to 
the same protections as any other employee. My concern is that just 
because I am a union member and I may vote for a union if I worked at a 
nonunion company, this bill would allow me to be called a union 
organizer just as a union member. That is what this bill would allow us 
to do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make it very, very, very 
clear that we do not in this legislation say that the employer has any 
right to discriminate against an applicant because the applicant is a 
member of a union. We make it clear that the Supreme Court decision is 
not in any way affected. One can also even be a paid member of a union. 
There can be no discrimination.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Naperville, IL (Mr. Fawell).
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that you can 
have all the union organizing you want. There can be no discrimination 
against you because you are a member of a union or were a member of a 
union. Nothing like that is touched.
  Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will let me respond, I will be glad to 
read him the section of the law that I have the concern about.
  Mr. FAWELL. Let me just conclude by saying, the only person that we 
are concerned about is the person who is applying for a job primarily, 
``primarily,'' so that is more than half of his basic reason for 
applying is because he wants to further some other business. It does 
not even have to be a union necessarily. Then he is not a bona fide 
applicant. That is all we are saying here. I hope the rhetoric can be 
turned in that direction.
  Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield, I will be glad to read the 
section, because I may have done my apprenticeship as a printer but I 
also went to law school and learned how to read the law. ``Nothing in 
this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ 
any person who is not a bona fide applicant.'' My concern is the 
definition of bona fide is going to be made by that person making that 
decision to hire that person. That is my concern.
  Mr. FAWELL. The gentleman did not read the definition of a bona fide 
applicant. The definition of a bona fide applicant, we tried to bend 
over backwards by saying it is somebody who basically is there who 
really does not want to work there, he is primarily there in 
furtherance, primarily, the motivation is in furtherance of another 
agency or another employment. Bear in mind that it is the general 
counsel of the NLRB that has to make the initial decision as to whether 
that is true.
  Mr. GREEN. Again I am concerned about how it works in the real 
marketplace.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pleasantville, PA (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 
rule. It is interesting as a former employer for 26 years and a small 
businessman myself, I guess I feel like I am suddenly the bad guy, that 
America's small businesses are some evil force that wants to hurt 
workers. If we are going to grow in this country and prosper, small 
business and workers and unions need to work together.
  This bill addresses a practice of professional agents or union 
employees or other people, a competitor's employees coming into a 
workplace under the guise of wanting employment when they are really 
there to cause problems. If you had invested everything you have into a 
business, you would be much more willing to discuss this issue fairly. 
If you had everything you owned on the line in a business and somebody 
was coming to work for you who was there for subversive reasons, 
whether it is organizing or it is your competitor to cause problems 
with your workers, and it happens both ways, you would be very much 
against that. That is not fair.
  In chapter 2, we talk about the NLRB to conduct hearings to determine 
when it is appropriate to certify a single location or multiple 
locations. What is wrong with business having a hearing? What is wrong 
with public process? Letting both sides be heard to make a decision?
  Chapter 3 deals about a time limit of when the rules need to come 
out, the rulings. What is wrong with the 1-year time limit? That just 
makes sense. That is what is usually done. When it is not done, it is 
usually done to hurt somebody.
  The final provision in chapter 4 is legal cost. If you are a small 
business and a bigger entity is after you and has unlimited legal 
ability, they can break you. If it is found that you have been fair, 
they should pay your legal fees. If we do not give small business a 
decent break in America, we are not going to grow, the poorest of 
America will not get jobs, because that is where they start, in small 
businesses who are growing and prospering. That is the future of 
America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that we want working 
families to live by a different set of rules. We want two Americas. 
Working families and the people who represent working families have to 
live by a different set of rules.
  We want a loyalty oath for a worker going into a business; they must 
take a loyalty oath. We do not ask people going into management to take 
loyalty oaths. We do not ask consultants who come to work for a company 
to take loyalty oaths. They might be spying on you, industrial spying 
might take place by an outside company. Nobody asks them to take some 
kind of loyalty oath and prove their intent.
  What would happen if Bill Gates was to say to all the young people 
who are information technology workers that if you want to come in, 
that you have got to take a loyalty oath that you are not going to use 
your experience here to develop some business later? Half of them who 
go in go into the larger enterprises for the purpose of learning the 
ropes, then they go out and they

[[Page H1607]]

develop their own entrepreneurial activity. That is the American way. 
It is that way for businesspeople. Why should it not be that way for 
people who represent working people or working people?
  You want a different set of rules. This is part of the Republican 
assault on working families. We had it in 1994. There was a Contract 
With America. In the Contract With America, they said nothing about 
attacking working families. But suddenly when they arrived, we found 
that they had a covert plan to attack unions and working families. They 
launched it. It was like Pearl Harbor. They launched a massive attack 
against unions and working families. The unions were not docile. They 
did not sit still and remain silent. They refused to take it. They 
fought back.
  Now we have a regrouping. Speaker Gingrich uses the metaphor often 
that politics is war without blood. Now you have the regrouping of all 
the forces. This Congress, they are now launching a new assault on 
working families. This is the first salvo of a new assault. There is 
coming later the Paycheck Fairness Act; they have got a whole line of 
things in respect to OSHA. Working families are still the target. This 
time it is going to be the Battle of the Bulge. They are going to go 
all out. The Paycheck Protection Act seeks to strangle, smother or stab 
unions in a way that they never would be able to recover. This is the 
opening salvo.
  We have got a whole series of bills like this designed to create an 
America for working families and their representatives which has 
nothing to do with the America the rest of us live in. I appeal to the 
Republicans to call off their war against working families. Let us not 
go through it all over again. We went through it in 1994. All the 
salvos against OSHA, we beat them back. NLRB, you wanted to kill before 
by going through the appropriations process and lopping off half the 
budget. You had one attack after another that failed in the last 
Congress. Now you are launching a desperation attempt because unions 
would not take it, they fought back, and they are vocal, they are 
defending the interests of working people.
  Now we have unheard of restrictions on activities that are designed 
to balance off the interests of the business class. Right wing, extreme 
business folks are demanding that you go through with this attack, you 
continue this attack, and we have a series of bills that now are 
clearly out to destroy the rights that everybody enjoys in the name of 
trying to protect us from unions that are extreme and subversive. Why 
should organizing a union be subversive? Why should a person who goes 
to work for a business be automatically suspect because they are a 
worker? Why should the NLRB now be reformed when it existed under the 
Bush and Reagan administration for many years and it took them forever 
to come out with decisions. The NLRB, OSHA, anything that relates to 
working people is under attack. This is the first salvo. I think we 
should understand it and get ready for it.
  Davis-Bacon, all of the kinds of things that have been set up over 
the years, sometimes by Republicans. Davis and Bacon were Republicans. 
But Davis-Bacon is under attack, too, the prevailing wage law. There is 
nothing that benefits working families in America that will not be 
attacked in the next few months as the new Battle of the Bulge is 
launched to try to get even with the unions for defending their own 
interests.
  You had Pearl Harbor. We suffered a terrible attack at Pearl Harbor. 
But remember who won the war. The unions in fighting back have only 
done what they are supposed to do in terms of representing the 
interests of workers. For representing the interests of workers now, 
they are told you are going to have to give reports; you are going to 
have to let every member vote and decide on any position you take. 
Corporations spend billions of dollars of shareholders money, but they 
never have to make reports. Corporations spend large amounts of 
political money, millions in soft money; they outspent the unions by 
more than 20 to 1 in soft money in the last election, but corporations 
will not have to make the same kinds of reports to their members. They 
will not have to have their members vote on every decision they make. 
This is clearly an attempt to create two societies in America, one for 
working families and one for everybody else. I think that we should 
understand this assault and stop it right now.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and fellow 
Californian, the gentleman from Del Mar (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is laughable. Now the unions have 
won World War II. This is the same group that said that sharks still 
follow the ships because of the number of slaves that fell over. The 
gentleman is factually challenged. He talks about American families, 
American working families. Over 90 percent of the jobs in this country 
are small business and business, nonunion. Over 90 percent are 
nonunion. But yet the people that support this do everything they can 
to kill small business.
  The issue, salting, you go into a small business and you try and 
destroy it. How many of them have ever been organized? Zero. Yet you go 
in and tie them up before the board and actually force them out of 
business. When you talk about the working family, talk about the 90 
percent that are nonunion. You talk about Davis-Bacon, you say, ``Well, 
I'm for the children.'' In Washington, D.C., schools, the buildings are 
over 60 years old. We could have gone in and waived Davis-Bacon to 
build schools and saved 35 percent. But are you for children or union 
bosses? No, the union bosses. Why? Look at the paper. The AFL-CIO, the 
Teamsters, hundreds of millions of dollars that go to the DNC tied to 
organized crime, but yet they support their campaigns. Less than 10 
percent. They know that small business cannot organize. Then 30 percent 
of those less than 10 percent are Republicans, 10 percent are third 
party, and they charge that 40 percent union dues to be used against 
candidates that they do not support.
  The gentleman talks about working families. Why does the gentleman 
not support the 90 percent of working families that are out there that 
the unions try and persecute? No, because they fund the gentleman's 
campaigns.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close debate, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Jacobus, Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have often heard it said that if one really wants to 
be passionate, they should not read what it is that is going to be 
discussed and debated, and then they can get up and wax eloquently. And 
I think I may have heard some of that this afternoon. I cannot believe 
that some of the people who were waxing eloquently have read anything 
about what it is that is in the legislation. It was amazing, all the 
things that I heard.
  One of them that really concerned me is someone was talking about 
sweatshops, and then somebody else was talking about the workingmen and 
women, and I visited an area that somebody in this House represents, 
and I could not believe that it could happen in the United States. And 
guess what? Most of them were represented by organized labor. We will 
hear a lot more about that when we get to that point next week.
  Well, let us make it very clear that all we try to do is bring labor 
and management into the 21st century. If we cannot bring labor and 
management into the 21st century, I will guarantee there will be no 
jobs out there for anybody. We will not be able to compete.
  Keep in mind that all or most all the labor laws were written in the 
1930s when it was men only in the work force, and when it was 
manufacturing predominantly. That is not the 21st century, my 
colleagues, and we have a worldwide competitive effort if we are going 
to succeed and provide jobs.
  Well, someone said, ``How are you going to determine whether somebody 
is a bona fide employee or not?'' All we say is that one's motivation 
when they seek a job is 50 percent. The motivation is that, as a matter 
of fact, they want to help the company succeed so that they have a job, 
so that they can get better wages, so that they can get better fringe 
benefits. The motivation has to be 50 percent.

[[Page H1608]]

  And, of course, the gentleman from Illinois said, ``Who makes that 
determination?'' The council at the NLRB, the council at the NLRB. Can 
we get any more protection than that in this day and age?
  Well, let me refer to two editorials. I think they are kind of 
interesting. I think they also point out what it is we are trying do. 
One of them is entitled ``When You Can't Afford To Win.'' ``When You 
Can't Afford To Win.'' It happened to be a contractor in Little Rock, 
Arkansas. Two men appeared there, wanted a job.
  He said, ``I'm sorry, we don't have any openings. We don't need any 
employees.''
  Well, he thought, that was the end of it. A couple months later he is 
notified by the National Labor Relations Board that charges have been 
filed against him.
  So he gets a good labor lawyer, and the labor lawyer said, ``Well, 
there's no doubt about it, you win, but it will cost you.''
  Now how did the labor lawyer know that? Because most of those suits 
are thrown out. Most of the time they are strictly frivolous.
  And so he started doing a little arithmetic, and he found out that it 
will cost him $23,000 to win.
  Now it is a small business, he does not have $23,000. So he says, 
``What does it cost me to lose?''
  And the lawyer said, ``Well, that will only cost you 6,000. It will 
be 3,000 for each of the two that came looking for a job that you 
didn't have.''
  Well, he looked at his arithmetic and he said, ``23,000 to win, 6,000 
to lose; I'll take the $6,000.'' Obviously most small businesses are 
going to take the $6,000.
  And so all we are trying to say is, well, it seems to me that one's 
motivation should be at least 50 percent that actually go there and 
work, actually try to make the business improved so they can get more 
money and so that they go get better benefits. It does not sound like 
that is some mean-spirited kind of nasty people over here on this side 
of the aisle that want to take advantage of the working Americans.
  Well, we had one person testify who said that he was an organizer. 
That was his job. And he said to some of those who were involved, 
``Well, why don't we try to do a little more actually organizing and 
working to see whether we can bring about an organization of this 
company, because I know a couple members who are willing, who are 
employees who are willing to move ahead and help us.''
  And he was told by the higher-ups, ``That isn't what we're in the 
business of doing. We're in the business of saying we're going to 
squeeze you and squeeze you and squeeze you. We want your money, we 
want to put you out of business. We're not necessarily interested in 
organizing a lot of these little businesses.''
  I think the closing paragraph of another editorial I saw is exactly 
what this is all about, exactly what we are trying to do. And the 
closing paragraph says, it is reassuring to know that some relief is 
being considered for the real victims of the status quo, workers, I 
repeat workers, small businesses and small unions. I repeat that also, 
and small unions.
  That is what the legislation is all about. The legislation is to try 
to make things better for workers, small businesses, and small unions.
  So I hope all will read the legislation and then be a little more 
passionate about the facts rather than fiction.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this very fair and 
balanced rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 185, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crapo
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Payne
     Rangel
     Royce
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1812

  So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H1609]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________