[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.
____________________