[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1609-H1623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Pursuant to House Resolution
393 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3246.
{time} 1817
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. McCollum in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Fawell), the subcommittee chairman who studies carefully
and knows what it is he says.
(Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246, the Fairness for Small Business and
Employees Act is a pro-employee, pro-employer, pro-labor organization
bill that is also good for the economy and good for the American
taxpayers.
Having introduced last session three of the four bills which comprise
the four titles of this legislation, I would like to focus my time on
two titles. Title I is a targeted provision intended to help employers
who are being damaged and even run out of business due to abusive union
``salting'' tactics. Title IV is a provision allowing small employers
and small labor organizations who prevail against the NLRB unfair labor
practice complaint to recover their attorney fees and costs.
Title I says simply that someone must be a ``bona fide'' employee
applicant before the employer has an obligation to hire them under the
National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Chairman, a ``bona fide'' applicant
is defined as someone who is not primarily motivated to seek employment
to further other employment or other agency status. What this means in
layman's terms is that someone who is at least half-motivated to work
for the employer is not impacted by this legislation at all.
Now, significantly, and I want to make this clear, the test of
whether a job applicant is a ``bona fide applicant'' under Title I is a
decision that will, in the first instance, be made by the general
counsel of the NLRB. This legislation seeks only to prevent the clear-
cut abusive situations in which union agents or employees openly seek a
job as a ``salter'' with nonunion businesses.
Mr. Chairman, if people will listen to this one point: A ``salter''
is described in the Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers as an employee who is expected, now get this, and
I quote,
To threaten or actually apply economic pressure necessary
to cause the employer to raise his prices to recoup
additional costs, scale back his business activities, leave
the union's jurisdiction, go out of business.
Now, that is an exact quote in the manual of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Worker's definition of what a salter can be.
How is that for a bona fide applicant?
A final point on Title I. This legislation does not overturn, does
not overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 in Town & Country.
That decision held very narrowly that the definition of an employee
under the NLRA can include paid union agents. Title I does not change
this, nor the definition of an employee, nor the definition of an
employee applicant under the NLRA. They obviously can still be involved
in customary efforts to organize a nonunion shop. It simply would make
clear that someone must be at least 50 percent motivated to work for
the employer to be taken seriously as a job applicant.
Title IV of the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act is what
we call a ``loser pays'' concept, applied against the NLRB when it
loses complaints it brings against the very small companies or small
labor organizations, those who have no more than 100 employees and a
net worth of no more than $1.4 million.
Title IV is a reasonable provision which ensures that taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely and effectively. It tells the Board that after
it reviews the facts of a case, that before it issues a complaint and
starts the serious machinery against the ``little guy,'' whether union
or business, that it should be very careful to make sure it has a
reasonable case. If the NLRB does move forward against these small
entities of modest means and loses the case, then it simply must
reimburse the small business or labor organization, the winner's legal
expenses.
Title IV is a winner for the small company and the small union who do
not have the resources to mount an adequate defense against a well-
funded, well-armed National Labor Relations Board who pays, by the way,
from the taxes all of the expenses of the complainant, whether it is
the union or an employer.
This bill ensures that the little guy has some sort of an incentive
to fight a case and ensures that they will not be forced into
bankruptcy to defend themselves, as countless employers have been. H.R.
3246 is a narrowly crafted, targeted bill attempting to correct four
specific problems at the NLRB. It is benign, and it is fair, and I urge
my colleagues to be serious and look at the real facts of this issue.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
This country was founded on democratic principles; on majority rule
that protects the rights of the minority. Yet for 150 years, we failed
to have democracy in the workplace.
In 1935, the passage of the National Labor Relations Act for the
first time ensured that workers, unions, and employers were given a
forum for resolving labor practice disputes.
Not every worker will join a union, or even has the desire to do so,
but democracy in the workplace means that workers can make that choice.
The bill before us today would take away that basic worker right to
choose whether to join a union.
This legislation is being portrayed as necessary to modernize this
law. I agree that given the fundamental changes in the labor market
since the 1930's this law may be ripe for reform. But we must not
undermine the principles of democracy that it took so long for workers
to get.
In its 1994 report, the Dunlop Commission recommended a number of
changes that
[[Page H1610]]
would help clarify and update federal labor law. Unfortunately, the
cosponsors of this bill did not attempt to integrate those changes into
law. Instead, this bill would make it more difficult for those who want
to exercise long-established and fundamental rights and
responsibilities in their workplace, and make it more difficult for the
Board to be an even handed arbiter of honest disagreements that arise
from time to time.
Despite the nation's current economic strength, there is still a
contingent of workers who have failed to benefit from this prosperity.
The collective bargaining process provides a forum for workers and
employers to discuss workplace conditions in an equitable way. This is
especially important as companies wrestle with investment decisions in
a changing technological environment and as workers struggle to adapt
to that change.
Mr. Chairman, this bill would undermine democracy in the workplace. I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to begin the serious work of
ensuring that our nation's labor laws reflect the labor market of
today.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
From the start of the 104th Congress, the Republican leadership has
tried to undermine workers' rights, tried to stop the minimum wage
increases, trying to take away overtime pay, trying to gut workplace
and environmental safety laws. Now, these same forces are trying to
deny workers the right to join unions.
This bill is an assault on the National Labor Relations Act, which
protects the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining. There
are valid reasons why we should all support this right. Workers with
union representation earn higher wages than their nonunion
counterparts, have better benefits, have greater job security, and are
much more productive. This bill destroys the rights of workers to
organize. Title I directly overturns the unanimous decision of the
United States Supreme Court that upheld the right of workers to engage
in lawful organizing activities.
Title I allows employer interrogation of workers regarding their
desire to be represented by a union. In effect, Mr. Chairman, this
provision resurrects employer black lists and sanctions the no-union,
yellow dog contracts that labor law was specifically designed to
prohibit.
Supporters contend that H.R. 3246 is necessary because employers are
forced to hire uncooperative and unproductive workers. Mr. Chairman, do
not be misled. The law does not require any employer to hire anyone; it
only prohibits discrimination on the basis of union support. Union
organizers may be fired on the same basis as any other worker.
While this bill effectively denies employment to those who wish to
form a union, it does nothing to prohibit employers from hiring
outside, expensive, union-busting consultants. Other parts of the bill
demonstrate an equal disregard for the rights of workers. Title IV
effectively denies a whole class of workers any protection under the
National Labor Relations Act.
My Republican colleague referred to title IV as the loser pays
provision. The term is false. Nothing in this bill requires employers
to reimburse taxpayers when the Labor Board prevails in a case, but
taxpayers are required to pay if the board does not win. In other
words, only one loser pays, and that loser is the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Board is
already required to pay lawyer costs for frivolous actions. In fact,
the Board must pay any time it takes a position that is not
substantially justified in law.
Title IV is especially unfair to workers. Workers have no private
right of action under the labor law, and are wholly dependent upon the
Board to enforce their rights. However, under title IV, the Board is
effectively precluded from acting unless it is guaranteed a win. Such a
standard clearly and obviously chills reasonable and legitimate law
enforcement efforts.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill upsets a 40-year-old presumption in
favor of single-site bargaining units. Under title II, workers may have
to organize every facility an employer owns before they have a right to
bargain.
This bill is a radical attack on the basic rights of workers, and I
urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Talent), who has many talents, and is the chairman
of the Committee on Small Business.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his kind compliments.
I rise in support of the bill on each of its sections, and I want to
address specifically the single facility site section and to do that,
Mr. Chairman, I need to explain just a little bit of the background
about what happens when a union seeks to organize a multifacility site.
{time} 1830
That can occur in a lot of different lines of businesses. It can
occur where you have a franchisor who owns several different shops or
stores, restaurants. It can occur in the trucking business.
When a union wants to organize a site like that, we first have to
determine what the appropriate unit is for bargaining. Is it one of the
facilities, or is it all of the facilities, or is it some, but not all?
The union has the right in the first instance to file a petition and
choose the size of the bargaining unit that it wants. If a union files
a petition and limits it to one facility, that is presumptively, under
Board law, and has been for 30 years, under both Republican and
Democratic boards, that is presumptively the appropriate unit for
bargaining.
But it was also possible for the last 30 years for a question to be
raised concerning representation, a question to be raised concerning
whether that was, indeed, an appropriate unit of bargaining. Then the
Board would look at a hearing at a number of different factors. This is
the way it has been for a generation.
Mr. Chairman, the key here is to decide whether the control over
those facilities is so centralized; whether, for example, labor
relations are controlled by one central supervisor at one location, and
that controls it for all the locations, that it would be inappropriate,
as the Board says, to have bargaining in one location.
You can understand why, Mr. Chairman. We do not want to have a
franchisor who has several different chain restaurants, for example,
bargaining with different unions in each different restaurant, when the
classic tradition has been to have one set of policies, one set of pay,
one policy regarding uniforms and vacations and the rest of it.
So the Board looked at a number of different factors to determine
whether control was so centralized that one single facility would be an
inappropriate unit for bargaining. Then a couple of years ago the Board
decided to throw all that out. The Board proposed a rule and made the
whole thing turn on the presence or absence of several factors, which
really do not have anything to do with what the Board has traditionally
considered to be relevant; factors like are the locations more than a
mile apart?
What does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do
with the stability of collective bargaining? That is what we are trying
to achieve with these laws, the stability of labor relations. That is
why the National Labor Relations Act was passed in the mid-1930s. Mr.
Chairman, you can run a business from around the world today with a fax
machine and a phone, so what difference does one mile make?
Another factor, whether there are more than 15 employees in the
facility, it is a totally arbitrary criterion. So Congress for the last
2 years has passed riders in appropriations bills saying, no, do not
implement that rule. It will disrupt collective bargaining, it is
frankly kind of silly, and do not do that.
Now what we have is an opportunity to enshrine into law the standard
that has been applied for 30 years that was developed by the Kennedy-
Johnson Board in the sixties. It has worked very well. It is not
overburdensome. It allows these matters to be taken up in a hearing, to
be disposed of. Let us do that with this bill. Let us preserve the
stability of labor relations in this country, and with regard to this
important aspect of collective bargaining.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H1611]]
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a dangerous, a dangerous attack on
America's working families and their right to organize. It is dangerous
because it says some Americans do not have the same rights to free
speech as the rest of us. It is dangerous because it says some
Americans do not have the right to voluntarily join together in pursuit
of a common goal. It is dangerous because it encourages employers to
discriminate against people simply on the basis of their beliefs.
It is about silencing the voices of people who speak out for decent
wages, for basic health care, for a secure retirement. It is about
silencing the voices of people who make this country work and expect
the same rights as any other American, the right to express their own
beliefs and act upon them.
This bill is radical. It singles out people who believe in unions. It
is aimed at people with the courage to stand up against injustice and
intimidation to organize democratic elections for their co-workers, so
they might decide for themselves whether or not they want a union,
people like Betty Dumas, a woman who worked for 18 years at the
Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana, who was fired because she refused to
denounce her democratically elected union. Betty Dumas was fired
because of her beliefs.
So what is next? Are we to sanction discrimination because of
religious beliefs, because someone is Catholic or Jewish or Baptist or
Muslim? Such discrimination I think everyone would agree is morally
repugnant, but this bill is no different. It overturns a unanimous
Supreme Court decision that prohibits discrimination based upon
people's affiliation with organizations outside of work.
It sanctions discrimination against people who believe in unions,
organizations that speak out for working families on issues like
raising the minimum wage, extending Medicare, protecting Social
Security.
This country was founded by people who fought and died for the
freedom to freely associate, to elect their own leaders, and to speak
their own beliefs. This bill would take away these rights from millions
of American families. Once some Americans begin to lose their
constitutional rights, once we say it is okay to discriminate against
some people simply on the basis of their beliefs, the rights of
everyone are endangered.
This bill is cynical. It is a politically motivated attempt to
silence the voices of America's working families. It is a shameful
attack on all of us, and it threatens the constitutional rights that
Americans hold dear.
It is almost impossible today in this country to organize, anyway. To
come to the floor with a bill like this that would shut down the
limited window that people have to express their views and to organize
for a better living for them and their families is an outrage. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), someone who knows what is in the
legislation.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question: Why
would any small business man who is sane hire someone to unionize his
business? It does not make sense. Yet, the present law today demands
that he must.
Some unions have concocted the ideal trap for employers, an
unscrupulous workplace Catch-22 called salting. Dozens of union
activists will show up at a nonunion company and apply for work. If
they are not hired, they file an unfair labor practice charge. If they
are hired, they disrupt the workplace, destroy property, and do
whatever it takes to get themselves fired. Then they file an unfair
labor practice charge, alleging wrongful discharge.
Do Members know how long it takes today for the NLRB to settle this?
It takes an unlawful discharge union activist case, treated like any
other labor dispute. Right now the median time for the NLRB to process
an unfair labor practice case is 546 days. Imagine a small business man
having to face this legal charge. The uncertainty for all sides can be
maddening.
The answer is to clarify the rules so an employer is not forced to
hire nor keep on the job any person with ulterior motives. The proposed
measure takes pains not to infringe upon employees' existing
protections, such as the right to organize.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, that is the only part of this bill that has
any reason for the unions to fight. In reality, for years they have
been taking the small business man for granted. I think we need to pass
this bill.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), someone who knows more about this bill than
anybody in the House.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and for his compliment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill because of what it does to
working people, what it does to working people and what it says to all
people.
To understand what is wrong with this bill, we have to walk in the
shoes of someone who wants a job and needs a job who does not intend to
organize a union, who does not intend to do that.
If that person is denied that job because sometime in their past they
have been a union officer, a union organizer, or even a union member,
they have all kinds of rights. They can file a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board, and many months and many, many dollars
later they can get a decision.
If they do not like that decision, they can hire an attorney. Many
months and many dollars after they have hired an attorney, they can get
another decision. After the decision has been made, they can have their
attorney file or fight an appeal. Many months and many dollars after
they have fought and determined the appeal, they get an outcome.
I may not be the expert that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay)
says on this bill, but I do have some common sense, and I know this,
people who are looking for a job cannot afford to wait many months for
an answer. They cannot afford the many dollars they would have to pay
an attorney. They will not get the job they need because they had the
audacity in the past to lead or join a union. That is what this bill
does to men and women who need work and are pursuing it legitimately.
We should oppose this bill because of why it is being done. This is
not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion. But I suspect if
organized labor had slouched away from the challenge of the 1994
majority and never raised a fight, never tried to assist those of us
who fight for working families to win the majority back, we would never
be here this afternoon doing this. Because this is not about labor law
reform, this is about retribution for people standing up for their
rights at the polls and in campaigns across the country.
We ought to oppose this bill because of what this bill says. This
bill is not worthy of the 1990s, it is worthy of the 1950s, because it
does not remind me of the great efforts to write labor law, it reminds
me of the McCarthy era in this country, when we had lists of people who
could not get work.
That is what is going to happen if this bill becomes law. There will
be lists of people who are troublemakers, who do not think and act the
right way. The list will circulate, because she had the audacity to
join a union, or he had the audacity to run for the presidency of a
union.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R.
3246, the Fairness to Small Business and Employees Act. I believe it
strikes a unique balance that gives the more than 22 million small
businesses in America relief against a very well-fortified bureaucratic
NLRB, and gives employees something called ``justice on time'' to get
their jobs back.
Title I, as we have heard, deals with the unions' practice of
salting; some might say espionage, but it is salting, they say. It is
unfortunate that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have succumbed to the typical union practice of never letting the facts
get in the way of a good story.
Title I sends a clear message that if a paid union employee's primary
purpose is to work for the employer, he or she is protected. If,
however, that person is found to be there to disrupt or
[[Page H1612]]
inflict economic hardship on an employer, the law will not and it
should not protect them.
Title II codifies the NLRB's longstanding practice of giving
employers the right to argue before the Board whether a single site,
and this has been repeated over and over this afternoon, whether a
single site should be considered part of a bargaining unit. The Board's
promotion of a one-size-fits-all approach was ill-conceived, it ignores
reality, and it is inflexible in today's competitive global economy,
which has also been pointed out.
Title III ensures that employees, their families and children, should
not have to wait over a year for resolution of their cases, for over a
year. The Board's bureaucratic practice thumbs its nose at these
hardworking men and women by taking a median time of almost 600 days,
and in some cases, 800 days to decide their fate. That is wrong, it is
unacceptable, and it is frankly disrespectful. H.R. 3246 corrects this
by making the NLRB issue a final decision within a year. This is
justice on time.
Title IV, finally, protects the little guy against the heavy-handed
lawyer-fortified NLRB. It will make the Board think twice before they
bring a case against a small business or a labor organization. I did
say labor organization. If they lose, the Board, not the little guy,
should pay for the attorneys' fees and the expenses the company or the
union had to spend to defend itself.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a fair and balanced bill. I
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) for their efforts to bring this
bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage. It
is common sense.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this is not a fair and balanced bill. This
is a bill filled with dirty tricks. The tricks are pretty obvious. This
bill to restrict workers from organizing is radical and extreme. The
bill is part of a larger plot to create a separate America for working
families and their representatives. We want workers to abide by rules
that we are not making for anybody else.
{time} 1845
We do not require loyalty oaths for any other category of employees.
Only the workers are required; middle management will not be required
and technicians will not be required to take loyalty oaths. If the bill
did that, of course, we would place businesses at a great disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, if Bill Gates of Microsoft required
that every young person coming into his company must take a loyalty
oath that they are there to be ``bona fide''; They are never going to
be entrepreneurs on their own; they are not going to walk away with
certain secrets; they are forever loyal to the company; then he would
destroy his own company.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is just one of about 10 more bills that we
can expect which constitute a battery of assaults in the 105th Congress
on working families. It is a renewal of the assaults that took place in
the 104th Congress.
Labor unions have been good for America. The Republican attack is
violating a commonsense bond, a commonsense covenant with the larger
society. Labor unions are responsible for a lot of good things that
have happened, including their drive and their willingness to take the
case for the minimum wage to the American people, resulting in public
opinion being changed in ways, marshaled in ways which the Republican
majority could not ignore last year.
Last year, NLRB destruction was attempted. In 1994, the assault was
to wipe out the effectiveness of the NLRB by cutting its budget
drastically. Now they are proposing that they speed up their
deliberations. I think a lot of workers and unions would love to have
NLRB speed up also. But are my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle ready to say that they are willing now to give additional funding
for NLRB and do what is needed to make it effective?
The Reagan and Bush years almost destroyed the effectiveness of the
NLRB. Let us restore the effectiveness by restoring their funding and
let them serve the interests of both workers and business.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), a fine subcommittee chairman.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time and commend him for his
leadership on this bill. I also wish to commend the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Fawell), chairman of the subcommittee, for the fine work
that he has done in bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fairness for Small
Business and Employees Act. H.R. 3246 is one of the most important pro-
business, pro-employee bills before the House during this Congress. I
am proud to say that I am a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, as a small businessman, I am well aware of the burden
of Federal taxes and regulations on our Nation's businesses. During the
105th Congress, we have fought hard to provide relief from these
hardships. Last summer we enacted the Taxpayer Relief Act which
provided billions of dollars in tax relief through capital gains and
estate tax cuts. And now today, we are addressing the need for
regulatory and legal relief.
Under this bill, we will make critical changes to the National Labor
Relations Act that will ensure a more level playing field for small
businesses, small unions, and employees.
H.R. 3246 incorporated four pieces of legislation that address
distinctive parts of our labor law. Together, the Truth in Employment
Act, the Fair Hearing Act, the Justice On Time Act, and the Fair Act
accomplish much-needed reform to our Nation's labor laws.
For example, under H.R. 3246, an employer will be secure in the
knowledge that an employee he or she hires is a bona fide applicant who
is there to work, not there to harass or disrupt employee-company
operations.
And then once they are working, employees are ensured that they will
be given timely legal recourse in the event they feel their rights have
been violated. Taken as a whole, these measures help correct some of
the unfairness in Federal labor law and the NLRB. We need to remove
these excessive, burdensome, and unfair regulations that create
additional hurdles on our Nation's businesses, and I urge my colleagues
to vote for H.R. 3246.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Fairness for Small Business and
Employees Act is neither. It certainly is not fair to employees and it
is certainly not fair to small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 allows any employer, large or small, to
refuse employment to workers because of suspected labor union
affiliations. Suspected.
This is the road that this Congress and this country should not and
cannot go down. First of all, the right to organize and join a labor
union is a basic American civil right. Unions give American workers a
voice at their jobs and they give the union worker a voice in our
economy. They also give American workers a voice in our electoral
process, but that is another bill we are going to have to fight.
This bill, H.R. 3246, allows employers to refuse to give jobs to
workers they suspect will organize other employees to join a union.
Suspect.
Once employers can refuse to hire suspected union members, what will
come next? Some employers may want to refuse to hire a young woman
because they suspect she will get pregnant someday, or an older man
because they suspect he will take too many sick days. We could end up
with employers telling job applicants, I am just not going to hire you
because I do not like the way you look.
Mr. Chairman, it is every American's right not to be judged by
suspicions. Surely American workers have this right too.
H.R. 3246 punishes American workers. It is antiworker, it is anti-
American. And I do not suspect, but I know, we must vote it down.
[[Page H1613]]
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3246. The purpose of the
legislation, as I see it, is to help small businesses and labor
organizations in defending themselves against government bureaucracy,
to ensure that employees entitled to reinstatement get their jobs back
quickly, and to protect the right of employers to have a hearing to
present their case in certain representation cases and, of course, to
prevent the use of the National Labor Relations Act for the purpose of
disrupting or inflicting economic harm on employers.
H.R. 3246 contains four narrowly drafted titles addressing four
specific problem in the National Labor Relations Act. The legislation
recognizes that the NLRB, which is supposed to be a neutral referee in
labor disputes, is applying the law in a way that not only harms small
employers, business and unions, but does a great disservice to
hardworking men and women who may have been wrongly discharged.
Mr. Chairman, title 4 of the bill is modeled on the effective ``loser
pays'' concept and requires the NLRB to pay attorney's fees and
expenses of small employers of modest means, including businesses and
labor organizations, who win their cases against the Board.
H.R. 3246 only applies to the smallest businesses and unions which
have 100 employees or fewer and a net worth of $1.4 million or less.
The bill before us today would force the government to consider
carefully the merits of the case before it proceeded against a small
entity with few financial resources.
Right now, small employers often settle with the Board rather than
spend significant amounts of money and time in litigation. I believe
Chairman Goodling's legislation would make certain that small employers
and unions have an incentive to stand up for their rights by fighting
cases of questionable merit.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3246.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
(Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to reject H.R. 3246.
It should be titled the ``Silence Working Families Act.'' It is a shame
that the House is jeopardizing the living standards of working
families.
As a result of the National Labor Relations Act and other Federal
laws, working families have livable wages and job protections. And now
the House is attempting to roll back the clock on American labor law.
Mr. Chairman, because workers can organize to represent themselves,
workers are able to raise their families and to make this country
strong. If workers have a pension, they can thank organized workers.
Thank them again for the minimum wage. Thank them for the 8-hour day,
for the 40-hour work week, for overtime pay and for compensatory time
off. They can thank organized workers for workplace safety, for
grievance procedures, and perhaps, most importantly, for health
benefits.
Before workers could organize and represent themselves, we did not
have maternity leave, let alone paid leave. These are just some of the
improvements that all working families in the United States enjoy
because of the struggles of organized labor.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to reject H.R. 3246.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, thank goodness that the practice of salting
is not applied to Members of Congress, because if the equivalent of
salting were applied to us, we would easily see this scenario: If a
Democratic Congressman or woman with a strong, proud, liberal
philosophy were to seek applicants for an important job in their
office, under salting an applicant who minimally met the criteria for
that job position could walk in in a ``Rush is Right'' T-shirt and
proclaim to that Congressman or woman that ``I have no intention of
representing your constituents, of serving the people in your district.
My sole job in this job is to organize the workers on your staff
against you, to create an environment resentful of your philosophy. And
if you do not go along with this process, I have a right to bring your
office and your staff down.''
If that Congressman or woman were to make the right decision and not
hire that person, they would be subject to a National Labor Relations
Board complaint, subject to spending thousands of dollars to defend a
reasonable decision, and perhaps compelled to hire that person.
As ridiculous as that seems, as crazy as it seems to push that merit
and productivity as criteria out the window, small businesses face that
same ridiculous scenario every day. Families who have risked their
savings to trade a job, and who are fighting in the marketplace, are
handcuffed to hire the best people, the most qualified, the meritorious
people who can help them achieve their dream, and they face this every
day.
Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill to bring some reasonableness
and fairness into the decision making of small businesses. I urge my
colleagues' support for this fairness and a healthier work environment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there they go again. The Republican
leadership has once again launched a major attack on working families
and the unions that simply try to represent their interests.
Just last week, Republicans passed a campaign reform bill through
committee which has as its centerpiece a worker gag rule which would
silence the voice of American workers by shutting them out of the
political process.
Now, today Republicans have brought to the floor a bill which
represents a frontal assault on the National Labor Relations Act and
the rights it preserves for millions of working people across this
country.
Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would make it more difficult for
workers to organize and easier for employers to get away with violating
labor laws.
The most egregious part of this bill is the so-called antisalting
provision which would seriously undermine the organized labor movement
in the United States. Under the Republican bill, businesses could
refuse to hire or fire people, just because the employer suspects them
of trying to organize their workplace.
{time} 1900
This legislation would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision
which held that union organizers are entitled to the same worker
protections as any other employee. In addition, the Republican bill,
through the attorneys' fees provisions, would have a significant
chilling effect on future NLRB actions, making it less likely that
American workers will have their right vigorously defended and
preserved.
Finally, the Republican bill provides employers with a new way to
delay and challenge union elections and restrict the NLRB's ability to
reach a fair and just conclusion on unfair labor practice complaints.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, one of the most precious freedoms of the
working men and women in this country is their right to organize. The
bill Republicans have brought to the floor today would have a
devastating effect on the labor movement in this country, which has
done so much to ensure that working Americans earn livable wages and
have decent benefits for their families.
President Clinton has already pledged to veto this harmful
legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
against this bill and stand up for the rights of the hard-working men
and women of this country.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
[[Page H1614]]
I would urge some of the previous speakers at some point recently to
read the bill, because if they had read the bill, they would not have
made the statements that were just made. In America, if we want the
unemployed to have jobs, if we want working families and the
underemployed to have better jobs, we need to nourish and be fair with
small business.
The Fortune 500 companies are not growing. The small businesses are
growing and will grow faster if we are fair with them. What is wrong
with someone, who mortgages everything they own to start a business, to
ask for loyalty from those they hire to help them build that business,
and if they are there to help them do that, they are going to support
them? That is America.
What is wrong with a hearing process to decide if they are being
organized, and they have three or four sites, whether it is going to be
a single site or collective? That is America.
What is wrong with putting a limit on a decision to 1 year? A year is
long enough to have delay.
What is wrong with when the big NLRB, with all of our money and all
of their lawyers, comes down on small businesses unfairly, and it is
proven they were unfair, that that small business can at least get its
legal fees back? That is the what America ought to be standing for and
what America is all about.
Those who have talked about all the labor issues of the past have not
read this bill. This bill is fair to small business giving an equal,
level playing field so that we can grow small businesses, so unemployed
people can have jobs, so underemployed people can have a better job. It
is about fairness.
If we in this Congress are fair to small business, this country will
grow and the workers of America will have choices of jobs.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 is a terribly unfair bill, but
it is part of a wider assault on the rights of workers to free
association. This bill would turn back the clock to a time when
employers had absolute power over the lives of workers and their
families. It would effectively blacklist people who believe that
employees need to band together to pursue their collective interest.
This bill would have a huge negative impact on the rights of all
working people, making it far more difficult for the NLRB to carry out
our Nation's industrial relations laws. This bill would have a
devastating impact on our Nation's workers and the building and
construction trades.
Every day millions of men and women go to work building the roads and
bridges, building the high-rise office towers, building the schools
that our Nation depends upon. These workers risk their lives every day
to build America and to maintain our infrastructure. They work under
harsh conditions. They are compelled to move from job to job, from one
employer to another, to make a decent living.
What keeps these workers productive is the skills that they have
received from thousands of joint apprenticeship programs, high-quality
programs that are only available to them because of their affiliation
with construction unions. It is their union membership and their
dedication to training, to education, to quality work which allows them
to contribute to our economy. And they are proud to carry their union
membership from job to job.
This bill would make these hard-working Americans second-class
citizens. It would allow employers to fire construction workers, or not
hire them in the first place, simply because they have chosen union
membership. This is blatantly unfair. It is discriminatory. It is
unworthy of the democratic traditions of the Nation. The right to
organize, the right to join a union are not simply political rights,
they are moral rights essentially to protect liberty and equality and
justice.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer).
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman, the distinguished chairman, yielding me the time.
Those who claim that there is some unfairness in this bill, I would
submit, probably have not read the bill or are not knowledgeable about
the component parts of the legislation. House Resolution 3246 does not
affect in any way the legitimate applicant's or employee's rights to
engage in union organizing efforts.
I have heard a lot of these stories about salting from many employers
within my district in Colorado and other congressional districts in the
State of Colorado. Here is how this works, for those who are
unfamiliar: A union organizer with the deliberate, distinct purpose of
dragging an employer before the Labor Relations Board walks into an
employee's place of business and says, ``Please hire me. I am a member
of a labor union and I am an organizer and I am here to organize and
destroy your place of business.''
The employer takes the application, considers it among all other
applicants, and if that employer decides for a variety of reasons,
based on merit, based on qualifications, based on completeness of the
application, and on many occasions based on whether the applicant
signed the application, the employer may decide to hire someone more
qualified.
If that occurs, in a salting case, that activity alone almost
guarantees and compels a hearing in front of the National Labor
Relations Board, a hearing which, if he wants to vindicate himself and
declare his innocence and profess it, costs him attorneys' fees, costs
him an incredible amount of time, and in the process, drags down his
productivity.
What the current law does is to perpetuate a gross unfairness where
one class of employees can, in fact, prey upon another group of
employees in the same trade; and the only distinction between the two
is that one has a singular deliberate motivation to drag down the place
of employment of the others who are employed in a particular trade or
business.
If someone has at least half on-the-job qualification designation
under the bill, why should an employer be obligated to hire them? House
Resolution 3246 guarantees small employers a hearing before the
National Labor Relations Board. It has been the practice for decades in
organizing cases involving single-site locations; it is the epitome of
fairness, in my estimation, with workplace fairness and job security
and job opportunity.
I think we should not attack those, as my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are suggesting here today, attack those who are
legitimately employed, legitimately enjoy their opportunity to work,
and are gainfully employed and wish to remain so.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCollum). The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay)
has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
It strikes me, the perspective of the sponsors of this legislation, I
think, was fairly well recapped by the gentleman from North Carolina a
few speakers ago who said, ``Why would any small business member hire
someone who wants to organize the workplace?'' The answer is, he would
not.
Well, that is the attitude of the sponsors of this bill. Right from
the start, they suspect anyone they wish to hire to work with them. How
sad that there are sponsors who believe that we cannot hire someone who
we cannot look at as an enemy in the beginning. What a way to begin a
working relationship.
Why would any new employee want to undermine the very employer who
will issue her first paycheck? And more than that, if they think of
some of our successful small businesses, they originally started as
successful family-operated businesses, but once they became too
successful they had to hire outside of the family. They expected the
same things from these nonfamily employees as they got from their
family employees, probably good working competency, commitment to the
effort. And the employee, whether family or not, probably expected the
same as well, a decent wage, reasonable benefits.
[[Page H1615]]
Well, what makes anyone believe that if we start off with suspicions,
we are going to be able to treat anyone as a good worker, let alone the
family of your business? Unfortunately, that is what this bill says.
Beware, any employer; when you hire an employee, be suspicious; never
be able to believe that that person you hire wants to make you succeed
as well.
How shameful that is that we in Congress will stand here and tell the
American people that America's working men and women must be treated
with suspicion simply because they wish to work and work under decent
working conditions and also receive decent benefits. And if we cannot
do that collectively, why do families do so well? They do it
collectively.
Let my employee come to any place of work and say, I will work
competently for you, hard. I will make you succeed. I will make you
have a profit. In return, let me have something decent. And if I wish
to do it collectively, as many family-operated businesses do, do not
think of me as someone you suspect.
Please defeat this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Fawell).
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if I could just get this thought in. The
Supreme Court in Town & Country made it very clear that an employer, in
dealing with an applicant, has to treat that applicant, even though the
applicant is a member of a labor union and even though he may be a paid
employee of a labor union, he has got to give him all of the rights of
the National Labor Relations Act.
Now, the only thing that the employer is coming back here and saying
is, can I not at least, when I know that that person is primarily
there, and I have got the facts to prove it and I am going to have to
prove it, general counsel is going to have to agree that I can prove
it. But if I can show that his primary motivation is going to be able
to help some other employer by whom he is employed or to whom he has a
loyalty, do I not at least have that much right? Are we going to say to
the small business people of America they do not even have that right?
That is what we are trying to express here. And it has nothing to do
with taking away the rights of people to collectively bargain or to
organize or anything of that sort.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Illinois will
listen, because his effort to make this Title I benign is very
misguided. I want to tell him specifically why he is wrong. By the way,
this has nothing to do only with small employers. Title I affects all
employers. So do not wrap small employers around Title I, and do not
say it applies only to paid union organizers. This applies to any
employee, any prospective employee, any person. And here is what it
says.
The person comes up, wants a job. This gives the right to the
employer to read or try to guess his or her intent. And then if the
employer decides what the primary purpose is, it is very clear from
their own majority report who has the burden of proof, it is the NLRB,
where a charge has been filed that has to show as part of its prima
facie case that the employer was wrong.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. It is the affirmative defense that the employer has to
undertake to be able to show.
Mr. LEVIN. But the prima facie case, reading from their own language,
the burden is placed on the NLRB.
Now what is going to happen here is, my colleagues are bringing about
a chilling effect on the right of people to organize. They are letting
an employer guess intent and then make somebody prove that that
employer is wrong. That is wrong.
Already the deck is tilted in favor of the employer under the NLRA,
as it has been interpreted in terms of captive audience provisions in
terms of the right of people to express themselves on the floor of the
shop. They cannot do that. And now they want to go one step further and
try to chill the traditional American right to associate, to organize.
They are wrong.
{time} 1915
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3246 and
would like to take this opportunity to talk about union organizing. The
people of the debate here are correct. Much work needs to be done. But
the work to be done is not to stifle people's opportunity to associate
with one another on an economic basis, but to protect access of workers
to legitimate union representation. The real problem which needs to be
addressed in this House is that every year clear majorities of workers
at businesses across the country indicate their support for union
representation and 1, 2 or 3 years later the representation is still
not approved because it is tied up with appeals to the National Labor
Relations Board. In the meantime, unscrupulous employers too often take
advantage of the opportunity to illegally intimidate, fire or commit
other unfair labor practices against workers in order to defeat
subsequent votes on union representation. H.R. 3246 would simply
aggravate this problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
against the bill. Instead this House needs to pass real labor law
reform.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
Ms. FURSE. My goodness, how quickly some people forget our history,
but we Democrats do not forget. We remember that less than 100 years
ago in Centralia, Washington three woodworkers were hanged because they
tried to organize the timber industry. But other courageous workers
were not intimidated. They went ahead and they organized the mills and
the woods. That is our history, too. We have a right in this country to
organize. We must not be naive. This bill is anti-labor, it is anti-
organizing, it is anti-union. Vote no.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri, the
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for
yielding me this time. Again the name keeps changing every session. I
rise in opposition to the bill. I spoke earlier on the rule. I am glad
to have the opportunity to close, because, one, I think this
legislation is misguided. The opposition is based on, one, it is a
closed rule. There are some of us who would like to have a real debate
on labor law reform. Yet from what I understood in committee, the bill
came out on a party line vote and here on the floor those of us who may
not serve on the committee anymore do not have the opportunity to offer
amendments to correct what we see in the legislation. That is why the
bill's intent is misguided, but it also did not give us the opportunity
today to change it.
The bill withdraws the benefits of free enterprise to the employees.
We heard a lot today about free enterprise is great, and it is. We are
all products of the free enterprise system. But it includes both the
employers and the employees, and that is what this bill takes away, the
free enterprise of the employees. This free enterprise system is the
greatest in the world and it is the greatest in the world because of
the last 50 to 60 years we have recognized that. It has both sides of
the bargaining table. This takes away even a level playing field. I do
not think the playing field is level today even between the employee
and the employer, but this makes it even more unlevel. That is why this
bill is so wrong.
I guess I have a concern because only 14 percent of the workforce in
the United States is unionized. Granted, there are efforts to organize,
but 14 percent. This is like taking a bomb that you could use a fly
swatter for if you really needed it. This is so overwhelming for that
14 percent that are unionized. Maybe next year if this bill is not
passed, maybe it is 15 percent,
[[Page H1616]]
but we have not had this bill in the law and that percentage of
unionization has actually gone down.
So what is the need for the legislation? Except to pay back a debt or
to pay back what may have happened last year during the elections
because organized labor tried to make sure that those of us on the
floor of the House understand that, sure, they may be union bosses but
they also represent workers and they represent employees to try and
have that level playing field.
We do need real labor law reform, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to
have seen a real debate today and a real give and take for labor law
reform, to say, yes, okay, maybe you do not like what is happening with
salting. Maybe you do not like that. Also I do not like what happens
because I see people who do sign cards or do have an election that may
take them years before they actually have a contract or have that
representation that they voted for. To this day we see people who are
fired from their jobs because they voted for a union. It takes them
years to get that job back. They ultimately may. But justice delayed is
justice denied. That is what is happening today. That is why this bill
is so wrong.
I asked earlier under the rule, because I happen to have a card in
the union, I did my apprenticeship as a printer but I also went to law
school. I said I had learned how to read law as well as print a
newspaper. What worries me about page 4 of the bill is where it says,
``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an
employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee
applicant.'' My concern is that definition of bona fide employee. I
looked in the report. I am concerned that the person who makes that
hiring decision out there in the real world will not know what is in
this report and does not even have the standard of law. If we want to
make sure that they are not going to discriminate against someone
because they had a union card or maybe they were a former union member,
then we need to put it into law and put those protections in here.
That is why this bill ought to be defeated tonight. If it is not
defeated, I hope to be able to stand here and oppose it, also, when the
President vetoes it.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is not legislation that takes a step backward, as some people
mention. As a matter of fact, it is an attempt to move into the 21st
century. As I indicated before, unless we can get labor and management
to move into the 21st century, there is very little hope for us to be
competitive with the rest of the world. It is time we understand it is
the 21st century, not the 1930s when the labor laws were written, not
the 1930s when we talked about men only in the workforce, when we
talked about only a manufacturing economy. It is the 21st century.
Someone over there said, ``Why would you seek employment to harm the
company? No one would ever do anything like that.''
Mr. Chairman, that is what this legislation is about, because that is
exactly what is happening. Do not ask me whether that is happening.
Listen to someone who was a union organizer who told us before our
committee. This is what he said. Why don't we ``spend more time
negotiating in good faith with the company we were organizing,
especially when we felt we had an employee or two willing to request us
as an agent to collective bargaining?''
And what was the response that he got? ``He told us that the NLRB is
committed to prosecute every single charge, that there was no expense
to us at all for it and that, at the very least, the contractor would
be forced to spend time and money to defend themselves. . . .''
That is why these two people who came to a place of employment in
Arkansas and were told, ``We don't have any jobs,'' they left, the
employer thought, ``Well, that's it.'' Lo and behold, the National
Labor Relations Board said, ``No, we have a case against you, a
discrimination case.'' He went to his lawyer, his lawyer said, ``You
have two choices. You can fight it and win and I'll guarantee you
you'll win but it will cost you $23,000. You're a small business, that
may put you out of business, but you'll win. Or you can pay $6,000 and
lose.'' He did a little arithmetic and said, ``Gee, I've got to pay to
lose, otherwise I'm out of business.'' So he paid his $6,000 to lose
rather than the $23,000 to win.
How frivolous are these suits? Time and time and time again. Let me
just read my colleagues a list. From Indiana, 96 charges, 96 dismissed
by the National Labor Relations Board. But what did it cost the
small business? $250,000, to get 96 cases dismissed. From Maine, 14
dismissed without merit. What did it cost the small business? $100,000.
In Missouri, 47 dismissed, one settled for $200. What did it cost?
$150,000. Little Rock, Arkansas, 20 dismissed, $80,000.
All we are saying here is that your motivation to be employed, at
least 50 percent of it should be a motivation to improve the company,
to work to help make the company successful, so that you get higher
wages, so that you get higher fringe benefits. That is all it says. In
another part of the legislation, I have watched in my district and
throughout this country people lose jobs, businesses go out of
business. Why? Time and time again they were sitting there waiting
rather than negotiating in good faith, labor and management both,
waiting for the NLRB to act, because they both thought they will act in
their favor, and they took 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. Finally, no jobs,
no business. We are saying in the legislation, act in a year. The
employee has the right to know. The employer has the right to know.
Then we can get on with the negotiating business. Those who are so
concerned, as I am, about the working men and women out there, I hope
you will join with me as we move forward with some legislation, because
I have been in the backyards of some of those who are speaking today,
and I saw the most horrible conditions anyone can ever imagine, and you
say, ``It is in America?'' What did I see? No unemployment
compensation, no workers' compensation, no OSHA, no wage and hour, a
fire trap, they would all die if there were a fire. There is only one
exit to get out of the place. No ventilation, no overtime. Most of them
were represented by organized labor. Where is the Federal Government?
Where is the State government? Where is the city? Where is OSHA? Where
is Wage & Hour? Let us really think about the difficult cases that are
out there. Let us not try to put people out of business who are trying
to do well, because it is the employee that loses the job. We protect
the employee, we protect the small business, we protect the small
unions in this legislation. That should be a reason for everyone to
vote for this legislation.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the
Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act. According to the Small
Business Administration, 19 cents out of every revenue dollar is spent
on complying with federal, state, and local regulations. When you
consider that there are over 22 million small businesses in the United
States, these regulations more than add up--they cost jobs--they stifle
the American dream.
For too long Congress has passed mandates on small businesses and
federal agencies have regulated compliance without even considering its
impact on a business.
Mr. Chairman, today Congress is going to do the opposite--we are
going to bring some relief to small businesses. I hope my colleagues
will review this legislation with small business in their district in
mind.
H.R. 3246 has four provisions, but I want to focus my attention on
Title I, the Truth in Employment Act. Under current labor law, job
applicants may or may not be seeking employment for personal reasons,
they may be seeking employment as a union agent solely in order to
unionize the organization. This tactic, otherwise known as salting, is
not truthful nor does it benefit the company for which they hope to
work.
Mr. Chairman, in salting situations a company is put in the difficult
position of deciding either to hire a union salt or face NLRB, OSHA and
EEOC inquiries and possible federal fines. In some cases, salting has
been used by labor unions to harass or disrupt operations of companies
that have not been favorable to their cause. This is not right and I
believe Congress should act.
A small business in my district has faced salting. The Company had
some openings and sought applications. There were salt applicants and
non-union applicants. One salt applicant told the company boss that his
union determined that this Company was on the union hit list and that
it better hire him or face the consequences. The salts had no desire to
work at his company--only to unionize it. The company chose to hire the
most qualified applicant, which this time was non-union, and his
[[Page H1617]]
company was hit with NLRB grievances equal to the number of salt
applicants. The company has spent thousands of dollars fighting these
and other NLRB grievances. In the end, the federal government forced
him through the NLRB to pay backpay and agree to hire those union salts
on future jobs--union salts who have no desire to work for his company.
Mr. Chairman, salting affects hard-working small business owners.
Unions have a valid place in American enterprise, and most union
members are hard working, well intentioned employees. Unions have a
heritage of which they are proud, but salting is a practice that hurts
the labor movement, gives it a bad name, and doesn't serve well the
cause of organized labor. I believe Congress should outlaw this tactic.
I urge my colleagues to help small businesses in their district by
supporting H.R. 3246.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to H.R. 3246. This bill is less about fairness to small business, and
more about unfairness to working men and women.
H.R. 3246 would give employers the right to fire or deny employment
to any worker they suspect is not a bona fide employee applicant. In
the bill's words, someone whose primary purpose is not to work for the
employer.
The committee report states that the primary purpose provision would
apply to a person who was seeking a job without at least a 50 percent
motivation to work for the employer.
What set of scales will employers use to determine what percentage of
the employee's motivation is to work for the employer versus working to
help organize his or her coworkers?
Mr. Chairman, we are not engaged in an idle academic exercise here.
This legislation will have real-life consequences for real-life men
and women in real-life workplaces.
The Dunlop Commission reported that, each year, 10,000 American
workers are wrongfully fired from their jobs for trying to organize
their co-workers.
H.R. 3246 would further weaken the federal laws which currently
provide American workers with a modicum of protection.
As others have pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an unanimous
1995 decision, ruled that a worker could be both a company employee and
a paid union organizer at the same time. The High Court further stated
that employers have no legal right to forbid an employee from engaging
in organizing activity protected by the NLRA.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246 would overturn that unanimous opinion of the
High Court.
H.R. 3246 is a terrible piece of legislation which should offend the
sensibilities of every Member of this House who values our American
tradition of freedom, fairness, and fair play.
Let's vote down this very bad bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3246, a bill the Republican Leadership has seen fit to name the
``Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act'' but should more
appropriately be called a ``Bill to Restrict Workers from Organizing''.
This bill should not have been brought to the House floor for a vote.
The only reason we are debating this bill today is because the
Republican Leadership has, as part of their agenda, set a goal of
removing the right of American workers to organize.
The current law protects American workers. An employee who holds a
job for the purpose of organizing a particular workplace is an official
employee of the company that hired that person. If this worker performs
their employment duties satisfactorily, they are protected against
discrimination for union activity and affiliation. If H.R. 3246 passes,
it will overturn a 1995 unanimous Supreme Court decision that upheld
the current law. This bill will give employers the ability to
discriminate against workers who exercise the right to organize. The
NLRB will be unable to protect workers against unfair employer
discrimination.
This anti-labor bill also gives employers the ability to frustrate
and delay their employees' choice of union representation. The NLRB,
through years of experience, has determined that in most situations, it
is appropriate for workers to organize in a single location of a multi-
facility business rather than organizing at all locations at once. This
bill requires the NLRB to apply a subjective test to determine the
appropriate unit to organize. This will allow employers to have control
over their workers' right to organize.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 is unfair to our workers and unfair to
America. One of the foundations of this Nation is the right for workers
to organize. This bill is at odds with basic principles of American
labor law and jeopardizes fundamental worker rights. The bill is a
direct and specific attack by the Republican Leadership on American
workers and unions and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, let's face it. It's screw labor week!
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that they
know better than the entire Supreme Court in this instance.
We're not talking about a 5 to 4 decision here, or 6 to 3. Noooo. My
Republican friends want to overturn a unanimous, 9 to nothing Supreme
Court decision that said that union organizers who apply for and hold
jobs for the purpose of organizing employees in a workplace cannot be
fired for disloyalty.
By reversing the Supreme Court on this issue, my colleagues are
turning labor history on its head and giving employers another tool
against organized workers.
And that's what this bill is all about, my friends. It's another
battle in the Congressional Republicans continuing campaign against
working families.
In the last Congress, the Republican-controlled House tried to repeal
the Davis-Bacon Act, which provides for prevailing wages in Federal
construction contracts. They tried to repeal the Service Contract Act,
which provides for prevailing wages in Federal service contracts. They
also tried to abolish the Department of Labor and they cut millions
from job-training funding.
They tried to ram through legislation that would allow corporations
to raid worker pensions to the tune of $20 billion.
In the 105th Congress, the attack continued within H.R. 1, The Comp
Time Act and the ``Team Act.''
Later this week, the Republicans will be at it again. They are
bringing the worker gag rule to the floor of the House, which will
basically require workers to get a note from their mommy before they
can be politically active.
But, before I get off course, let's get back to the Anti-Organizing
Act currently before us. Because it goes beyond discrimination in
hiring.
It would also make it harder for workers to organize by forcing them
to organize all the facilities of an employer, instead of just one. So
if you tried to organize the workers in a McDonalds, you would be
forced to organize every worker in every McDonalds in the country.
And while we're at it, lets have the Federal Government pay the legal
bills of businesses in National Labor Relations Board disputes. That
will only ensure that fewer such cases are brought, and further weaken
hard won worker protections.
The masks are off Mr. Chairman. We can see the true agenda this week.
It's all about screwing the working families of America.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to HR
3246, a bill that is mislabeled the Fairness For Small Business &
Employees Act. It should be titled a Bill to Keep Organizers From
Organizing. This bill undercuts the fundamental right of workers to
choose a collective bargaining representative free from employer
coercion.
This bill just adds to the arsenal of weapons that employers
currently use in their anti-union campaigns. Under current law, an
employer may lawfully order all employees to listen to a speech or
watch a video urging them to vote against union representation.
Employees who refuse to attend such anti-union campaign meetings can be
disciplined, including being fired.
Employers may also prohibit union organizers from entering their
premises throughout the organizing campaign, and may prohibit employees
from discussing the union among themselves except during breaks. This
bill gives powerful new weapons to employers, large and small, to
prevent employees from joining unions.
Let me turn my attention to the issue of ``salting'', because it
deals directly with an issue in which the Supreme court has ruled.
Contrary to the claims of the bill's supporters, ``salts'' do not come
to a company to destroy it. They come to organize the company's
employees--not to eliminate their jobs. They understand that they need
to fulfill the employer's legitimate expectations.
Salts must obey employer rules that apply to all employees. In
addition, employers may lawfully prohibit union activity in work areas
during working time. Employees engage in salting activities who do not
comply with such rules, or who are insubordinate or incompetent, can be
lawfully fired on the same basis as other employees.
Clearly, employers who object to salting do so not because of any
inherent unfairness in the practice, but because they object to the
fact that the law permits their employees to organize, and prohibits
them from firing employees who promote union organizing.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1995 decision, NLRB v. Town and
Country Electric, ruled that a worker could be both a company employee
and a paid union organizer at the same time, and that an employer has
no legal right to require that a worker, as a condition of employment,
refrain from engaging in union activity protected by the NLRA. This
bill would effectively overturn that ruling. This is unacceptable and
should not be allowed.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3246,
another example of the majority's continued assault on the
[[Page H1618]]
rights of working men and women in this country.
If allowed to become law, H.R. 3246 would shift power away from
workers, making it more difficult for them to organize and for the
National Labor Relations Board to stop employers from violating labor
laws.
When will these attacks on the men and women who are the backbone of
this country end?
H.R. 3246 would allow employers to discriminate against people they
suspected of trying to organize their workplace by refusing to hire
them or firing them if they are already employed at the company. This
clearly anti-union bill is intended to overturn a unanimous Supreme
Court decision of 1995 which held that a union organizer employed by a
company was entitled the same protections as any other employee.
My colleagues, employees' rights are already seriously in jeopardy.
Thousands of working Americans lose their jobs every year just for
supporting union organizing. H.R. 3246 would make an already difficult
period of time for American workers even worse. We must oppose this
attempt to give employers a license to discriminate against workers
rights to organize and protect the integrity of the National Labor
Relations Act as well as the collective bargaining process.
Support our American workers--vote no on H.R. 3246.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fairness
for Small Business and Employees Act. This bill might just as easily be
called the No-Brainer Act. If you support creating jobs and promoting a
strong economy, you should support this bill. It should be a No-Brainer
for all of us to support this goal.
This bill is necessary because for years the NLRB has considered
imposing a single site rule. For over 40 years, the courts have
interpreted the law to provide employers with the right to a hearing on
whether a single facility selected by a union is an appropriate
bargaining unit. A reversal of this precedence by NLRB would create a
litigation nightmare. Simultaneously, it would increase business costs
threatening jobs. It should be a No-Brainer to realize that this is a
dangerous path to take. Passage of this bill helps ensure NLRB will not
threaten jobs with this approach in the future.
This bill makes other necessary reforms to abuses of the current
system of labor-management relations. The bill stops ``salting,'' a
practice where union organizers seek employment solely to organize a
workforce. It should be a No-Brainer to recognize that a company must
make hiring decision based on an employee's genuine interest in
contributing to a company's success, not on their desire to promote big
labor's agenda. The bill requires the NLRB to issue a final decision on
certain unfair labor complaints within a year.
It should be a No-Brainer to support resolving these disputes in a
timely manner and not leaving companies in bureaucratic limbo.
Finally, the bill requires the NLRB to pay attorney fees and costs to
parties who prevail against the NLRB in administrative and court
proceedings. It should be a No-Brainer to support this common sense
effort to deter bureaucratic persecution.
The bill before us represents a common sense effort to protect our
economic prosperity from costly government interference and small
business from big labor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3246, another
attempt by this Republican Congress to cripple the ability of working
men and women of America to organize.
At the beginning of the 20th century, workers organized in order to
attain a better standard of living for their families. As we approach
the end of the century, unions still serve this noble purpose. The bill
before us is another partisan attempt to end unions as we know them.
H.R. 3246 would debilitate unions by putting a scarlet letter on
union organizers. Title I of this legislation makes it legal for
companies to discriminate against job applicants who have been involved
in union organizing. Furthermore, it would overturn a unanimous 1995
Supreme Court ruling that allows unions to place organizers in jobs for
the purpose of organizing a particular shop.
The workers in my home state of New York cannot afford to lose these
protections. Just this month, a U.S. District Judge ordered a company
in Syracuse to rehire Kathy Saumier and Clara Sullivan. These two women
had been fired for trying to organize a union at the plant because of
unsafe working conditions. Under this law, those women would still be
jobless because of their activism on behalf of their co-workers, In
fact, companies could refuse to hire workers like Kathy Saumier and
Clara Sullivan simply because they might become leaders. That is
unfair. That is un-American.
Mr. Chairman, to protect American workers, we need to preserve their
right to organize. That is why we need to oppose this legislation. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 3246 is as follows:
H.R. 3246
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Small Business
and Employees Act of 1998''.
TITLE I--TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that:
(1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor-management
relationships is essential to a productive workplace and a
healthy economy.
(2) The tactic of using professional union organizers and
agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace, a
practice commonly referred to as ``salting'' has evolved into
an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the
National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens the
balance of rights which is fundamental to our system of
collective bargaining.
(3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment
with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for
such employers but primarily to organize the employees of
such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically
designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to
do both.
(4) While no employer may discriminate against employees
based upon the views of employees concerning collective
bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job
applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills
of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the
employer.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to preserve the balance of rights between employers,
employees, and labor organizations which is fundamental to
our system of collective bargaining;
(2) to preserve the rights of workers to organize, or
otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the
National Labor Relations Act; and
(3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire individuals
who seek or gain employment in order to disrupt the workplace
of the employer or otherwise inflict economic harm designed
to put the employer out of business.
SEC. 103. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.
Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158(a)) is amended by adding after and below paragraph (5)
the following:
``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring
an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide
employee applicant, in that such person seeks or has sought
employment with the employer with the primary purpose of
furthering another employment or agency status: Provided,
That this sentence shall not affect the rights and
responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was
a bona fide employee applicant.''.
TITLE II--FAIR HEARING
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Bargaining unit determinations by their nature require
the type of fact-specific analysis that only case-by-case
adjudication allows.
(2) The National Labor Relations Board has for decades held
hearings to determine the appropriateness of certifying a
single location bargaining unit.
(3) The imprecision of a blanket rule limiting the factors
considered material to determining the appropriateness of a
single location bargaining unit detracts from the National
Labor Relations Act's goal of promoting stability in labor
relations.
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that the National
Labor Relations Board conducts a hearing process and specific
analysis of whether or not a single location bargaining unit
is appropriate, given all of the relevant facts and
circumstances of a particular case.
SEC. 203. REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS.
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) If a petition for an election requests the Board to
certify a unit which includes the employees employed at one
or more facilities of a multi-facility employer, and in the
absence of an agreement by the parties (stipulation for
certification upon consent election or agreement for consent
election) regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining
unit at issue for purposes of subsection (b), the Board shall
provide for a hearing upon due notice to determine the
appropriateness of the bargaining unit. In making its
determination, the Board shall consider functional
integration, centralized control, common skills, functions
and working conditions, permanent and temporary employee
interchange, geographical separation, local autonomy, the
number of employees, bargaining history, and such other
factors as the Board considers appropriate.''.
[[Page H1619]]
TITLE III--JUSTICE ON TIME
SEC. 301. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) An employee has a right under the National Labor
Relations Act to be free from discrimination with regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. The Congress, the National Labor Relations
Board, and the courts have recognized that the discharge of
an employee to encourage or discourage union membership has a
particularly chilling effect on the exercise of rights
provided under section 7.
(2) Although an employee who has been discharged because of
support or lack of support for a labor organization has a
right to be reinstated to the previously held position with
backpay, reinstatement is often ordered months and even years
after the initial discharge due to the lengthy delays in the
processing of unfair labor practice charges by the National
Labor Relations Board and to the several layers of appeal
under the National Labor Relations Act.
(3) In order to minimize the chilling effect on the
exercise of rights provided under section 7 caused by an
unlawful discharge and to maximize the effectiveness of the
remedies for unlawful discrimination under the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board should
resolve in a timely manner all unfair labor practice
complaints alleging that an employee has been unlawfully
discharged to encourage or discourage membership in a labor
organization.
(4) Expeditious resolution of such complaints would benefit
all parties not only by ensuring swift justice, but also by
reducing the costs of litigation and backpay awards.
SEC. 302. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that the National
Labor Relations Board resolves in a timely manner all unfair
labor practice complaints alleging that an employee has been
unlawfully discharged to encourage or discourage membership
in a labor organization.
SEC. 303. TIMELY RESOLUTION.
Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Whenever a complaint is issued as provided in subsection
(b) upon a charge that any person has engaged in or is
engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
subsection (a)(3) or (b)(2) of section 8 involving an
unlawful discharge, the Board shall state its findings of
fact and issue and cause to be served on such person an
order requiring such person to cease and desist from such
unfair labor practice and to take such affirmative action,
including reinstatement of an employee with or without
backpay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act, or
shall state its findings of fact and issue an order
dismissing the said complaint, not later than 365 days
after the filing of the unfair labor practice charge with
the Board except in cases of extreme complexity. The Board
shall submit a report annually to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the Senate regarding any cases pending for
more than 1 year, including an explanation of the factors
contributing to such a delay and recommendations for
prompt resolution of such cases.''.
SEC. 304. REGULATIONS.
The Board may issue such regulations as are necessary to
carry out the purposes of this title.
TITLE IV--ATTORNEYS FEES
SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Certain small businesses and labor organizations are at
a great disadvantage in terms of expertise and resources when
facing actions brought by the National Labor Relations Board.
(2) The attempt to ``level the playing field'' for small
businesses and labor organizations by means of the Equal
Access to Justice Act has proven ineffective and has been
underutilized by these small entities in their actions before
the National Labor Relations Board.
(3) The greater expertise and resources of the National
Labor Relations Board as compared with those of small
businesses and labor organizations necessitate a standard
that awards fees and costs to certain small entities when
they prevail against the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
(1) to ensure that certain small businesses and labor
organizations will not be deterred from seeking review of, or
defending against, actions brought against them by the
National Labor Relations Board because of the expense
involved in securing vindication of their rights;
(2) to reduce the disparity in resources and expertise
between certain small businesses and labor organizations and
the National Labor Relations Board; and
(3) to make the National Labor Relations Board more
accountable for its enforcement actions against certain small
businesses and labor organizations by awarding fees and costs
to these entities when they prevail against the National
Labor Relations Board.
SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 and
following) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``awards of attorneys' fees and costs
``Sec. 20. (a) Administrative Proceedings.--An employer
who, or a labor organization that--
``(1) is the prevailing party in an adversary adjudication
conducted by the Board under this or any other Act, and
``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of
not more than $1,400,000 at the time the adversary
adjudication was initiated,
shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing
party under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, in
accordance with the provisions of that section, but without
regard to whether the position of the Board was substantially
justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. For
purposes of this subsection, the term `adversary
adjudication' has the meaning given that term in section
504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Court Proceedings.--An employer who, or a labor
organization that--
``(1) is the prevailing party in a civil action, including
proceedings for judicial review of agency action by the
Board, brought by or against the Board, and
``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of
not more than $1,400,000 at the time the civil action was
filed,
shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing
party under section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code,
in accordance with the provisions of that section, but
without regard to whether the position of the United States
was substantially justified or special circumstances make an
award unjust. Any appeal of a determination of fees pursuant
to subsection (a) or this subsection shall be determined
without regard to whether the position of the United States
was substantially justified or special circumstances make an
award unjust.''.
SEC. 403. APPLICABILITY.
(a) Agency Proceedings.--Subsection (a) of section 20 of
the National Labor Relations Act, as added by section 402 of
this Act, applies to agency proceedings commenced on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Court Proceedings.--Subsection (b) of section 20 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as added by section 402 of this
Act, applies to civil actions commenced on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill is in order except the
amendment printed in House Report 105-463, which may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodling
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Goodling:
Page 4, line 17, before the first period, insert ``,
including the right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment further spells out in the most direct and
clear manner possible the intent of title I, which ensures that the
truth in employment provisions of the Fairness for Small Business and
Employees Act do not infringe upon any rights or protection for
employees under the National Labor Relations Act. My amendment lays out
specifically some of the important essential rights granted workers
under the NLRA which are not impacted under title I so long as an
individual is a bona fide employee applicant in that they are at least
half motivated to work for the employer. While H.R. 3246, as currently
drafted, does make clear that title I shall not affect the rights and
responsibilities under this act of any employee who is or was a bona
fide employee applicant, my amendment makes it explicitly clear that
this includes the right to self-organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
[[Page H1620]]
{time} 1930
Under my amendment, there should be absolutely no confusion
whatsoever that H.R. 3246 does not seek to punish anyone for their
union activities. It simply amends the NLRA to clarify that an employer
is not required to hire anyone who seeks a job primarily to further
other employment or agency status. So long as someone is at least half
motivated to be a productive employee, then title I does not apply to
them at all.
Title I of H.R. 3246 is only intended to address the egregious,
abusive, salting practices involving individuals who, it is clear, are
not applying for a job to go to work every day and be a productive
worker, but rather applying so they can start filing frivolous charges,
and I read all of those frivolous charges that are always thrown out,
but rather are applying so they can start filing frivolous charges
against the employer with NLRB in an attempt to cost the company money
defending itself.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of information
floating around this week that title I of the Fairness for Small
Business and Employees Act would gut workers' rights under the National
Labor Relations Act and would take away employees' right to organize
and participate in legitimate collective bargaining activities.
Does H.R. 3246 do any of this?
Mr. GOODLING. It does not. In fact, as I pointed out, the legislation
has a provision spelling out quite clearly that nothing in the act
shall, quote, affect the rights and responsibilities granted by the
NRA, quote, of any employee who is or was a bona fide employee
applicant. The amendment I have offered is intended to provide all the
more assurance that title I in no way would infringe on any NRA rights.
Mr. FAWELL. And what does all this mean in English?
Mr. GOODLING. It means that if an individual applies for a job at a
company and expresses at least 50 percent interest in actually working
there, then that individual is entitled to all the rights granted by
the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, an individual could very
well be a paid union organizer, and title I would not impact them one
bit, so long as they are not applying for the job with the primary
purpose of furthering interest of some other employer.
Mr. FAWELL. You have mentioned this 50 percent test several times.
Who would determine what the level is of a applicant's motivation to
work for the employer?
Mr. GOODLING. The level of intent would be determined by the general
counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and someone just a
little while ago said we are putting it on the National Labor Relations
Board. That is exactly who makes the decisions now. We are not giving
them anything new. The same individual makes the determination of the
intent of employers under current case law. If the appropriate referee
of a employer's intent is the NLRB's general counsel, then certainly an
appropriate referee of an employee's intent is also NLRB's general
counsel.
Mr. FAWELL. I have also heard it said this week that union salting is
protected by the United States Supreme Court in its unanimous 1995 Town
and Country decision, and that title I seeks to overturn this case
which held that union organizers are employees under the NLRA and enjoy
all of the act's protections.
Mr. GOODLING. That is deliberate misinformation as well. The holding
of NLRB versus Town and Country Electric was very narrow. The Supreme
Court held simply that paid union organizers can fall within the
liberal statutory definition of ``employee'' contained in section 23 of
the NLRA.
Title I of the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act does not
change the definition of ``employee'' or ``employee applicant'' under
the NLRA. It simply would change the NLRB's enforcement of section A by
declaring that employers may refuse to hire individuals who are not at
least half motivated to work for the employer. So long as even a paid
union organizer is at least 50 percent motivated to work for the
employer, he or she can not be refused a job in violation of section
8(A).
Title I thus established a test which does not seek to overrule Town
and Country, does not infringe on the legitimate rights of bona fide
employees and employee applicants to organize on behalf of unions
within the workplace. Indeed, the Supreme Court's holding that an
individual can be servant of two masters at the same time is similarly
left untouched.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there an opponent of the amendment who seeks
recognition?
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask
to claim the time in opposition so I can speak in favor of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri for 10
minutes.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the majority must have some serious
misgivings about title I of its own bill. Earlier this week, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), chairman of the subcommittee,
prefiled and then withdrew an amendment to strike title I from the
bill. Now the gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to salvage this
extreme and reckless title through this amendment.
The truth is this amendment does nothing to fix this bill. It merely
restates the current law protections while still allowing employers to
refuse employment to workers, based on the outside group affiliations.
I have no intentions of opposing the amendment because it does
nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
this time to me.
I also support the amendment, but I do want to speak about how little
I think it does to improve the very negative underlying bill.
I find it rather ironic that the party of Abraham Lincoln would be
pursuing a piece of legislation that has such negative implications for
people's individual liberty and autonomy. It is a concern that really
has not been brought up yet about this bill, but it is a very practical
one, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about it.
A few minutes ago, our friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois said
that the party who would determine the employee's intent as to primary
purpose would be the general counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board. In fact, as a practical matter, the first person who would
determine the employee's principal purpose would be the employer. The
employer is going to determine what the principal or primary purpose of
the employee is.
How exactly is the employer going to do that? Is the employer going
to speak? I assume the employer is going to interview the employee, and
most employees are going to say, my purpose is to do the job well. Then
the employer has to start to ask other questions. Is the employer going
to ask the spouse of the applicant what the applicant said to his or
her spouse? Is the employer going to ask prior employers of the
employee further information than that which would be on the normal
letter of reference? Is the employer going to go to persons that the
applicant may have talked to at the place of religious worship or at a
social gathering or political gathering the person may have gone to?
I would suggest to my colleagues that the practical implication of
this bill is that it opens up an Orwellian can of worms where an
employer clearly has the right to ask all kinds of questions about what
the employee's motive might be, and that Orwellian can of worms runs
into some very real privacy considerations of the applicant or
employee.
I am sure that Abraham Lincoln, who founded his party in part on the
principle of individual liberty and autonomy, would be rather surprised
to know that one of the prices now of applying for a job is evidently
giving the employer to whom you have applied carte blanche to find out
what you think and what you say to people outside the normal job
application process. And if this were to become law, which I doubt and
hope does not occur, I wonder exactly how this inquiry would be
conducted and by whom. It is one more reason, whether any union or not
any union, whether in the work
[[Page H1621]]
force or not in the work force, it is one more reason to oppose this
underlying piece of legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I wish to continue the colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Fawell).
As I was indicating, title I thus establishes a test which does not
seek to overrule, does not seek to overrule Town and Country, does not
infringe on the legitimate rights of bona fide employees and employee
applicants to organize on behalf of unions within the workplace. Indeed
the Supreme Court's holding that an individual can be a servant of two
masters at the same time is similarly left untouched. Title I simply
calls for at least 50 percent to be for the employer. If an applicant
cannot show the NLRB's general counsel that he or she sought the job at
least half because they really wanted to be an employee, then I believe
we would all agree that the employer should not have to hire them.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. So under H.R. 3246, Mr. Chairman, even organizers are not
prohibited from getting jobs.
Mr. GOODLING. That is correct. Title I is completely consistent with
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act. All the legislation
does is give the employer some comfort that it is hiring someone who
really wants to work for the employer, and as my amendment points out
with particularity, title I in no way infringes on the rights granted
by the National Labor Relations Act.
I would hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support my
amendment, which while granting some protection to the employers
against clear instances of salting abuses, also makes crystal clear
this legislation does not in any way scale back on the rights contained
in the National Labor Relations Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman, trying to
correct the impression that I have from this bill. I think the problem
is that this bill tends to want to throw out the existing law and
existing court cases with regards to what constitutes a bona fide
employee. The court has ruled on this, and the effect of this, of
course, is to drag it back into court, change the circumstances and to
undercut the ability of someone to be employed that happens to harbor
the notion of organizing and of exercising their freedom to in fact
seek a collective bargaining election or join a union.
That is what this is all about. It just reshuffles the deck to bring
it back up against the court with the option that they can undercut
that person's ability to do what they see and what we think is proper
in a free economy.
As has been said by my colleague from New Jersey, I think this goes
right to the issue of mind control. This invites absolute control by
the employers over the thoughts and over the views of employees with
regards to how they ought to be organized and their opportunity to
attain decent working conditions and wages.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill H.R. 3246.
This measure has numerous provisions which are specifically defined
to frustrate the ability of working men and women from organizing and
joining a union. The result denys the fundamental freedom of
association and speech at the care of our society and our basic
freedoms.
The collective bargaining process is the vehicle that serves the
workers and employer to achieve an agreed upon condition on the job
with a fair wage and benefits.
Unfortunately because of the evolution of our U.S. mixed economy
labor unions and organization represent less than 20% of our total
labor force. This is also a result of the fact that labor law and
policy has not kept pace with the changes and a concerted effort by
many business to contest and successfully resist efforts by workers to
achieve union representation and access to the collective bargaining
process.
Ths bill before the House will make that process even more difficult.
In a situation where workers are already at a disadvantage this bill
seek to tilt the table and stack the deck against worker.
Working men and women deserve a fair shake and regards the law as a
measure to undercut and shred what remains of our labor laws.
Ths bill plan and simple permits an employer to fire or not even hire
a person who has an interest and may play a role in organizing a
collective bargaining election. Today that is an unfair labor practice,
but this proposes to make such an discriminatory action legal. Today a
prospective worker's values and thoughts are private and an employer
appropriately consider a employment situation based on qualification
and the willingness of a worker to perform his or her assigned tasks.
This bill crosses the line into mind control and invites absolute
employer control of the workers private thoughts and values as to their
interest in collective bargaining and joining a union. Control of the
communication and the thoughts of a worker deny the fundamental
freedoms that characterize a free society and a free labor force.
Additionally this measure which purports to advocate for small
business denys a collective bargaining election for a separate work
place, rather it mandates that the collective bargaining election must
take place on an overly broad basis rather than permit a one location
election--turning a single facility collective bargaining election into
a multi-state or even national collective bargaining election. Both the
provision to prevent the hiring and permitting the firing of a employee
and the mandate to deny a single site election over turn court cases
and current law that permits union organization on this basis.
This legislation turns the process of litigation and National Labor
Relations Board appeals inside out requiring in the bill that small
business must be compensated if they prevail in a decision. Today the
NLRB and court have such discretion, but to require such no matter the
circumstance will assure that almost all decision will be carried forth
with the hope of success and payment.
These measure certainly don't achieve a common sense result in terms
of labor-management accord and fair treatment, rather they are a
transparent attempt to superimpose a disadvantage upon working men and
women and their access to the collective bargaining process. One may
wonder if this is some part of retaliation for the fact that organized
labor has become more politically active in recent years and that this
is some small minds is the may to penalize labor.
These actions are poor policy and the wrong was to force or win the
day. The reaction to this bill can only be to reject the proponents and
to re-double the effort to change the political equation.
Rather than loading the NLRB down with more paper work and appeals
and requests for report along with the mandate to pay legal fees for
those who successfully appeal. Congress should provide the resources
that would address the backlog that has been building up the past
decade to permit timely investigation and decision making by the NLRB.
This measure is a bad faith effort to disadvantage workers and the
unions they may choose to represent them. I certainly urge its defeat.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would merely indicate to the gentleman who just spoke that
obviously he has little faith in the general counsel at the National
Labor Relations Board. I will guarantee him that all employees have
great confidence in that general counsel. I will guarantee him that
organized labor has great confidence in that general counsel at the
National Labor Relations Board.
Let me close simply by repeating what was said in an editorial in a
paper that I read today: It is reassuring to know that some relief is
being considered for the real victims of status quo: workers, small
businesses, and small unions.
Let me repeat that: It is reassuring to know that some relief is
being considered for the real victims of status quo: workers, small
businesses and small unions.
My colleagues have an opportunity to help all three. All they have to
do is vote yes on the amendment and on the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H1622]]
Recorded Vote
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 398,
noes 0, not voting 32, as follows:.
[Roll No. 77]
AYES--398
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--32
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Cooksey
Crapo
Engel
Ford
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefner
Houghton
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Markey
McDade
McDermott
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Rangel
Rogers
Royce
Sherman
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Waters
Yates
{time} 2003
Messrs. BOUCHER, CUNNINGS, OBERSTAR and STARK changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, during roll call vote number 77 on the
Goodling Amendment to H.R. 3246 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted yes.
The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment being in order under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tiahrt) having assumed the chair, Mr. McCollum, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 393, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202,
noes 200, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 78]
AYES--202
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
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
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
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
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
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)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
[[Page H1623]]
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
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)
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--29
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Cooksey
Crapo
Engel
Ford
Gilman
Gonzalez
Harman
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
McDade
McDermott
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Rangel
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Waters
Yates
{time} 2022
The Clerk announced the following pair on this vote:
Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. McDade against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________