[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.

                          ____________________