[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 121 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10270-S10283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, the 
time until 1 p.m. shall be equally divided between the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy, or his designee, for debate relating to the Motion to Proceed 
to S. 1981.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the S. 1981 
legislation. This legislation will enable thousands of businesses in 
Arkansas and across the Nation to avoid the insidious and unscrupulous 
practice known as salting which is literally crippling thousands of 
small businesses across this country.
  The Truth in Employment Act inserts a provision in the National Labor 
Relations Act establishing that an employer is not required to hire a 
person seeking employment for the primary purpose of furthering the 
objectives of an organization other than that of the employer. This 
measure is not intended to undermine the legitimate rights or 
protections currently in law for workers in this country enabling them 
to organize. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against 
union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the 
destructive practice of salting. In fact, I will just read the last 
provision in the bill itself, which guarantees the protections for 
workers to organize, because the argument will be made, opponents of 
this legislation will say, that this is somehow trying to undermine the 
right of workers to organize.
  So this provision says:

       Nothing in the bill shall affect the rights and 
     responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was 
     a bona fide employee applicant, 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 
     protection.

  So this bill is clearly not designed to harm workers or to undermine 
their ability to organize. That provision passed the House of 
Representatives unanimously, incidentally. I believe it has broad 
support in the Senate as well. But there is a practice that is becoming 
all too common across this country, that is both immoral and insidious 
and is not a legitimate organizing tactic, and it needs to be outlawed. 
The bill does not change the definition of ``employee.'' It does not 
overturn the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that I think is of 
common sense and fairness. Would any person intentionally bring wanton 
destruction upon his or her own home? Would a homeowner spend hard-
earned money for a colony of termites and let them loose in his or her 
house, leaving them free to gnaw away at the equity he or she had spent 
years building up in a home or property? Certainly no one would commit 
such an irrational attack of self-destruction. No one would willfully 
and deliberately bring thousands of dollars of damage on himself. 
Instead, the homeowner would take every precaution to preserve the 
structure of his home, keeping out ruinous influences. Yet, today, in a 
similar situation, small business owners nationwide are prevented from 
defending their own companies from pernicious attacks known as salting.
  What is salting? Paid and unpaid union agents infiltrate nonunion 
businesses under the pretense--the pretense of seeking employment. And 
then, at that point, employers are caught in a dilemma, facing charges 
if they refuse union labor and facing charges if they hire these salts. 
So if they don't hire, unfair labor practices are filed, discrimination 
claims are filed against the employer. If they do hire them, they then 
face, in effect, termites in their own business, eating away at the 
solvency of their own enterprise. Once on the job, these salts set 
about sabotaging the company through workplace disruptions and a 
battery of frivolous charges to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, or by creating OSHA 
violations and then reporting those violations to OSHA.

  Employers who try to fire them face yet another litany of false 
charges. Defending against these charges costs money in legal fees, 
costs time in lost productivity and costs a company's reputation 
through negative publicity. Yet, to add insult to injury, employers are 
often forced to pay large damage awards or settlements because they 
cannot afford the high legal fees needed for justice to be served.
  Employers have little or no defense against these relentless--
relentless--assaults. Instead, they are forced to invite destruction 
into their companies and can only stand by, it seems, helplessly as 
years of hard work and investment are devoured before their eyes.
  In my home State of Arkansas, George Smith, the president of Little 
Rock Electrical Contractors, has been the victim of salting campaigns. 
Let me just tell you his story.
  It is a family-owned business and a merit shop contractor, hiring 
both union and nonunion labor. Mr. Smith never expected to face charges 
of unfair labor practices from people he didn't even hire.
  At a company site in Louisiana, two men drove up to Little Rock and 
asked if the company was taking applications. They were told no, and 
they drove off. Five months later, Mr. Smith was notified that charges 
of discrimination had been filed against him by the NLRB. He 
subsequently hired a labor attorney who assured him that he could win, 
as the charges had no merit whatsoever, that justice would be served.
  Unfortunately, the cost of the 2-day hearing would be $15,000 in 
order to have justice served. And since the unions would appeal if Mr. 
Smith won, additional costs of up to $8,000 could be almost guaranteed.
  On the other hand, the cost of settlement with these two nonemployees 
who had filed the claim was $3,000 for each man. So, in the end, Mr. 
Smith chose the less expensive option. I quote what he said:

       The reason that we paid was real simple. It was pure 
     mathematics. [If] it cost me $23,000 to win and $6,000 to 
     lose: I can't afford to win.

  To rub salt into the wounds, so to speak, copies of these settlement 
checks appeared on one of his worksites in North Carolina with the 
statement saying that this was the result of employer interference with 
employee rights.
  Mr. Smith, a hard-working American trying to run an honest business, 
lost both money and company stature. But this assault was not unique. 
In 1 year, Little Rock Electrical has faced 72 such charges to the tune 
of $80,000 in legal fees.
  Mr. President, that is wrong. That is not justice, it is an 
injustice. This problem is not unique to Arkansas companies. It is 
happening all across America, from Cape Elizabeth, ME, where Cindy and 
Don Mailman, owners of Bay Electric Company, suffered 14 erroneous, 
meritless charges, and $100,000 in legal fees over 4 years; to Modesto, 
CA, where Jim Blayblock of Blayblock Electric faced an intense barrage 
of salting; to Delano, MN, where Terrance Korthof of Wright Electric 
has lost $150,000 in legal fees and $200,000 to $300,000 in wasted time 
for 15 baseless charges; to Austin, TX, where Randy Pomikahl's company, 
Randall Electric, has been targeted.
  My point is, from the East Coast to the West Coast, from the Canadian 
border to Texas in the South we see these salting campaigns. Salts are 
operating across the country not only in electrical companies, but in 
steel companies, mechanical companies, building companies, and I 
predict it is going to be expanded and proliferate. We are going to see 
it targeting small business in every industry unless we address it 
legislatively. Mr. President, it is very much a national problem.

  I have on the floor of the Senate this morning a chart that 
illustrates how this is a national problem. Here are some examples of 
salting cases around the country. Carmel, IN, Gaylor Electric faced 96 
charges. Ultimately, the courts dismissed all 96. All 96 of these 
charges were dismissed without merit, but it cost Gaylor Electric 
$250,000 annually to defend themselves against this salting campaign.
  Union, MO, 48 charges were filed, 47 were dismissed, one was settled 
for $200. But in legal fees, $150,000 to defend their company against 
these frivolous charges.
  In Clearfield, PA, the R.D. Goss Company had 15 to 20 charges. All 
but one of those charges were dismissed, but it

[[Page S10271]]

cost that company $75,000 in legal fees plus lost time, and they 
ultimately were forced out of business, an example of many businesses 
that have been forced to close their doors because of their inability 
to pay for the legal help to defend themselves against these kinds of 
campaigns. This small businessman in Clearfield, PA, had operated for 
38 years until finally having to close their doors because of the 
salting campaign against them.
  These travesties of justice are not simply random acts by a small 
subversive group. Instead, they are calculated attacks on nonunion 
companies often, unfortunately, with NLRB complicity. In its most 
innocuous form, salting consists of gaining employment, not to work, 
but solely for the purpose of organizing labor. A person has a right, 
the courts have said and legitimately so, to apply for a job even 
though they want to go in and help organize for union activity. They 
don't have a right, I believe, legitimately, morally, or ethically, 
though it is still illegal, to go in, apply for a job, never intending 
to work, but simply for the purpose of filing these kinds of frivolous 
claims. That is in its most innocuous form. The common and prescribed 
practice is to strike economic pressure points in a company, leaving 
that company virtually paralyzed.
  In their own words, from the IEBW organizing manual, this is what 
they say:

       [The goal of salting is to] threaten or actually apply the 
     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, and go 
     out of business.

  That is not where the effort is to go in and organize. That is where 
the effort is to go in, hit the economic pressure points and destroy 
the company. The international vice president of the United Food and 
Commercial Workers Union, Tom McNutt, has been quoted as saying:

       If we can't organize them, the best thing to do is to erode 
     their business as much as possible.

  The goal is not to organize. ``If we can't organize, let's destroy 
the company.''
  I have another chart that I think will illustrate this very point, 
and that is that the procedures for salting are not left to chance, 
that unions very carefully instruct members how they ought to go about 
salting. This is a sample checklist for salts put out by the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 in 
Anchorage, AK. If you will notice, and we will read some of these 
points, this is their initial contact, when they make contact with a 
selected target; in other words, the business that is the target of the 
campaign:
       If the target doesn't have reason to know that you are a 
     union member you do not want to reflect that on your 
     application. You can change the status of your prior 
     employment to reflect past non-union employment * * *

  Then they actually counsel their salts to lie on their employment 
application.

       * * * reduce the rate of [your former] pay [your hourly 
     wage] to $12.00 or $13.00 with no benefits [because] if you 
     show a high rate of pay and benefits * * * the target will * 
     * * become suspicious.

  So all through the various points that they make, all through their 
recommendations, they are urging deception when these salts go in.

       List jobs other than heavy industrial sites such as TVA 
     jobs, government jobs, or jobs known to be union in union 
     areas.

  Deceive the potential employer.

       In listing your electrical education we recommend that you 
     do not list JATC or IBEW.

  Just do not tell them of any kind of--on and on you find this effort 
to simply deceive in order to get in and perform the insidious and 
pernicious activity, not of organizing, but of destroying the economic 
viability of the company.
  There are more union tactics that are described by local 1547: 
Fabricating employment history and so forth. These tactics are not 
overt methods of organizing, but rather they are covert methods of 
deceiving and sabotaging the targeted company. Unfortunately, the NLRB 
and other Government entities have unwittingly become an accomplice in 
these salting campaigns, because the charges are brought before them, 
and Government lawyers defend the salts.
  So we talk about the price tag. It is not just the price tag of legal 
fees for these companies. It is not just the price tag of lost time and 
productivity. It is not just the price tag of losing a company's 
reputation. It is also the price tag that is imposed upon the American 
taxpayer, because we pay for the lawyers that are defending these salts 
when it goes before the NLRB. So by extension, the American taxpayers 
have been made a participant in these guerrilla warfare operations, 
since who but the American taxpayer pays the salaries of these 
Government lawyers.
  Mr. President, I think that it is absurd. And in return for their 
money, the American taxpayers get a return on their investment; and 
that return is in higher consumer prices for products and services, the 
costs of which have been driven up by higher operating expenses due to 
none other than these kinds of salting campaigns and those abuses. Not 
the legitimate right to organize, but it is these abuses that we have 
an opportunity to bring a halt to.
  Under current law, employers are fully exposed to the corrosive 
effects of salting. Mr. President, I emphasize again, I am not opposed 
to labor organizing. It is, in fact, one of the rights of workers under 
the law. But I am against the abuse of the system, the abuse of small 
business owners and the abuse of the American taxpayers.
  The Truth in Employment Act preserves the rights of employees and 
employers. The provisions are very simple. The Truth in Employment Act 
amends the National Labor Relations Act so that an employer is not 
required to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee 
applicant, meaning that this person wants to be employed with the 
primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status. In 
other words, when they are coming in to apply, they are not coming in 
primarily because they want a job and they want a paycheck and they 
want to perform productive labor. They are coming in primarily for the 
purpose of furthering the goals and objectives of another organization, 
whether they are paid or unpaid. I think that that is what we must 
guard against--no destructive salting.
  The bill also specifically protects the rights of bona fide employees 
to self-organization, labor organization membership, and collective 
bargaining. It does not change the definition of the employee, and it 
does not overturn the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The Truth in Employment Act begins, a little bit, to put some balance 
back into management-labor relations. And it begins to level the 
playing field of labor relations, protecting the rights of employers 
and employees while promoting the honest and harmonious hiring of 
employees.
  I think, Mr. President, the House took a very positive step for the 
benefit of all Americans by passing their version of this bill on March 
26, 1998. This evening we will have a chance to do the same. And the 
language in the Truth in Employment Act that we will be voting on today 
is precisely the language passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
  The question arises, though--I am sure we are going to hear this 
during the course of debate today--if salts enter into jobs 
surreptitiously, how can this legislation work? How can salts be 
detected? Under the Truth in Employment Act, the act of seeking 
employment in the furtherance of another employment or agency status no 
longer is a ``protected activity.'' Salting will not be a protected 
action. In the case against the employer, the general counsel of the 
NLRB will have to show that the employee is, in fact, bona fide, that 
the employee did not seek employment for the purpose of salting. In 
this demonstration, the general counsel will prove that the employee 
would have sought employment even in the absence of his desire to 
conduct a salting campaign.

  The employers will have the opportunity to present contrary evidence. 
Employers will no longer be squeezed in the vices of the law. They will 
no longer be forced to hire salts or fear dismissing salts for their 
disruptive actions. Employers will be able to hire job applicants who 
are actually interested in working and contributing do the company for 
the salary they receive.
  I know that some of my colleagues do not support this legislation and 
will try to frame this legislation as being antilabor. It is not. As I 
mentioned, the

[[Page S10272]]

Truth in Employment Act specifically protects the rights of bona fide 
employees to self-organization, labor organization membership, and 
collective bargaining. It does not in any way undermine that right. But 
it will stop the proliferation of salting campaigns that have 
precipitated the need for the legislation. This, frankly, has become 
the new tactic of choice.
  Others may suggest these unions would not undertake these tactics 
unless there were something seriously wrong with the system and that 
salting is like the last gasp of breath from the sea of desperation. 
But I think if you look at the economy, you find the real answer.
  Apart from the recent ups and downs and antics of the stock market, 
our economy has been doing very well. Over 13 million new jobs have 
been created in the last 5 years. Unemployment is at a 24-year low--4.5 
percent. The economy is growing. And while the economy is growing, 
union membership is declining; in fact, it is even plummeting.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that unions lost 
159,000 members in 1997 alone. So as a result of strong employment 
conditions and job satisfaction, labor unions are finding it 
increasingly difficult to identify workplaces that need and want labor 
representation. So in that circumstance, in that economic environment, 
it is regrettable that some labor unions have resorted to disingenuous 
techniques to cope with their situation.
  Mr. President, in this country we often speak of rights--the right to 
free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to bear arms, the 
right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But with 
each right that we enjoy in this great country, we also face some 
responsibilities. People who assemble for a cause have the 
responsibility not to be violent or to be destructive. Journalists have 
a responsibility to print what is true and newsworthy.
  When a parent grants a child the freedom to use the phone or to use 
the car, he expects the child not to make lengthy long distance calls 
to far out-of-the-way places, or to drive the car at high speeds or 
under the influence of alcohol. It is this responsibility that we 
exercise with each freedom, with each right that allows us to have 
these very same freedoms. Mr. President, the right of laborers to 
organize must not be abused.
  Salting is a costly--costly--abuse of legal technicalities. It rarely 
ever results in actual organization. Instead, it costs small business 
owners time, money and oftentimes its reputation that has been built 
and earned through a whole lifetime. It costs American taxpayers money 
in legal costs and higher consumer prices. It is dishonest. It is 
unjust, and it penalizes the innocent.
  Mr. President, the Truth in Employment Act calls for just that--truth 
in employment. It calls for common sense and honesty in labor 
relations. It calls for job applicants to be honest about their 
intentions and to apply only if they actually want to work for the 
company. It stops only dishonesty. It stops only injustice. It stops 
only destructive and unethical practices. It calls for a simple change 
in the law so that small business owners do not have to shoot 
themselves in the foot. It calls for fairness. I ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation when we have the opportunity to vote on it 
later today.
  Mr. President, 32 different trade associations have endorsed the 
Truth in Employment Act. I will not read them all, but some of the 
major trade associations supporting this legislation include the 
American Trucking Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, 
International Mass Retail Association, the National Association of 
Convenience Stores, the National Association of Home Builders, the 
National Association of Manufacturers support this, as well as the 
NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business, the National Grocers 
Association, the National Mining Association, the National Restaurant 
Association, the National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce--32 different associations have said, ``We realize this is an 
insidious, unscrupulous practice that will proliferate unless we stop 
it legislatively now.''
  While it may now be electrical contractors, small builders and small 
businesses facing this, unless the insidious practice is stopped, we 
will see it used in a calculating way against targeted industries and 
targeted businesses across the economic spectrum.
  This is a great opportunity for us, as we seek to invoke cloture on 
this, this evening. We need 60 votes. I ask all of my colleagues in the 
U.S. Senate to carefully consider the simple change that this will make 
in the law, but the profound change it would have in restoring fairness 
in the workplace.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-two minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent, as I request a quorum call, 
that the quorum call time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, while the clock is burning, I think it 
is an appropriate time for me to take a few moments here and relate and 
include in the Record some of the correspondence I have been privy to 
concerning what small businesses are facing under the salting campaigns 
aimed against them and targeting them. These are only samples, but I 
think they are good samples of businesses across the country. I hope 
the Senators from these various States we are looking at will think 
seriously about what their constituents are facing in these targeting 
campaigns.
  This particular letter is from Kenny Electric Service and was 
addressed to the Honorable Dan Schaefer in the State of Colorado. 
Colorado, of course, like all States across the country, is facing 
these kinds of campaigns. And because of the building movement in 
Colorado, I think they have been a particular target. They have many 
electrical contractors, building contractors, and small business people 
of various sorts who are facing this and are involved in the building 
trades industry.
  I will read the last paragraph in which the letter states:

       Kenny Electric Service, Inc. has experienced financial 
     losses of over $1 million as a result of union tactics and 
     harassment. Attached are examples of harassment which caused 
     these losses. Your help with the legislation will sincerely 
     be appreciated.

  Then they stipulate some of the expenses that they have incurred. He 
said:

       We had a van with 7 union members arrive at our office to 
     respond to an ad that we ran for an electrician. They were 
     followed by the director of organizing, who was video taping 
     the whole process.
       The above resulted in an NLRB charge, even though some of 
     them were indeed hired. The NLRB charge was ultimately 
     removed [and dropped] by the union [itself].
       The union members filed frivolous and sometimes false OSHA 
     claims. For instance, one day the contractor's office trailer 
     was locked up at 7 a.m. The trailer had the drinking water in 
     it for the job. The contractor arrived at 7:15 a.m. and 
     opened the trailer. The union member had already called OSHA 
     and filed the complaint because water was not available for 
     15 minutes. It took me 3 hours to file the appropriate OSHA 
     report to avoid a fine and a claim.

  Then he goes on with another full page of similar examples of the 
frivolous claims that were filed against their company and the over $1 
million in costs that were incurred.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Kenny Electric Service

                                    Englewood CO, October 8, 1997.
     Hon. Dan Schaefer,
     Englewood, CO.
       Dear Congressman Schaefer: I apologize for not being able 
     to meet with you next Monday to discuss the issue of Salting 
     Abuse. Salting Abuse is the placing of union members of 
     agents in a nonunion facility to harass or disrupt company 
     operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating and 
     legal costs, scale back business activities, or even put the 
     company out of business. Salting is being used in bad faith 
     as a harassment technique, largely by filing numerous

[[Page S10273]]

     frivolous NLRB complaints against open shop contractors. This 
     causes the contractor delays and expenses in legal fees to 
     contest these charges, and may jeopardize their work on a 
     project through delays and excessive problems that the owner 
     may not be able to endure.
       I understand there is legislation in both houses of 
     Congress to address this situation. H.R. 3211, the Truth in 
     Employment Act, was introduced by Harris Fawell. Senator 
     Slade Gorton has also introduced S. 1025 which is similar to 
     H.R. 3211.
       There has been compelling testimony regarding these salting 
     abuses in three hearings held in the 104th Congress by the 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. Several 
     witnesses illustrated that these union agents hide behind the 
     shield of the National Labor Relations Act, trying to destroy 
     their employers or deliberately increase costs through 
     various actions including sabotage and filing frivolous 
     complaints with various federal agencies. For most of these 
     companies, many of which were smaller businesses, the 
     economic harm inflicted by the union's salting campaigns was 
     devastating.
       Kenny Electric Service, Inc. has experienced financial 
     losses over $1,000,000.00 as a result of union tactics and 
     harassment's. Attached are examples of harassment which 
     caused these losses. Your help with legislation will 
     sincerely be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Rick L. Ellis,
                                                        President.


                                examples

       We had a van with 7 union members arrive at our office to 
     respond to an ad we ran for an electrician. They were 
     followed by the director of organizing who was video taping 
     the whole process.
       The above resulted in an N.L.R.B. charge even though some 
     of them were indeed hired. The N.L.R.B. charge was ultimately 
     removed by the union.
       The union members hired salted our projects and tried to 
     promote the union.
       The union members filed frivolous and sometimes false 
     O.S.H.A. claims. For instance, one day the contractors office 
     trailer was locked up at 7:00 a.m. This trailer had the 
     drinking water in it for the job. The contractor arrived at 
     7:15 a.m. and opened the trailer. The union member had 
     already called O.S.H.A. and filed a complaint because water 
     was not available for 15 minutes. It took me 3 hours to file 
     the appropriate O.S.H.A. report to avoid a fine and claim.
       One union member filed a claim because he wasn't placed on 
     a project with a large number of electricians. He was placed 
     on the project closest to his house.
       Two union members left work and are on economic strike.
       We have had to date approximately 19 N.L.R.B. charges filed 
     against us. A settlement was negotiated with the N.L.R.B. for 
     dismissal of all charges.
       The above items have taken over 500 hours of management to 
     handle and deal with.
       The above have effected our ability to advertise for and 
     hire personnel that would have the company's interest and 
     future in mind.
       The union does not want to organize our company, they want 
     to destroy our company.
       We have continually trained and retrained our field 
     personnel on the legal do's and don'ts of the salting issues. 
     This takes away from their abilities to control and manage 
     their projects in a manner that is in the best interest of 
     the company.
       We can no longer advertise using our company name without 
     the threat of being harassed and salted again and again. This 
     would only result in more N.L.R.B. charges.
       The fact that we cannot actively hire new employees has 
     effected our ability to man our projects and has ultimately 
     stopped our ability to obtain new work.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a letter from Manno Electric, Inc., from the 
president of that company to his Congressman, regarding forced 
unionism, or salting. I will read only one paragraph:

       My company, Manno Electric, Inc., became a target for 
     salting in July 1992. We are a small firm, founded in 1972, 
     and based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Our business has been 
     family-owned and operated for the past 24 years and now has 
     annual sales of approximately $1 million and an average work 
     force of 25 employees.
       In July 1992, I hired five union members during a peak work 
     time and laid them off when their jobs were completed in mid-
     August 1992. Immediately, the union filed a ULP charge 
     claiming they were laid off because of their union 
     affiliation.

  I will not read it all, but it concludes:

       To date, I have paid my attorney over $75,000 for my 
     defense and have been ruled guilty on all charges by an 
     administrative law judge who proudly professed he formerly 
     represented the auto union and touted the high percentage of 
     success in union litigation.

  Once again, he is continuing to appeal. But these are the kinds of 
situations that these small companies are facing. That is from the 
State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Manno Electric, Inc., 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Manno Electric, Inc.,

                                                  Baton Rouge, LA.
     Re Forced Unionism--``Salting.''
       The best kept secret by the labor unions today is their 
     insidious organizing strategy known as ``salting.'' Salting 
     is the practice of sending paid professional organizers and 
     union members into non-union work places (merit shops) under 
     the guise of seeking employment.
       These ``salts'' are trained in a program called COMET, the 
     official organizing program of the AFL-CIO. They learn to 
     infiltrate a private business, and use tactics of harassment, 
     project disruption, and filing frivolous unfair labor 
     practice (ULP) charges with the National Labor Relations 
     Board (NLRB) against their employer.
       If a union organizer is turned down for employment, or 
     dismissed by a merit shop contractor, for any reason, he 
     immediately files an unfair labor practice charge with the 
     NLRB. The strategy behind salting is to file enough ULP 
     charges against the contractor until the company is 
     financially devastated or joins the union. The contractor has 
     to legally defend himself against each charge, no matter how 
     trivial. Each NLRB complaint costs the employer an estimated 
     $5,000 to $10,000 to defend. Litigation for the union member 
     is paid by the taxpayer through the NLRB.
       My company, Manno Electric, Inc., became a target for 
     salting in July 1992. We are a small firm, founded in 1972, 
     and based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Our business has been 
     family owned and operated for the past 24 years and now has 
     annual sales of approximately one million dollars and an 
     average workforce of 25 employees.
       In July 1992, I hired five union members during a peak work 
     time and laid them off when their jobs were completed in mid-
     August 1992. Immediately, the union filed an ULP charge 
     claiming they were laid off because of their union 
     affiliation.
       Twelve other union members came in and applied for 
     employment during this time but were not hired because we had 
     no work for them. They filed unfair labor practice charges 
     for failure-to-hire, claiming discrimination because they 
     were affiliated with the union. The union contends that once 
     a member has applied for employment, you are forever bound to 
     keep his application at the forefront or risk another ULP 
     charge. The NLRB accepts this union theory and this is one of 
     the biggest weapons used to abuse the contractor. At my trial 
     in September 1993, I produced in evidence over 100 
     applications we had on file at that time.
       In all, over 20 union activists filed frivolous charges 
     against my company. To date, I have paid my attorney over 
     $75,000 for my defense and have been ruled guilty on all 
     charges by an Administrative Law Judge who proudly professed 
     he formally represented the auto union and touted the high 
     percentage of success in union litigation.
       My trial was a mockery to justice. The judge slept 
     repeatedly during my trial and it was painfully clear that he 
     did not hear all of the proceedings or read the 1700 pages of 
     transcript in making his decision. He completely ignored our 
     witnesses' testimony and our exhibits.
       The Clinton administration, through its powerful political 
     appointments in the Labor Department, has given a ``green 
     light'' to the labor unions, the NLRB and now the Supreme 
     Court to exercise their power to strike a deadly blow to 
     American enterprises and the free market system. Unions have 
     trained their agents to use and abuse the procedures of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as an offensive weapon 
     against employers. The NLRB accepts these frivolous charges 
     and rules with a strong bias toward labor.
       The AFL-CIO has declared organizing as their top priority 
     in an effort to revive and rebuild union membership at all 
     costs.
       The Supreme Court in its recent Town & Country unanimous 
     decision (9-0) has also helped to encourage labor. It focused 
     on a very narrow aspect of the law, ruling that a paid 
     organizer is a ``bona fide'' employee. It failed to address 
     the issue that open shops are being assaulted by union 
     agents, intent on not recruiting new members, but on putting 
     contractors out of business.
       Today, due in part to the one and one-half years my appeal 
     was stayed by the NLRB awaiting the Town & Country decision 
     by the Supreme Court, my fines could exceed $500,000. In 
     addition, the back pay and interest mounts daily and will 
     continue to do so until I rehire the six union members that 
     were terminated and also the seven others who merely applied 
     but were not hired four years ago.
       My business appears to be in financial ruin. This travesty 
     of justice must be exposed so that business owners across 
     this country can be alerted! An agent of the NLRB has even 
     warned me that if I tried to close my business due to the 
     inability to meet the liability, they had the right to force 
     me to reopen.
       The appellate court and, perhaps, the Supreme Court is the 
     only recourse we have remaining. I can only pray that we do 
     not fall victim to this new domestic terrorism.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jack L. Manno,
                                   President, Manno Electric, Inc.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then I have a letter written by Betty Tyson at T&B 
Metal Works, Inc. I believe it does sheet metal duct work in 
Jacksonville,

[[Page S10274]]

FL. This was addressed to the Honorable Tillie Fowler, a Congresswoman 
from Jacksonville, FL, regarding the Truth in Employment Act in 1996 in 
the House of Representatives, H.R. 3211.
  Once again, I will not read all of this correspondence. But part of 
what Betty Tyson writes is the following:

       T&B Metal Works, Inc. has been in business for 10 years and 
     is a sheet metal company which fabricates and installs duct 
     work in commercial buildings. Presently, it is unlawful for a 
     business to refuse to hire a job applicant because he is a 
     union organizer or union member. Therefore, we have hired 
     several ``organizers'' from Sheet Metal Local 435 over the 
     past 10 months (since the organizing campaign began). The 
     problem is, these people are not trying to organize our 
     employees--they simply do everything they can think of to 
     disrupt our business by filing false charges, and are hiding 
     behind the labor laws which were created to protect 
     employees.

  Then there are a number of specific details that are provided 
regarding the situation that T&B Metal Works face in Jacksonville, FL. 
I have a binder with similar letters and examples from all of the 
States of the Union. This is something that is becoming very broad-
based and is becoming a widespread problem for small businesses 
struggling to survive and provide jobs for working people of this 
country.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from T&B Metal Works in 
Jacksonville, FL, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record,  as follows:

                                        T&B Metal Works, Inc.,

                              Jacksonville, FL, December 11, 1996.
     Re H.R. 3211 ``Truth in Employment Act of 1996.''

     Hon. Tillie Fowler,
     House of Representatives, Jacksonville, FL.
       Dear Representative Fowler: Reference is made to my 
     telephone conversation with your assistant, Susan Siegmund, 
     on December 2, 1996, regarding the above-named bill, as well 
     as the conduct of the National Labor Relations Board. I 
     requested that you represent us because we seem to be in 
     limbo between our new representative (Brown) and our old one 
     (Stearns).
       You may have copies of letters that were sent to you 
     previously dated May 1, 1996, and October 15, 1996. To date, 
     we have not had any luck with anyone taking a serious 
     interest in the problems we are encountering.
       I also spoke to your assistant in Washington D.C., Brad 
     Thoburn. He requested that we put together an outline of the 
     problems we have experienced as a result of salting and the 
     lack of impartial decisions by the National Labor Relations 
     Board. I have enclosed a copy of that information for your 
     review. Mr. Thoburn also indicated that you are on the 
     Committee for H.R. 3211.
       With all that said, I will try to give you a brief idea of 
     what our business has been going through as a result of 
     ``salting''.
       T&B Metal Works, Inc. has been in business for 10 years and 
     is a sheet metal company which fabricates and installs duct 
     work in commercial buildings. Presently, it is unlawful for a 
     business to refuse to hire a job applicant because he is a 
     union organizer or union member. Therefore, we have hired 
     several ``organizers'' from Sheet Metal Local 435, over the 
     past ten months (since the organizing campaign began). The 
     problem is, these people are not trying to organize our 
     employees--they simply do everything they can think of to 
     disrupt our business by filing false charges, and are hiding 
     behind the Labor Laws which were created to protect 
     employees! (You will find details in the attached outline.)
        We have had four sets of charges filed against us this 
     year. Representative Fowler, I can assure you that if we 
     didn't know the Labor Laws before, we certainly became 
     familiar with them between December, 1990, and February 1993. 
     During that period, we had ten sets of charges filed against 
     us by the union, and we spent $28,000 on labor attorneys 
     defending ourselves. We understand the labor laws and abide 
     by them, but it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow, the union is 
     able to persuade their ``organizers'' to lie repeatedly about 
     us.
       There is a statement at the bottom of the ``Charge Against 
     Employer'' form which says ``Willful false statements on this 
     charge can be punished by fine and imprisonment''. This is a 
     joke! They might as well not have it on the form at all. The 
     local NLRB representative has told me he knows these people 
     are lying, yet the charges are not dismissed! In his defense, 
     I know he refers his findings to the Regional Office in 
     Tampa, and they make the final decision.
       I have attached a copy of a letter we sent to Rochelle 
     Kentov, Regional Director/NLRB, regarding her recent decision 
     to postpone making a determination on charges that were 
     clearly false. I have no idea why she would want to review 
     the subsequent charges before making a decision on this 
     issue. The charges are unrelated, as you can see in the 
     attached.
       In summary, we would like to request your support of the 
     Truth in Employment Act of 1996 in an effort to aid small 
     businesses, such as ours, throughout the country. Working 
     hard and having your own business is supposed to be the 
     American Dream, but is quickly turning into the American 
     Nightmare for us and countless others who are being pursued 
     by unscrupulous unions!
       In addition, we feel it is imperative that the National 
     Labor Relations Board be an impartial entity. It is a crime 
     for them to allow this continued abuse of the Labor Laws. I 
     hope you will have some suggestions or ideas of how this can 
     be accomplished.
       Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. We 
     look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Betty Tyson.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then I have before me an editorial that appeared in 
the Anchorage Times on December 17, 1996. You will notice that most of 
the correspondence and editorials that have been written have occurred 
within the last 2, 3 years, because it is during this time period that 
this problem has become so exacerbated, become so widely used by union 
organizers who are having little success in organizing otherwise, and 
they are going to these very destructive tactics.
  This was written December 17, 1996, in the Anchorage Times, and I 
think the title of the editorial is significant: ``Do Bad Real Good.'' 
In this case, it was actually a city that was facing a union salting 
campaign, and the threats that were made by the IBEW representatives 
were so egregious that it received widespread attention. I will read 
part of that editorial:

       In a meeting with Mayor Margie Johnson in November, 
     according to City Manager Scott Janke, the IBEW 
     representatives threatened the community with great financial 
     harm.

  The IBEW representative said:

       By the time we get finished with this town, it will make 
     the open meeting lawsuit your town was in look like chicken 
     feed.

  That cost the town over a million dollars in legal fees. So the union 
organizer representative said it was going to be ``chicken feed'' 
compared to what they were going to do.
  He said:

       Your town can't afford it, but we can. We will take out 
     advertisements in the paper. We will ruin you.
       * * * What we will do is rip this town apart.

  Then he said:

       We do bad real good.

  It is that abuse, which is so often explicitly and blatantly stated, 
which this legislation would address.
  I ask unanimous consent that this Anchorage Times editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Anchorage Times, Dec. 17, 1996]

                            Do Bad Real Good

       Organized labor began the year with optimism about the 
     national and state elections. Unions invested heavily in 
     favorite candidates. But they didn't fair well--either in 
     races for Congress or the Alaska Legislature.
       Polls indicated the results had to do with labor's 
     reputation in the eyes of many voters--a rap for heavy-handed 
     dealings. It proved too much of a burden for many labor-
     backed candidates.
       Whether deserved or not, labor's negative reputation was 
     reinforced the other day when residents of Cordova read a 
     memo from the city manager about an encounter between the 
     mayor and two female officials of the International 
     Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
       The IBEW and the city have been in a stalemate over 
     contract negotiations that began after city employees voted 
     two years ago in favor of being represented by the union. The 
     union says it intends to file an unfair labor practice charge 
     against the city because it hasn't engaged in good faith 
     bargaining. The city says it has.
       In a meeting with Mayor Margie Johnson in November, 
     according to City Manager Scott Janke, the IBEW 
     representatives threatened the community with great financial 
     harm.
       According to Janke's memo, this--including a reference to a 
     non-related open meeting lawsuit that had cost Cordova $1.3 
     million--is what one of the union people said:
       ``By the time we get finished with this town it will make 
     the open meeting lawsuit your town was in look like chicken 
     feed. Your town can't afford it, but we can. We will take out 
     advertisements in the paper. We will ruin you.
       ``If you hire a lobbyist, I am going to be right behind him 
     or her in Juneau and (urinate) on everything that Cordova 
     wants. You won't get one capital project.
       ``What we will do is rip this town apart. We do bad real 
     good.''
       The following day at a meeting between city officials and 
     the IBEW representatives, a lawyer for the city confirmed 
     with the two union officials that the quotes, as recorded by 
     the mayor, were accurate. A half dozen city officials heard 
     the confirmation, Janke says.

[[Page S10275]]

       After the city's memo began circulating around the state 
     about a month later, the IBEW issued a denial of the quotes, 
     demanded an apology from the city and a retraction for what 
     it called misrepresentation and false statements.
       The city gave this official response to the IBEW last week: 
     ``Shame on you.'' The union should be ashamed, the city said, 
     for the threat, for the belated denial, and for the demand 
     for an apology.
       Mayor Johnson, who receives no salary, says she is 
     disappointed. She had hoped for a partnership between the 
     city and the union. ``They know we don't have a lot of 
     resources in Cordova. A leaking roof at city hall, the 
     school's falling apart, and there are only 750 property tax 
     payers to support it all. We're struggling to stay abreast. 
     Threats don't help anything,'' she said.
       Especially on election day.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, while I continue to have the floor, I 
just want to point to this chart, which is an editorial that I think 
very well frames the issue that confronts the Senate today in this 
cloture motion.
  It is entitled ``Harassing Job Providers.'' It appeared recently in 
the Detroit News. I think, once again, it frames this issue quite well. 
I will read part of it.

       One form of the tactic is called ``salting'' in which union 
     agents take a job at a nonunion firm and attempt to organize 
     workers. They also file endless and often frivolous claims of 
     labor law violations against the companies. Another tactic is 
     simply to file the claims on behalf of other workers, whether 
     or not the workers are actually aggrieved.
       These tactics, as well as ``salting,'' are known as 
     corporate campaigns and are designed to give unions more 
     leverage when they are at a low ebb. Only 10 percent of 
     private sector workers are in unions. One prounion handbook 
     quoted by Investors Business Daily observes that ``Every law 
     or regulation is a potential net in which management can be 
     snared and entangled.

  I think they rightly conclude that:

       Regulations ought to be about protecting people, not 
     ``ensnaring and entangling'' anyone. Part of the problem is 
     addressed by legislation introduced by Republicans Harris 
     Fawell of Illinois in the House and * * *.''

  And it goes on and speaks about that legislation.
  But here is the point I would make; I think the editorial made it 
well: Regulations, labor laws, and labor regulations implemented by the 
NLRB exist not to ensnare and entangle small business men and women who 
are trying to survive, trying to provide jobs and trying to make a 
living. They exist to protect both employer and employee and have 
always been intended to provide and to maintain balance. The fact is 
that when the National Labor Relations Act was passed no one could have 
envisioned that these kinds of tactics would become so commonplace.
  So when the opponents of this legislation stand, as they surely will, 
and say, ``This is just an effort to undermine and to hurt organizing 
efforts, this is antiworker and antilabor,'' I once again remind those 
Senators that the only thing this legislation targets are the abuses of 
existing law. The only thing this legislation targets are the insidious 
and absolutely indefensible tactics of going in with the explicit 
purpose of destroying a business, destroying a businesswoman, of 
ruining their financial viability with a truly scorched earth policy, a 
term that has been used frequently of recent. This is truly scorched 
earth. If you can't organize and destroy them, that is what ``salting'' 
is all about. That is why it is incumbent upon us to restore balance 
and to restrain these kinds of unethical tactics that are being more 
and more widely used.
  Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time under the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have a time allocation and those who are 
opposed to the Hutchinson proposal now have, as I understand it, about 
50 minutes. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 48 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. OK. I will yield myself 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are reaching the last few weeks of 
this session of the Congress, and I think it is appropriate to give 
some consideration to the positions of the Republican leadership on the 
many issues that affect working families, because we will consider one 
of these issues later in the afternoon and another tomorrow when the 
Senate is going to be debating and also voting on the increase in the 
minimum wage.
  I think it is appropriate that we look over what has been the 
Republican leadership position on issue after issue that affects 
working families in this country over the period of these last few 
years. There you will find a wholesale assault on the interests and the 
rights and the economic conditions and wages of working Americans.
  I can remember 3 and one-half years ago, just after the Republicans 
gained leadership positions in the Senate, one of the first proposals 
offered was the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. I can remember being in 
this Chamber and asking my colleagues what is it about the Davis-Bacon 
Act that they object to. Well, they talked about the inflation it adds 
to construction projects. The average income for a construction worker 
in the United States of America is just over $30,500. What is it that 
is so outrageous for a worker involved in construction--construction, 
the second most dangerous industry--to make $30,500? Why is that such a 
dramatic concern to the leadership of the Republican Party? We find it 
time in and time out--let us eliminate Davis-Bacon to make sure that we 
do not give government contractors the opportunity to inflate wages of 
workers in this country.
  Nonetheless, we took a number of days on that particular issue. I was 
wondering why it was, with all the problems we were facing at that 
particular time, our Republican friends wanted to take away some very 
important income for working families.
  And then we had introduced an increase in the minimum wage--at that 
time it was $4.35 an hour--for the working poor--men and women who work 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, who want to be able to bring up 
their children with some kind of respect, but who are living in 
poverty. Most Americans believe that those who want to work and can 
work, who believe in work, who are prepared to show up for work and 
play by the rules, ought to be able to have a livable wage.
  We will have an opportunity to address that issue again tomorrow. We 
have the most extraordinary prosperity in the history of the nation, 
with the lowest unemployment and the lowest inflation. But still the 
Republicans say no to that, no to the wages of working families who are 
involved in construction, no 2 years ago to any increase in the minimum 
wage, and then finally, finally, finally, finally, they acceded to a 
modest increase in the minimum wage. And now we have the issue before 
us again. We know that the purchasing power of working families has 
been at its lowest, has deteriorated the greatest, and the highest 
income Americans have seen their incomes increase.
  In the immediate postwar period, all Americans went up together. The 
rising tide raised all the boats--low income and upper income Americans 
increased at about the same rate. But now, according to the Republican 
leadership, they want to see a decline in the wages of working families 
by repealing Davis-Bacon. They don't want to see any increase for 
working families in a minimum wage.
  And then I remember, as we went on into last session, the assault on 
the earned-income tax credit. Increasing the minimum wage helps working 
people, whatever the size of their family. But the earned income tax 
credit helps low wage workers if they have one or more children. The 
more children you have, the greater the benefit to you from the earned-
income tax credit.
  But we had the Republican leadership not only condemning the income 
of construction workers under the Davis-Bacon Act, but saying no to any 
increase in the minimum wage. And for those Americans with large 
families who earn less than $31,000, we saw the wholesale Republican 
assault on those families by cutting the earned-income tax credit. I 
believe their particular proposal was $9 billion.
  Now, we went on for 6 or 8 months, and I asked, what is this all 
about?

[[Page S10276]]

 Why are we having this wholesale assault on working families at the 
same time we saw the assault on Medicare and Social Security, to take 
over $256 billion and give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals.
  Well, Mr. President, this assault that we had from the Republican 
leadership in the last session of Congress has continued, and it 
continues today. We have seen serious efforts to undermine the 
occupational health and safety legislation. Who does that protect? 
Legislation that had bipartisan support in 1972 that has seen the total 
number of deaths in the United States from on-the-job work cut in half. 
But we see our Republican friends saying we want to cut back on OSHA 
protections.
  We say, all right, maybe it ought to be streamlined; maybe it ought 
to be more effective. What can we do to provide additional protection 
for workers? The GOP says, oh, no, we want more protection for the 
companies, and less protection for the workers. The Republicans want to 
permit companies to hire their own inspectors, and if their own 
inspectors say they pass muster, they want them to be immune from any 
kind of enforcement by OSHA. The Republican agenda includes undermining 
their income, undermining the safety of working families--this is their 
agenda.

  We say maybe it really is not so. Let's give the Republicans an 
opportunity to prove that they really do care about working families. 
Let's try to see what we can do with family and medical leave. We are 
the only industrial nation that does not provide paid family and 
medical leave that pays the workers. We provided it for companies with 
over 50 employees, and it has been a resounding success. It has been a 
resounding success, and enormously important, as we have seen from the 
studies that show the importance of parents being with infants during 
their early days.
  We heard the debate. It went on for weeks with the opposition of 
Republicans on the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now it is in effect. 
It is broadly accepted, welcomed, and the people who benefited from it 
have been working families.
  Efforts were brought up not long ago, a little over a year ago: Let's 
try to extend it from companies that have 50 or more workers to those 
with over 25 and pick up another 13 million working families. We cover 
about half of the workforce now with the 50 or more, but let's bring it 
down so we pick up another 13 million Americans. If it works for one, 
let's try it for the other.
  You would think the world would collapse when we listened to the 
Republican leadership saying ``no way are we going to consider 
extension of the Family and Medical Leave. No way are we going to 
extend that concept.''
  We hear a great deal on the floor of the U.S. Senate about families 
and family values. One of the best ways of advancing family values is 
to let working people have family income. Let them spend some time with 
their families when they are working. Let them be safe so they can go 
home to their families, and not lose their lives in construction or be 
maimed in construction. That is a family value.
  Now we had the wonderful amendment of Senator Murray of the State of 
Washington. She said, ``Let's just give parents 24 hours--24 hours so 
that parent might be able to go to a parent meeting, maybe be able to 
go to an academic program in which a child is involved. Let us give 24 
hours a year of unpaid leave so parents can see their child receive an 
award at school.''
  ``No, no, no,'' said our Republican friends, ``we can't possibly do 
that. We can't possibly do that. That will interrupt the workplace. 
That will disrupt the workforce. We will give you something else.''
  They came back with a wonderful proposal--what they call ``comp 
time.'' ``No,'' to Senator Murray, the Senator from Washington, who was 
trying to do something for families. They come back with what they call 
comp time. They use all the appealing rhetoric. They claim they will 
give people the time they need to take off to attend to family needs. 
But, you know, Mr. President, we went through that debate. One thing 
that those proponents would never be able to answer is that little part 
of the legislation that I read time in and time out that said it will 
be up to the employer when they will be able to get the comp time. In 
the meantime, we are going to abolish the 40-hour week and we are not 
going to pay overtime. A wonderful deal for workers. A wonderful deal 
for workers.
  Who do you think supported that? It is always interesting to me when 
we have these wonderful statements of people who propose things, to 
then look at who benefits and who loses. Who do you think supported the 
Republican proposal on comp time? The Chamber of Commerce, all the 
business interests. Who opposed it? Working families, women's 
organizations and children's groups, because they saw it was phony and 
they saw it was fraudulent.
  So on it goes. Here we have the assault on the economic interests of 
working families, the assault on OSHA, the assault on our efforts to 
extend Family and Medical Leave, and many more.
  Another example is campaign finance reform. We talked about it. It 
has been effectively defeated in the U.S. Senate because of Republican 
leadership. Eight courageous Republicans, eight of them, were willing 
to stand up and try to advance campaign finance reform.
  The first amendment that our Republican friends offered, before they 
sunk campaign finance reform, was what they call the paycheck 
protection provision. That sounds like a good one. On whom do you think 
it was focused? On whom do you think that paycheck protection was 
focused? Can you guess? Working families. Working families, to deny 
them the opportunity to participate effectively in our political 
process. That is just a continuation of the assault on working 
families. It is meant to deny them the most fundamental and basic 
opportunity--to participate in the election process.
  The No. 1 amendment was to deny people their rights. Our agenda was 
different. Our agenda seeks to expand safety and health protection in 
the workplace. We want to expand family and medical leave, invest in 
education, strengthen Medicare for our elderly, try to do something for 
Social Security--that is our agenda. I know it.
  I yield to no one in sponsoring those proposals because they make an 
important difference to children, to workers and to our parents. I also 
support other proposals to make sure our streets are safe and our air 
water is clean. But we spent weeks on their so-called Paycheck 
Protection Act, not to change the system to try to deal with the 
abuses--but to deny working families the right to participate in the 
political process.
  It was not much later that the GOP brought up the TEAM Act. That bill 
goes under the guise of giving workers a chance to work together in 
order to get a safer workplace and better productivity. All of those 
goals can be advanced now, under current law. I do not think any of 
those who supported the TEAM Act can compare the kind of increased 
productivity we have seen with General Electric, for example, in 
modernizing their jet engines, that has been done with workers and 
engineers working together.
  I can take you up to the plant in Lynn, Massachusetts. Every time I 
tour that plant, I see the incredible increase in productivity, because 
workers are working there alongside engineers to increase productivity 
and increase safety. But the TEAM Act does something else. What was 
that? That bill would have permitted any CEO to choose employees' 
representatives, so that the CEO could bargain with the named employees 
about any of the issues about which other workers might be concerned.
  How do we like that? Generally speaking, we would think that the 
workers themselves ought to be able to make a decision among themselves 
who ought to represent the group. That is a basic, fundamentally 
democratic concept. But no, no, not according to the Republican 
leadership.
  Under the TEAM Act, the employee names the representatives, and if 
the employer doesn't like the person, he can fire the person. The 
employer sets the agenda and the schedule. The employer sets what will 
be on the schedule. The employer can change the schedule any time he or 
she wants to do it. Mr. President, that is under the guise of trying to 
change and be more productive. It basically would have undermined the 
opportunity for worker expression that has worked effectively

[[Page S10277]]

over some 60 years of collective bargaining.
  So, Mr. President, now we are in the final days of this session, and 
suddenly we come up here with other legislation which is focused on 
undermining the opportunity for workers to organize. Surprise, 
surprise, surprise. Absolutely no surprise. Absolutely no surprise.
  There has been a continuous effort over the last several years to 
undermine working families' interests in this country. It is as plain 
and simple as that. The Republicans have tried all different ways of 
doing it. They tried to undermine them economically. They tried to 
undermine their health and their safety in their OSHA recommendations. 
They tried to undermine their ability to participate in elections with 
their paycheck protection, and here they are trying to undermine their 
basic and fundamental opportunity to organize.
  They have come in the last few days to try to overturn a unanimous 
Supreme Court decision--unanimous. It wasn't a decision that was 5-4, 
it was unanimous. Why? Because Republican appointees to the Supreme 
Court--conservative Republican appointees to the Supreme Court--
understand very clearly what this kind of antisalting legislation will 
mean, and that is, basically, it will undermine one of the most basic 
and fundamental tenets of American and industrial democracy, and that 
is the ability to have collective bargaining and to have opportunities 
for workers to make a judgment either to choose a union or to reject 
it. That is where we are. We will have that particular vote this 
evening, and then we will go to the minimum wage issue tomorrow. We 
will have an opportunity to do that, Mr. President.
  I won't even bother taking the time, because I want to address more 
specifically the legislation that is before us, but I just mention that 
under the Republican House leadership, they effectively eliminated 
every summer job for kids in this country--zeroed out the summer jobs 
program. Zero funding. It isn't just the workers, it is the teenagers 
in urban and rural areas.
  I hope we will not hear tomorrow during the debate on the minimum 
wage, ``Well, this is an entry-level job; we want to give teenagers an 
opportunity to work, and if we have an increase in the minimum wage, we 
are going to deny all those teenagers an opportunity to work.'' It 
won't stand up. We will give them the reports, show them the charts and 
the various economic analyses that show their argument is just baloney.
  How are they going to explain that they zeroed out every single cent 
for summer jobs for teenagers in the House of Representatives? Zero. 
They say they care about workers? They claim they care about teenagers? 
The summer jobs program gives them an opportunity to have meaningful 
work, and they zeroed it out.
  Mr. President, this was just a very brief comment about where we find 
ourselves, about who is really interested in working families, and what 
the Republican leadership has been about over the past three and a half 
years.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 minutes 22 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the so-called Truth in 
Employment Act, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it, too. This bill 
is the latest in a long series of Republican antilabor, antiunion, 
antiworker initiatives. They have soothing titles and harsh provisions. 
The GOP's Family Friendly Workplace Act would abolish the 40-hour week. 
The GOP's Paycheck Protection Act would lock American workers out of 
election campaigns. The GOP TEAM Act would bring back company-dominated 
sham unions. Like those schemes, the GOP Truth in Employment Act has an 
appealing title and appalling substance.
  The bill's sponsors claim that it is designed to outlaw salting, a 
decades-old practice of people seeking a job at a nonunion shop with 
the intention of persuading coworkers to join the union.
  Salting was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1995 Town 
& Country decision. But this bill does much more than simply reverse 
that decision. It undermines the rights of workers to organize to 
improve their jobs and also infringes on a wide array of other 
legitimate activities that are important to all Americans. These 
activities include efforts to improve the status of women and 
minorities in employment, strengthen safety in the workplace, and many, 
many more.
  The bill aims at labor unions, but it also hits many other important 
rights. This bill allows employers to deny jobs to people if they have 
``the primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency 
status.'' Those are the words from the legislation.
  The bill invites employers to pry into their employees' activities 
outside the workplace to discover the workers' ``primary purpose.'' It 
encourages firms to ask job applicants whether they are union members 
or civil rights activists and refuse to hire them if they answer yes. 
This blunderbuss provision institutionalizes the blacklist.
  The bill is blatantly antiunion, and its supporters include the 
National Right to Work Committee and many antiunion employer 
associations. But the bill goes well beyond discrimination against 
union members. It permits many other kinds of flagrant discrimination.
  By permitting employers to deny jobs to workers who have ``the 
primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status,'' 
the bill also allows firms to fire or refuse to hire a person who seeks 
to advance the goals of another employer.
  A company can fire a worker who is also employed by a labor union.
  The bill also lets an employer refuse to hire someone based on the 
fear that she might band together with coworkers to push for an on-the-
job child care center. The employer can argue the applicant was trying 
to advance the goal of women's groups to which she belonged.
  The bill also allows a firm to fire African-American employees who 
seek to reduce race discrimination in the workplace.
  The bill lets an employer fire workers who seek to change company 
policy and allow time off for religious holidays, for family and 
medical leave, or other worthwhile purposes.
  This legislation legitimizes discrimination of the most offensive 
type. It encourages companies not to hire women. It invites 
discrimination against anyone else the employer believes might push an 
agenda in the workplace the employer doesn't like.
  It encourages employers to probe into employees' private beliefs and 
activities. Freedom of expression and association are guaranteed in the 
first amendment. For over 200 years, this country has protected 
individual liberties. Those freedoms are essential to our national 
character, but this bill clearly undermines their beliefs.
  The bill's supporters claim they want only to outlaw deceptive 
practices. They contend that employers are victimized by paid union 
organizers who accept a job with no intention of performing the work. 
Instead, they claim, these employees disrupt the job, harass coworkers, 
and file repeated frivolous complaints with governmental agencies. 
Innocent employers are forced to waste time and effort defending 
themselves against baseless charges.
  Section 3 of the bill says its purpose is ``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.''
  Employers are not powerless under current law in the face of abusive 
practices. To the contrary--employers have many ways to ensure an 
efficient and productive workplace.
  First and foremost, a business can refuse to hire someone who is not 
qualified for the job. If an applicant lacks the experience or the 
skills required, the employer can simply say no. Union membership does 
not automatically entitle someone to be hired, nor is it discrimination 
not to hire a union organizer who cannot perform the duties of the job. 
The employer has substantial control.
  The company can also protect its legitimate business interests by 
setting a policy barring workers from outside employment.
  The firm can require employees to forego moonlighting of all kinds, 
from

[[Page S10278]]

driving a taxi, to telemarketing from home, to working weekends at the 
corner store.
  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that such a policy 
can be applied against paid union organizers so long as it is applied 
neutrally to all other types of employment.
  This is a sensible rule. It recognizes employers' legitimate 
interests in workers who are focused on the job. We understand that, 
Mr. President. If the company says, ``No, no moonlighting. The workers 
in our particular shop can only work on one job. We want that for 
business reasons, because we might need to have the workers work a 
second shift or a third shift and, therefore, we don't want you working 
in some other capacity.'' They can do that and accomplish the result 
they claim is their intent.
  That is the Sixth Circuit's decision in the Architectural Glass 
decision in 1997. It says that they can effectively ban all kinds of 
moonlighting if they have a company-wide policy. So people cannot 
participate in other kinds of employment. If they are so concerned 
about that, they can do that. They can do that now. That is a way for 
them to try and deal with this issue if they are concerned about it.
  Employers can also discipline or discharge employees who neglect 
their job duties. Workers who leave their stations or simply do not 
complete the work required of them can be disciplined. In April 1997, 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an employer's right to 
discharge workers who failed to carry out their duties. In the Hess 
Mechanical case, the workers neglected their duties and tried to 
persuade their coworkers to join the union. The court held that the 
employer was well within his right to fire the workers for poor 
performance.
  We understand that, Mr. President. If they hire someone who isn't 
interested in working, will not work, or can't do the work they can 
fire the workers who neglect their job duties. If they are not going to 
do the work for which they were hired, and if they are not qualified 
for the job, they don't need to be hired. If they are qualified for the 
job, they are hired, they work. If they do not work, and they are busy 
in other activities, they can be fired. That is the law of the land 
today--today.
  Union membership does not give workers the right not to perform the 
job. A company can suspend workers who fail to perform adequately. 
Their pay can be docked. Disciplinary letters can be placed in their 
files. In extreme cases, they can be fired. Employers can use all of 
these items, and more, to get the job done. They are far from powerless 
to address the types of abuses cited by the bill's supporters.
  Employers are also free to discipline workers who disrupt the job. 
Harassing coworkers or customers or blocking entrances, intruding in 
other work areas, all of these acts can constitute grounds for 
discipline. Once again, employers have many ways to maintain quality, 
efficiency, and productivity without undermining the employee's 
legitimate rights.
  If the misconduct is extreme, employers can call the police. 
Violence, threats, and intimidation are criminal offenses. Damaging or 
destroying company property is a crime. No employer needs to sit idly 
by if employees commit such gross misconduct. Criminal charges can be 
filed. The offender can be removed from the worksite. These sanctions 
are in addition to all the other disciplinary mechanisms available to 
the employer. Once again, union membership confers no immunity.
  This bill's supporters contend that union members inherently suffer 
from ``divided loyalties.'' They claim that union members simply cannot 
be truly loyal to the employer, cannot give the employer the genuine 
allegiance required for an effective and productive workplace. But that 
extreme antiworker, antiunion view was rejected over 60 years ago when 
Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. The so-called divided 
loyalty antiunion claim is phony. It was used by countless harsh 
employers to deny the fundamental rights of workers. And Congress put a 
stop to it in the 1930s.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
various letters that I have from a number of companies.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Central Sierra Electric Co., Inc.,

                                   Jackson, CA, November 21, 1995.
     Mr. Jim DeWilms,
     Local #684 IBEW.
       Dear Jim: In response to our conversation last week, here 
     is my opinion concerning the benefits and drawbacks to being 
     a union shop. As you know, Central Sierra Electric Co., Inc. 
     has been in business for fourteen years and has been 
     signatory with IBEW for the past two years. Listed below are 
     what I consider to be among the Union's strengths. To date we 
     have found no drawbacks.
       Extremely helpful in getting qualified manpower.
       Notified us of numerous jobs out to bid.
       Given our name to developers & manufacturers looking for 
     qualified contractors.
       Assistance in getting jobs when competing against non-union 
     shops.
       I hope this is of assistance to you. Please feel free to 
     give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Cliff Franklin,
     Vice President.
                                  ____



                                            Tl Electric, Inc.,

                             Mountain View, CA, November 17, 1995.
     Subcommittee Chairman, Peter Hoekstra,
     U.S. Congress.
       To the Honorable Mr. Hoekstra: My name is Tim Long the 
     owner of TL Electric License #701016. I was formerly a non-
     union firm who was just recently organized by the use of 
     union salts from a couple of IBEW locals here in Northern 
     California. After these employees made it known to me that 
     they were affiliated with the union, it became apparent to me 
     that the skill and ability that they had, along with their 
     understanding of their rights as employees could only help me 
     became a better contractor. At no time did they try to put my 
     company in a bad light with my clients nor did they try to 
     encourage my employees to become destructive to my equipment 
     or to stop performing any assigned tasks. What they did do, 
     was to show me they were productive, loyal employees that 
     only wanted my company to succeed and for my employees to 
     enjoy a better way of life by educating them as to what their 
     rights were under the National Labor Relations Act.
       Once I started to deal with the union salts and talk to 
     them and to my employees I felt that becoming union would be 
     something that I could look into. In all my dealings with the 
     local union I was never threatened with any type of action. I 
     was offered help in every area that I asked for and had my 
     questions answered honestly. Since becoming a union 
     contractor I have used the local union hiring halls and I am 
     very pleased with all of the union members who have staffed 
     my jobs. They have proven to me that they can be loyal as 
     employees and to their union and that they are educated men 
     and women who care about their rights and want to ensure that 
     these rights are not denied to them. These union salts are 
     out there trying to educate every man and woman that they 
     have rights. They are not out there trying to put honest 
     contractors out of business. I know that with the IBEW my 
     company will be profitable and my employees educated to their 
     rights.
           Respectfully,
                                                      Tim J. Long,
     President.
                                  ____



                                              Alonso Electric,

                                Burlingame, CA, November 28, 1995.
       To Whom it may Concern:  I am an Electrical Contractor and 
     have been licensed since 1995. I joined the IBEW, Electrician 
     Union in 1993. As an IBEW contractor I have been able to call 
     the union hall when I need qualified electricians to work for 
     me, and when the job is complete I can send them back to the 
     union hall and do not have to worry about keeping a good man 
     even when I have no work for him. So as a contractor the IBEW 
     has solved my labor problems.
       Personally I am receiving training in electrical theory and 
     code requirements. I now have a good health and dental 
     insurance plan, and am participating in a pension plan, which 
     I never had before.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Frank Alonso.

           [From the Labor Times, Kansas City, KS, Dec. 1995]

              IBEW 124 Ties Good Business, Contractor Says

                            (By Tom Bogdon)

       One of the active boosters of recruiting reforms within 
     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 124 has 
     been Carl McKarnin, general manager of the power plant 
     division of Pioneer Electric Co. That is not too surprising 
     considering McKarnin's own experience as a young electrician 
     fresh out of the Navy and seeking a career in electrical 
     work.
       ``I talked to the girl working in the front office (of the 
     union),'' McKarnin said in a recent interview. ``She said she 
     was sorry that no one got any farther without a sponsor. It 
     was a closed-door union. I didn't know anyone at the time to 
     sponsor me. I had no choice but to seek out other unions or 
     go to a non-union shop.
       ``And it wasn't just the IBEW,'' McKarnin continued. ``All 
     the skilled trades were like that. If you didn't have a 
     relative or friend in the union for a sponsor, you didn't get 
     in.''
       Local 124 shunned McKarnin back in 1964, but the 
     exclusionary policies in effect then

[[Page S10279]]

     did not slow McKarnin very much. He went on to build one of 
     the largest and most successful electrical contracting firms 
     in the metropolitan area. And five years ago McKarnin signed 
     an agreement affiliating his firm with Local 124.
       Now McKarnin assists actively in the aggressive efforts led 
     by Local 124 Business Manager Lindell Lee to organize the 
     unorganized sectors of the Kansas City electrical industry. 
     McKarnin is fighting alongside Lee and other Local 124 
     members to eliminate vestiges of the ``Country Club'' 
     atmosphere that for 30 years contributed to a steep decline, 
     both locally and nationally, in the market share of 
     electricians represented by the IBEW.
       Also like Lee, McKarnin does not dismiss the competitive 
     threat to growth of the unionized sector of the electrical 
     industry posed by such non-union contractors as South Kansas 
     City Electric (SKCE). * * *
       ``Unions have got a hard fight on their hands,'' McKarnin 
     said. ``There are several very good non-union companies out 
     there that have good employees working for them. People like 
     Lindell Lee recognize that and are moving aggressively to do 
     something about it.
       ``An example of that is the employees working for us 
     (Pioneer) who came out of SKCE,'' McKarnin continued. ``We've 
     taken in five of them, I believe that's correct. One of them, 
     Tony Galate, has been with us four years and is a general 
     foreman. He's running the new Federal Courthouse project 
     Downtown for us now. That's the largest single contract the 
     company has now or has ever had.''
       McKarnin was born 52 years ago in Liberty and grew up in 
     the village of Randolph in Clay County. He attended North 
     Kansas City High School, but dropped out when he got a job in 
     a greenhouse, later working for National Bellas Hess and 
     Pioneer Bag Co. He joined the Navy in 1960 for a four-year 
     hitch, and was stationed on the aircraft carrier Lexington.
       McKarnin trained ashore as an electrician while the 
     Lexington was docked in San Diego. He described his 14-week 
     Navy training course in electrical work as ``excellent.'' * * 
     *
       Upon returning to Kansas City and, being unable to join 
     IBEW Local 124. McKarnin went to a North Kansas City bank to 
     open an account. McKarnin said the bank president asked him 
     what he did for a living, and that he replied he was 
     unemployed and looking for a job as an electrician. The 
     banker recommended that McKarnin talk to Gabe Brull at Clayco 
     Electric.
       McKarnin was hired at Clayco, whose employees were 
     represented by District 5 of the United Mine Workers, serving 
     a four-year apprenticeship with that organization, which 
     later merged with the United Steelworkers of America. 
     McKarnin, who obtained a GED certificate in the Navy, also 
     studied electronics for two years at the Central Technical 
     Institute and electrical engineering for two years at the 
     Finley Engineering College.
       In 1969, McKarnin worked nine months at Evans Electric with 
     a temporary IBEW Local 124 ticket, helping to build a runway 
     at Kansas City International Airport and the nearby Trans 
     World Airlines office building. He also served six years as 
     president of the 200-member Steelworker Local 14436 which at 
     that time represented electricians.
       ``It's interesting,'' McKarnin observed. ``I've worked so 
     closely with IBEW 124, but I was never a card-holding 
     member.''
       In 1984, McKarnin and his wife Patrick bought Pioneer 
     Electric, which had been founded in 1977. In 1994, Pioneer 
     was sold to Duane Russell, and McKarnin signed a five-year 
     contract to remain with the company as general manager for 
     the power plant division.
       In addition to other types of work, Pioneer services four 
     Kansas City Power Light Co. power plants, the Board of Public 
     Utilities' Quindaro plant, the Thomas H. Power Plant north of 
     Columbia, Mo., and other plants in Denver, Sioux City, Iowa, 
     among others.
       McKarnin said Pioneer currently employs about 160 
     electricians, including about 90 IBEW 124 members and others 
     from Local 226 in Topeka. McKarnin said Pioneer's employment 
     peaked at about 300 last year, including office and craft 
     personnel.
       ``I have worked very closely with IBEW 124 since our 
     employees voted to be represented by the IBEW about five 
     years ago,'' McKarmin said. ``Middle class America was 
     created by the unions. Non-union wage standards are set by 
     the unions. Most people don't realize that. Most people think 
     the employer will automatically take care of the employees.
       ``But if you travel outside this country to anywhere there 
     is no union representation, you have two classes of people--
     the extremely rich and the extremely poor.'' McKarnin 
     continued. ``The middle class of any country is created by 
     the unions. And non-union wages are set by the unions. 
     Usually the non-union shops pay just a little bit less. But 
     they don't pay any more than they have to.
       ``It also should be noted that the middle class--created by 
     unions--pays most of the taxes that have set the high 
     standard of life in this country that is envied by most of 
     the world.'' McKarnin said.
       ``Other reasons I support the union is because of the 
     federal laws they have fought for,'' McKarnin said. ``Look at 
     your air pollution and water pollution laws, at OSHA safety 
     programs. These and other protections were lobbied for and 
     fought for in Washington, D.C. by unions. That's a fact.
       ``Federal labor laws are like stop lights and speed 
     limits,'' McKarnin said. ``Somebody has to set the standard. 
     There are people out there who will kill other people. Maybe 
     they have no respect for human life and human rights.''
       McKarnin, who has assisted in Local 124's organizing 
     efforts at the employer level and also by speaking to 
     prospective union members, was asked if this is because he is 
     an enlightened boss or simply because it is good business.
       ``It's just something I believe in,'' McKarnin replied. ``I 
     believe very strongly in union representation and that would 
     be my attitude whether or not I owned a company. I buy 
     American-made clothes when I can. Most of my clothes have a 
     union label.
       ``Unfortunately some union members don't do the same thing, 
     or you wouldn't have the unfair competition from foreign 
     products. A good example is a union member who drives to work 
     in a foreign vehicle. As owner of the company I have 
     discouraged that and still do. It's not good business.''
       McKarnin said he has been involved with Lindell Lee and 
     Local 124 organizers Chris Heegn and JIm Beem in the effort 
     to organize SKCE.
       ``One employer asked me why doesn't the owner of SKCE want 
     to go union,'' McKarnin said. ``Simply stated, the reason 
     SKCE employees should vote to go union are all the reasons 
     why the employer does not go union.
       ``The employer does not want to pay a competitive wage and 
     benefit package,'' McKarnin said. ``And another thing is 
     young people want the cash money in their pocket right away. 
     Retirement is a lifetime away for them. They don't care about 
     costly benefits such as health insurance, life insurance and 
     retirement planning.
       ``People interested in joining the union have been with the 
     company 10 or 15 years,'' McKarnin continued. ``They've 
     started thinking about the future and realize why they would 
     benefit from joining the union.''
       McKarnin said that while employees benefit for union 
     membership, so does the company.
       ``In the case of Pioneer Electric, the company believes we 
     benefit from union representation,'' McKarnin said. ``When we 
     went IBEW, we had 25 employees. As I said, we peaked out last 
     year at 300. So we have seen some benefits from IBEW 
     affiliation in the availability of skilled manpower. We can't 
     survive without the union, and the union can't survive 
     without the company. That's the bottom line.''
                                  ____



                                              Wilson Electric,

                                                      Oakland, CA.
     Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
     U.S. Congress.
       To the Honorable Peter Hoekstra:  I am the owner of Wilson 
     Electric Lic. #462959 a minority firm located in Oakland, Ca. 
     I was a non-union firm until Oct of 1994. Until that time I 
     had many projects that I manned through the use of temporary 
     hiring halls, word of mouth and advertisement in local 
     papers. I hired an employee who came to work on a fire 
     station that I was doing for the city of Oakland. I was 
     impressed with his skill and the way that he got right in and 
     helped me to get this job back on track. He then informed me 
     that he was an I.B.E.W. union member, a salt and wanted to 
     organize my shop into the local union. I guess you can 
     imagine my surprise to this revelation. He told me that he 
     wanted all my employees to know that they had the right talk 
     about the union, that they had the right talk about other 
     conditions that might be of concern to them, and that he was 
     still a good employee himself and would still be loyal and 
     productive. Not only did this employee remain a valuable 
     asset to my company through his display of skill and 
     knowledge and leadership, he treated my employees with 
     respect and dignity, something that I had been told that the 
     unions wouldn't do.
       Through this union salt, the local I.B.E.W. union has shown 
     me that their membership is committed to excellence on the 
     job, continued education to improve their skills, to working 
     with all of their contractors, to protecting the rights of 
     all people working in the construction industry, to try and 
     educate the public about all of the positive things that 
     unions bring to their communities and that they can be loyal 
     to their contractors and their union.
       I am very pleased to say that I'm a union contractor. I 
     believe that the union salting program is not only a good way 
     to reach out to other working people, but that this right 
     should be protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
           Respectfully,
     Robert Wilson.
                                  ____



                                               Coast Electric,

                               Morgan Hill, CA, November 30, 1995.
     To Whom It May Concern:
       In mid 1992 My company was ``salted'' by a member of the 
     IBEW, a Mr. Pat Mangano, for the purposes of organizing. The 
     work completed was of top quality and we in fact have 
     maintained a friendship. Fortunately I had given thought to 
     the idea of becoming a signatory contractor prior to this 
     event due to the inability of my company to hire qualified 
     people at any wage level. The salting activity convinced me 
     that the decision to become signatory was in fact the right 
     one.
       The contracting business is a complicated one even in the 
     best of times and to be relieved of any problems is of great 
     benefit. Having a reliable and qualified workforce at ones 
     finger tips goes a long way to relieve

[[Page S10280]]

     some of the problems in a most stressful business. Thank God 
     I am a union Contractor.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                William D. Larlee.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Here are individual companies that had been salted. This 
is their reaction to it.
  This letter comes from Coast Electric Company in Morgan Hill, 
California. It says:

       My company was ``salted'' by a member of the IBEW, a Mr. 
     Pat Mangano, for the purposes of organizing. The work 
     completed was of top quality and we in fact have maintained a 
     friendship. Fortunately I had given thought to the idea of 
     becoming a signatory contractor prior to this event due to 
     the inability of my company to hire qualified people at any 
     wage level. The salting activity convinced me that the 
     decision to become signatory was in fact the right one.
       The contracting business is a complicated one even in the 
     best of times and to be relieved of any problems is of great 
     benefit. Having a reliable and qualified workforce at one s 
     finger tips goes a long way to relieve some of the problems 
     in a most stressful business. Thank God I am a union 
     Contractor.

  From Central Sierra Electric Co., Inc.:

       Here is my opinion concerning the benefits and drawbacks to 
     being a union shop. As you know, Central Sierra Electric Co, 
     Inc. has been in business for fourteen years and has been 
     signatory with IBEW for the past two years. Listed below are 
     what I consider to be among the Union's strengths. To date we 
     have found no drawbacks.
       Extremely helpful in getting qualified manpower.
       Notified us of numerous jobs out to bid.
       Given our name to developers and manufacturers looking for 
     qualified contractors.
       Assistance in getting jobs when competing against non-union 
     shops.

  From TL Electric, Inc., 2296 Mora Drive, Mountain View, CA:

       I was formerly a non-union firm who was just recently 
     organized by the use of union salts from a couple of I.B.E.W. 
     locals here in Northern Carolina. After these employees made 
     it known to me that they were affiliated with the union, it 
     became apparent to me that the skill and ability that they 
     had, along with their understanding of their rights as 
     employees could only help me become a better contractor.

  You see the fact is, Mr. President, when unions do use the salting 
technique, they send their best people into these companies. Opponents 
claim that they do not, and that they send people in there who are 
disruptive and harassing in order to break up the shops. In fact, they 
send their better people in to be an example in order to convince 
people to become union members. If they cannot win the respect of their 
co-workers, they will not be able to convince them to join the union.
  I will go on with some of these others when I conclude this evening.
  The principle of basic fairness was reaffirmed in the Town & Country 
case in 1992, decided by a National Labor Relations Board composed of 
members appointed by President Reagan and President Bush.
  In that case, the NLRB emphatically rejected the employer's claim 
that paid union organizers are not ``employees'' under the labor laws, 
and that they are incapable of possessing the requisite loyalty to the 
employer. Instead, the Board ruled, ``the statute is founded on the 
belief that an employee may legitimately give allegiance to both a 
union and an employer. To the extent that may appear to give rise to a 
conflict, it is a conflict that was resolved by Congress long since in 
favor of the right of employees to organize.''
  The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the NLRB's decision. The Court 
described the issue before as follows: ``Can a worker be a company's 
`employee,' within the terms of the National Labor Relations Act . . . 
if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to help organize the 
company?''
  In answer to that question, the Court held: ``We agree with the 
National Labor Relations Board that the answer is `yes.' ''
  The Court noted that the law protects employees' right to engage in 
union activities during nonworking time in nonworking areas. We 
understand that, Mr. President. They are only entitled to try to 
encourage people to involve themselves in union activities in 
nonworking time in nonworking areas. Otherwise, they can be 
disciplined. So we are talking about nonworking time in nonworking 
areas. That is key, Mr. President.
  The decision explained that ``this is true even if a company 
perceives these protected activities as disloyal. After all, the 
employer has no legal right to require that, as a part of his or her 
service to the company, a worker refrain from engaging in protected 
activity.''
  Mr. President, the bill before the Senate destroys this protection. 
It lets employers force workers to renounce their right to engage in 
legitimate, lawful activities. Businesses can discharge employees who 
attempt to organize their coworkers to join a union, or protest 
dangerous working conditions, unfair pay practices, or race or sex 
discrimination.
  This legislation takes a giant step backward. It legitimizes conduct 
that our society has long condemned. It is hard to believe the 
Republican leadership is giving this misguided, antiworker bill such 
high priority as we near the end of this Congress.
  Many of us have been trying to get consideration of the Patient's 
Bill of Rights so we can debate that issue before we recess. And, no, 
the Republican leadership says, no to patient protections that are of 
central concern to more than 160 million Americans who are in various 
health maintenance organizations and managed care plans. But what do we 
have on the floor of the U.S. Senate? The salting legislation. We could 
ask how many Members of this body on either side have read through this 
legislation and understood it. It was scheduled at the close of 
business last Thursday for a cloture vote this evening.

  We could have debated patients' protection Friday, or if necessary, 
Saturday, or all day today. I bet you would have two-thirds of the 
Members of the U.S. Senate here instead of two Members. If we were 
dealing with the people's business, two-thirds of the Members would be 
here because they know the concern that families have about the abuses 
that are taking place. In too many instances in our Nation, it is 
insurance company accountants and agents making decisions on health 
care that ought to be made by doctors. Why aren't we debating that 
instead of an antiworker piece of legislation?
  The silence from the Republican leadership is amazing. ``Oh, no,'' 
they say, ``you can only have three amendments. You either have to have 
your bill or our bill or two other possible amendments because we don't 
want to take up the time.'' Here it is, two Members of the Senate are 
on the floor, and we are moving off this bill to consider the Interior 
Appropriations bill later in the afternoon, and they will be hard-
pressed to get another couple of Senators on various amendments on 
that.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much time does my side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 11 minutes 56 
seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, after listening to Senator Kennedy, I 
feel I should start by checking to see if I have horns that ought to be 
removed. I wasn't sure, frankly, whether we were debating minimum wage, 
family and medical leave, Davis-Bacon, comp time, OSHA, campaign 
finance team or summer jobs program.
  I know that while there is concern about the amount of time we are 
spending on what Senator Kennedy feels is an inappropriate bill, the 
total amount of time designated and agreed upon is 2\1/2\ hours equally 
divided on this cloture motion. I think to the thousands of small 
businesses across this country, their owners and their families, this 
is certainly worth 2\1/2\ hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I know 
that many businesses in the State of Massachusetts are certainly worth 
the time we are devoting to the subject today.
  While Senator Kennedy may be concerned that people have not read the 
bill, it is 3\1/2\ pages long. I suspect that any Senator, between now 
and this evening, will have time not only to study it and to study its 
impact, but also perhaps to read some of the hundreds and hundreds of 
letters that every Senator in this body has received on this subject.
  For the sake of those who may not have time to read what I think is 
very important in this bill, I want to read it for the sake of my 
colleagues and the

[[Page S10281]]

sake of the manager of the other side, because while part of the bill 
was quoted, a big part of the bill was not cited. It is this:

       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, 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 protections.

  That is language directly from the National Labor Relations Act. We 
say there is nothing in this bill that can possibly infringe upon the 
right of a worker to do what they have always done. Salting has not 
been an accepted practice. Disrupting the workplace, causing economic 
damage, seeking to destroy one's employer, has never been an accepted 
organizing strategy in this country, nor should it be. That is all this 
legislation would restrict.
  I suggest that when we talk about families, that we realize that 
small business men and women in this country have families, too. That 
they are workers, too. To invest a lifetime building a small business, 
building jobs and an economic future for their employees, to have that 
destroyed by this insidious practice is indefensible. I am amazed that 
anybody would stand and defend the practice of salting.
  Now, we heard a couple of examples, I think, that mischaracterize 
what salting is. They say it is organizing. There is nothing in this 
bill that would prevent organizing. In fact, it specifically says that. 
So, please, let's not have red herrings thrown in. A small contractor 
in the Boston, MA, area has experienced numerous cases of union salts 
coming into the company under the presumption that at the open-shop 
company they would have low wages and no benefits. That is what they 
were told.
  Every union salt came to realize that not only had the working 
conditions at the open shop been mischaracterized, but they were 
subjecting the company to an immoral and unscrupulous practice designed 
to harm the company. These employees and their families were later 
threatened by union members. Some compelling letters were received from 
employees to their union representatives saying they will quit the 
union and expressing disgust with the unscrupulous tactics they were 
put up to.
  Let me read from one, and I will not use the names because I think 
that would be unfair. This letter is very moving. She mentioned the 
name of the company:

       . . . doesn't deserve the disgrace and shame local 12 wants 
     me to bring upon them. Every one at [the company] has worked 
     too hard to have this done by me. I can't do it. I have been 
     raised different. How can I raise my kids by setting an 
     example like this.
       I have decided to sever my time with local 12 [in Boston, 
     MA.] After 2 years, I'm finally there. If this is how I have 
     to get it, I don't want it.

  And then she mentioned her employer's name.

       Please do not contact me by phone, mail or in person.
       I would like to remain an employee of [this company] but I 
     understand and deserve termination. . . . Do as you see fit.
       I would strongly recommend to anyone involved in local 12's 
     program, [that is referring to the salting program] to get 
     out.
       I don't know how I could face you and do what they want me 
     to do. I'm sorry I've betrayed you. I would like to 
     apologize.

  There are many salts we heard from, former salts who said, ``I got 
out. It was too dirty. It was too much of an unscrupulous business to 
be part of it. I got out.''
  That is what we want to ban--not legitimate organizing, but this 
destructive tactic to go only to destroy the company. In their own 
words, from the State of Massachusetts, the organizing report of the 
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Roslindale, 
MA, this is what they wrote:

       This is the opportunity to strip these nonunion contractors 
     of their most skilled workers and put the nonunion contractor 
     in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill their 
     contract obligations.

  That is not me. It is their own words. Not their best workers, but to 
strip them of skilled workers.
  They say:

       We are stripping quality workers from these shops, 
     weakening their ability to man their jobs. Our intent with 
     this company and companies like them is to put them out of 
     business or have them sign on the bottom line and become a 
     union shop. Our efforts at this major nonunion shop have 
     resulted in a victory from the council. We stripped away the 
     best of their workers so far. They stopped advertising for 
     help, and in fact, they put a freeze on all hiring. This has 
     impeded [the Company's] day-to-day running daily. They need 
     workers at this busy time of year, but they cannot hire. The 
     word from our sources in the company is they will use a temp 
     agency to hire workers. This will result in their having 
     difficulty getting quality, long-term workers and will drag 
     down their standard of worker. We know [the Company] has 
     already been kicked off from one job for not getting it done 
     on time. The less work this painting contractor does, the 
     more there is for our signatory contractors to take on, and 
     the stronger we get.

  That is in their own words.
  You can either accept salting is legitimate, salting is just an 
organizing tactic, or you could listen to their own manual and to their 
own reports that their goal is to destroy small businesses. And that's 
wrong.
  It isn't impinging upon the rights of workers to organize, to 
collectively bargain. It is saying there is a right way to do it and 
there is a wrong way. This was never envisioned when the National Labor 
Relations Act was passed and it should be prohibited.
  In 1996, there were over 17,000 complaints to the NLRB. This isn't a 
rare, isolated thing. There are thousands of frivolous complaints. The 
cost when they are investigating, $17,500 of taxpayers' money just to 
investigate these frivolous charges. That is what we are dealing with.
  May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 7 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Hutchinson's bill, the Truth in Employment Act. This legislation is 
needed to address the problem of salting abuse, which places unfair 
economic pressure on non-union employers and ultimately costs American 
taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
  In a typical salting case, union operatives gain access to a non-
union workplace by obtaining employment with the company. Rather than 
further the interests of the company or even organize employees, their 
true objective is to disrupt business operations and increase costs for 
the non-union employer. This, of course, is achieved in a number of 
ways, including the filing of discrimination complaints with the 
National Labor Relations Board or other regulatory agencies.
  Mr. President, an overwhelming majority of these cases are dismissed 
by the National Labor Relations Board as frivolous and without merit. 
Unfortunately, employers must shoulder the enormous costs of legal 
expenses, delays, and lost productivity, regardless of their innocence. 
One such frivolous case involves Burns Electrical Contractors in 
Charlotte, North Carolina. In 1996, a union salt gained employment with 
Burns Electric after lying on his application about his qualifications 
and his past employment. In actuality, he was on a union payroll for 
$65,000. Within the first week, he began disrupting business, and, 
after abandoning his job, he was permanently replaced. Of course, 
discrimination charges were soon filed with the National Labor 
Relations Board.
  More than two years later, the case was still not heard by the 
National Labor Relations Board. Burns Electric was forced to lay off 
workers and lost several bids on new construction projects. It incurred 
an estimated $250,000 in business losses and $10,000 in legal fees. 
Eventually, Burns Electric yielded to its attorney's advice and settled 
the case (it is often far less expensive for small businesses to settle 
than it is for them to contest the charges). Thus, the union salt was 
successful in disrupting operations and weakening the market share of 
this company, simply because its employees would not join a union.
  Unfortunately, there is no disincentive for filing such a frivolous 
complaint. The federal government funds the investigation and 
prosecution of charges. This, of course, results in a considerable tab 
for the American taxpayer. I am informed that 8,449 cases were 
dismissed and 8,595 cases were withdrawn during FY 1996, costing 
taxpayers $780 apiece. In the same year,

[[Page S10282]]

2,509 unfair labor practice charges were actually investigated and 
prosecuted in front of an Administrative Law Judge. The average cost 
for these cases is $17,500. Finally, 174 charges were appealed to the 
Circuit Court of Appeals in FY 1996, at a cost of $42,700 each.
  As you can see, the Federal government spends millions to process, 
investigate, and prosecute these complaints. And because most of these 
charges are frivolous, taxpayers are actually funding the extortion of 
employers and the manipulation of government institutions. I believe it 
is wrong to use tax dollars to support this fraudulent and wasteful 
system.
  Mr. President, the solution to this problem is simple. An employer 
should not be required to hire any individual whose overriding purpose 
is to disrupt the workplace or inflict economic harm on the business. 
By making this clear, the Truth in Employment Act will bring fairness 
to our labor laws and will go a long way toward eliminating waste and 
fraud in government. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
commonsense legislation and vote in favor of cloture.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we have 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 37 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I am sorry I could not have been here earlier to speak 
against this onerous piece of legislation. The so-called ``truth'' in 
employment act? It ought to be called the ``fear'' in employment act. 
Of all the requirements that a person has to go through to get 
employment, the last thing you ought to worry about is your personal 
beliefs or what you think.
  How is an employer going to find this out? Are we now going to start 
administering ``truth tests'' to people who seek employment? Are we 
going to give them an injection of sodium pentothal so they have to 
tell the truth? Are we going to put them under hypnosis to open their 
minds?
  This is probably one of the most far-reaching, invasive pieces of 
legislation that goes at the very heart of the Bill of Rights. The 
freedom of thought--to make sure that people can't force you, either in 
a court or anywhere else, to testify against your will, testify against 
yourself, or to force you to tell what you think is fundamental to our 
liberty. Yet, this bill amends this principle. This legislation would 
implement a unprecedented chilling effect on employment practices in 
this country.
  I was listening to the Senator, my friend from Arkansas, talk about 
this. Employers already have the ability to fire workers who neglect 
their job duties. In fact, under the Hess Mechanical case, they will 
get attorney's fees for anybody who neglects their job duties and are 
dismissed, if they file a countersuit in court, for example.
  So the more I look at this bill, I have to admit that this is really 
what I would call--and I listened to the Senator from Massachusetts 
earlier, listing all of the assaults that have been made on workers' 
rights since the Republicans have taken charge around here. This bill 
is just another bill on the Republican donors' wish list. That is all 
this is; it is nothing more than that.
  But beyond that, it is a terribly invasive piece of legislation. 
Employers already have more power to tip the scales. If we really want 
to level the scales between employers and employees, we ought to do 
away with the Striker Replacement Act. We ought to make it so they 
can't replace striking workers. That would even and balance the scales. 
But this piece of legislation here, which says an employer can delve 
into the thoughts of a person--my gosh, how far are we going to go in 
this country?
  Lastly, when it uses the words ``for the purpose of furthering 
another employment or agency status,'' what does that mean? Does that 
include, for example, women who come to work and organize to start a 
day care center? How about racial minorities who may want to organize 
or petition for a day off to observe Martin Luther King's birthday? 
That presumably would be covered under agency status. There is no 
definition of ``agency status.'' I understand what employment status 
is, but agency status is a broad net that would capture everything--
potentially usurping our fundamental freedoms to organize and 
participate in important causes.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has laid out quite eloquently the 
reasons why this legislation ought to be stopped in its tracks and why 
we ought to stick up for not just the working people in this country, 
but for the Bill of Rights and the right of people to think freely and 
to act freely in accordance with the law.
  There was a Supreme Court case 2 years ago, the Town and Country 
case, with a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that an 
employees affiliation with a labor union or other group cannot affect 
their employment eligibility. That is what they are trying to overturn 
here, the Town and Country case. It says that it doesn't make any 
difference what you think, as long as you are doing your job. If you 
want to do something outside of the job that is lawful and legal, 
employers cannot require you to disavow yourself of your right to 
participate in that activity, whether it be organizing a union or 
petitioning for workplace child-care centers. I think that is an 
excellent decision, a unanimous decision. We don't get that many 
anymore. Yet, this legislation seeks to overturn that Supreme Court 
decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 4 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 30 more seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 30 more seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is a bad piece of legislation, and not just for 
working people, but for every American, for the Bill of Rights, and for 
our constitutional rights to be free to think and have our own 
consciences, this bill ought to be stopped in its tracks.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, sometimes when I hear debate on the 
floor of the Senate, I wonder what bill we are debating or whether the 
bill being spoken of is actually reflected in the specific provisions.
  I remind my colleagues once again that this bill does not overturn 
the Supreme Court decision, the unanimous Supreme Court decision. It 
does not infringe whatsoever on the rights of employees to organize. It 
specifically states in a provision added on page 4, the last part of 
the last statement in the bill, that nothing in this shall infringe 
upon or affect the rights and responsibilities of the employee. It 
comes straight from the Labor Relations Act that says nothing in this 
can infringe upon that. It says that an employer doesn't have to hire 
someone whose--it doesn't infringe if they want to organize, for 
whatever reason, whatever the cost, or whatever thought. It says that 
if your primary goal in taking that job is not to fulfill the 
responsibilities of the job but is to further the goals of another 
organization or another agency, that employer is not bound to hire you. 
And, yes, they can file a discrimination suit. But now the burden would 
be upon the NLRB lawyers to demonstrate that, in fact, this person was 
a bona fide employee applicant.
  So the employees' rights are absolutely and totally protected under 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton of 
Washington and Senator Kyl be added as cosponsors to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Once again, we get this impression that has been 
presented this morning that somehow these are legitimate organizing 
efforts. Yet, I have read quotation after quotation from the IBEW and 
other unions' own organizing manuals that make it very clear that the 
goal is, in fact, to economically destroy the company and the employer.
  So I will throw one more in. This is the IBEW Organizing News Letter, 
volume No. 1, March 1995, on page 4:

       These companies know that when they are targeted with 
     stripping, salting, and market recovery funds, it is only a 
     matter of time before their foundations begin to crumble. The 
     NLRB charges the attorney fees, and the loss of employees can 
     lead to an unprofitable business.

  That is what they want. If they can't organize, they destroy them 
economically. But it not only destroys them

[[Page S10283]]

economically, it costs the taxpayers, because we are paying the NLRB 
attorneys, and it ruins the reputation of good, hard-working Americans 
who have invested their lives in building businesses. I can't think of 
anything more tragic than to spend your life building a business--
spending 30 years out there starting as a mom-and-pop operation and 
gradually adding employees, providing a good place of employment for 
workers--and then, through this pernicious tactic, see your business 
destroyed and have to close your doors, to see those jobs lost, and to 
say that somehow this is antiworker.
  I will tell you what is antiworker. It is those who would use that 
kind of an unconscionable tactic to destroy the economic viability of a 
business. Yes, it ought to be legal to organize; that is something that 
ought to be protected by law; it is a precious right of workers in this 
country. But it is not a right to go in and destroy the economic 
viability of a company or business of a small business owner. That is 
wrong. I find it amazing that anybody could come down and defend that 
kind of tactic. All in the world this legislation would do is stop 
those kinds of tactics.
  Mr. President, when a union salt goes home to his family, his wife, 
his son, his daughter, and his wife says to him at the end of that day, 
``Honey, how was your day?'' or that child says, ``Daddy, how was your 
day?'' can he look his wife or child in the eye and say, ``Oh, I had a 
great day. I participated in the destruction of a hard-working 
American's life dream and his livelihood''?
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Kennedy's time is 2 minutes 32 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to my friend from 
Arkansas. I read the language of his bill. The words are, ``for the 
purpose of furthering another employment or agency status.'' It doesn't 
say for the purpose of destroying the company. Yet that is what he is 
talking about.

  What is wrong with the purpose, for example, of helping to form a 
union? There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong for 
women, for example, wanting to organize to have a day care center, or 
minorities wanting to organize to have a day off. That is an agency. 
The words don't say for the purpose of destroying a company. That is 
the Senator's own thought process. Furthermore, the Senator from 
Arkansas's argument is faulty in that he claims this ``salting'' 
activity is carried out to specifically cripple economic viability of a 
business. However, I ask, what person would destroy the very business, 
the very thing, their job and living is dependent upon? So it seems the 
Senator's argument is counter productive.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. On whose time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. My time is up. My time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is controlled by the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wish we had more time. We will debate this later.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes, and yield time to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding for the 
question.
  If you will look at the language in the bill, clearly the primary 
purpose is to go in to further the goals of an organization or agency. 
If we go to apply for a job--I ask for the Senator's opinion of this--
it is my understanding that if you apply for the job, the primary 
purpose would be to fulfill the job, and it is not the primary purpose 
to fulfill the goals of the organization. That is why the employer 
would not be required to hire the employee under that. He would not fit 
the definition of a bona fide employee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I don't know what the definition of 
bona fide employee is.
  I am reading section 4 of the bill. 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, in that such person seeks or has sought 
     employment with the employer with the primary purpose of 
     furthering another employment or agency status.

  It doesn't say for the primary purpose of destroying the company. 
That is not it at all.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I could ask one more question, would the Senator 
consider hiring someone in his office whose primary purpose was not to 
work for him, but whose primary purpose was to undermine everything he 
is trying to achieve in the U.S. Senate?
  Mr. HARKIN. No. Obviously, if someone came in with the purpose of 
working for me and doing a good job for constituents that I represent 
in the State of Iowa and is willing to do the job, is dedicated to that 
job but also wanted, for example, to organize an employee's group for 
day care, or for minorities rights, or whatever, absolutely I would 
hire that person. I would do it in a minute. But that example begs the 
question, how can employer determine a prospective employee's thoughts, 
intent, or motives? Subsequently, arbitrarily deny employment to 
someone because they suspect they had ulterior motives. This is bad 
legislation that deserves to be defeated. We should be concerned with 
ensuring fairness and equity for the workers rather than further 
tilting the scales in favor of unscrupulous employers.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I will include in the Record the scores of 
letters from small businessmen and women across the country that reject 
the Senator's proposition and hope that this legislation will not be 
included.
  Second, Mr. President, any of the circumstances that the Senator has 
outlined here can be prosecuted under law at the present time.
  The idea of conjuring up all of these horror stories and then saying 
that is what happens in the workplace as a matter of course is 
fundamentally wrong. That is not the case. If you have disruptions, 
there are perfectly adequate ways of addressing them.
  Finally, Mr. President, the Supreme Court has upheld the concept that 
one can be interested in a good job with good working conditions, 
believe in a union, and also be interested in furthering the interests 
of the company. That is what this proposal would overturn.
  Mr. President, I think all of our time has been used up.
  I yield 36 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just say that I thank my colleague. 
My understanding is that there might be a little time. My plane was 
delayed. I will wait. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. GORTON. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________