[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4572-S4573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Allard, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 2676. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide 
for inflation adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of 
the National Labor Relations Board; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


 legislation regarding inflation adjustments to mandatory jurisdiction 
            thresholds of the national labor relations board

 Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2676

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MANDATORY JURISDICTION 
                   THRESHOLDS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

       Section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1)(A) Mandatory Jurisdiction.--The Board shall assert 
     jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or 
     category of employers over which it would assert jurisdiction 
     under the standards prevailing on August 1, 1959, with the 
     financial threshold amounts adjusted for inflation under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Inflation Adjustments.--The Board, beginning on 
     October 1, 2000, and not less often than every 5 years 
     thereafter, shall adjust each of the financial threshold 
     amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) for inflation, using 
     as the base period the later of (i) the most recent calendar 
     quarter ending before the financial threshold amount was 
     established, or (ii) the calendar quarter ending June 30, 
     1959. The inflation adjustments shall be determined using 
     changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers 
     published by the Department of Labor and shall be rounded to 
     the nearest $10,000. The Board shall prescribe any 
     regulations necessary for making the inflation 
     adjustments.''.
                                  ____


             [From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 28, 2000]

        Mike Huckabee: Government's Flawed Pursuit of Microsoft

                (By Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas)

       As a lifelong Southerner, I am proud our region is known 
     for its hospitality and common sense. It seems the Justice 
     Department could use a little of both in the handling of its 
     antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corp.
       When Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson recently issued 
     his ruling, he gave credence to the flawed logic upon which 
     the government has built its case.
       That flawed logic should have precluded the federal 
     government from bringing the case in the first place. 
     Washington bureaucrats shouldn't be in the business of 
     choosing winners and losers in the private sector. That 
     responsibility belongs to consumers.
       The government's theory behind the case is that America's 
     high-technology industry has been victimized by Microsoft's 
     stifling competition and squelching innovation. Every piece 
     of the federal government's theory is an insult to the free-
     enterprise system and the will of consumers.
       First, there is no more competitive industry in the world 
     than America's high-tech market. That is as true today as it 
     was before the federal government's five-year, $30 million 
     attempt to regulate free enterprise. There are thousands of 
     companies selling software products today, far more than at 
     the start of the trial.
       And in the time since the federal government and 19 state 
     attorneys general filed their suit, America's technology 
     industry has produced one-third of the nation's economic 
     growth.
       Those facts hardly would support the government's 
     characterization of the information technology industry as a 
     shell of its former self.
       As for innovation, consider the change in the simple matter 
     of personal computing since 1995. In 1995, the personal 
     computer was just starting to have its potential realized 
     with the development--among other innovations--of Windows 95. 
     Just as Windows 95 has since been rendered obsolete by 
     Microsoft itself, so now is the debate beginning about the 
     future of the personal computer as we know it. Many believe 
     the PC soon will be replaced by Internet-based appliances in 
     phones, televisions and hand-held computing devices. The 
     technology industry in 2000 looks nothing like it did in 
     1995.
       Just as many of the technologies of the mid-'90s now are 
     obsolete, so are the issues the government has raised in this 
     case. The high-tech market has moved--and will continue to 
     move--too quickly for any government to keep tabs on it 
     through regulation. By the time federal bureaucrats get 
     around to fixing rules, the market will change them. That is 
     the way of the new economy, built on competition, innovation 
     and customer service.
       The federal government's case against Microsoft attacks all 
     three principles.
       Instead of the self-regulating competition that has enabled 
     Microsoft to lead the technology industry to its current 
     heights, the government favors either breaking up the company 
     or regulating away its freedom to innovate and compete. The 
     federal government's ``remedy'' would insert bureaucrats into 
     the technology market in ways never before imagined. Those 
     Washington bureaucrats would be involved in questions of 
     product design and marketing. That would empower pencil-
     pushing Beltway bureaucrats to second-guess innocent computer 
     programmers and entrepreneurs. The new arrangement would 
     enable regulators to pick winners and losers in the 
     marketplace, stripping consumers of their rights.

[[Page S4573]]

       In a free market, it is consumers, not bureaucrats, who 
     should control the destinies of individual industries and 
     companies. In response to consumers' influence over the 
     market, companies have lowered prices, created new products 
     and focused on customer services. The government's scheme 
     would negate those market forces. It also would preclude the 
     industry and the government from working together to bridge 
     the digital divide, since the industry probably would be 
     forced to raise prices to account for new regulatory 
     compliance costs. Higher prices would prohibit low-income 
     families from enjoying newer technologies, so poor families 
     would remain behind the technological curve.
       The Justice Department has wasted the taxpayers' money and 
     attacked the interests of consumers, from the case's 
     inception to the intentional failure of government lawyers to 
     settle the case to the reckless breakup scheme it hatched to 
     punish Microsoft. The suit is a deliberate attempt by the 
     government to circumvent the economic authority of consumers 
     and entrepreneurs in the free market. It seems the least the 
     federal government could show the American people would be a 
     little bit of hospitality and common sense on this 
     issue.
                                 ______