[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2016-H2021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMOCRATS' ACTIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand
before the body today and talk about what we are seeing happen with
some of the actions our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the
Democrats, have taken and what those actions, the consequences that
they are having on our Nation's economy and the Nation's health.
Madam Speaker, we all feel like that one of the defining, iconic,
fundamental items of this great Nation is our free-enterprise system.
It is an imperative that individuals have the opportunity to show up to
a proper job, to work hard, to get that job, to succeed and then to
share that success with their families. We all call that the American
dream, when you can work hard and build a life and build a nest egg and
retire and enjoy the benefits of that.
It has been of tremendous concern to us, as we have seen the actions
of this Congress and the effect that some of those actions are having
on our Nation's economy. We have seen spending go up. There was a
continuing resolution, supposed to be, that was passed by this body,
but it turned out to be a head scratcher for most Americans because it
was not level funding. It was not continued funding. It was $10 billion
more in increased funding than had been there previously.
Now, where I come from in Tennessee, if you have one number and you
add to it, you end up with more. That is an increase. It is an
increase, and I think most Americans see it just that way.
What we also saw was that departments and agencies did not end up
getting what they had had last year. There was some creative
bookkeeping, some sleight of hand, if you will, that was taking place
in smoke-filled rooms, not on the floor of the House, but with comments
being made like, I am going to pick up the phone and call over to an
agency and tell them how I want them to spend that money.
So that meant picking winners and losers out of the pot of money,
and, of course, in my district, where I come from in Tennessee, we were
very, very concerned that the loser was military construction. The
loser was our men and women in uniform who are fighting to defend our
freedom so that everything we do here is relevant. How shameful, how
shameful that it is their projects that hit the chopping block.
So we saw that spending in that budget go up. Then we have been able
to see what has happened with tax increases. All the language through
the campaign of we are not going to increase your taxes, but we are
going to do all these things, but we are not going to increase your
taxes.
Well, I did a little figuring today to see what had happened with
mandates and taxes and where we were on this issue, and, Madam Speaker,
just to do a quick little checklist, as we have them, we have H.R. 2,
the minimum wage bill. That was a $17 billion mandate on this Nation's
small businesses, 17 B, billion, mandate on small businesses. That does
not sound like something that is very friendly to our Nation's free-
enterprise system.
Then we had H.R. 5, the student loan. That was a $7.1 billion repeal
of lender subsidies, $7.1 billion more that the taxpayers then have to
pick up the bill on.
{time} 1500
Oh, and I know it is sometimes fun to say, wink-wink, nod-nod, fees
and user fees aren't always taxes. But, yes, indeed they are, because,
as Ronald Reagan said, It's the taxpayer that pays. It's coming out of
their pocket. So we see $17 billion on small businesses. We see $7.1
billion on lender subsidies and student loans. That is going to make
education more expensive. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy bill, $7.6 billion
in tax increases. And then, to add insult to injury, $314 million in
repeal of tax credits on those that are out there trying to make
certain that we become independent of foreign oil.
Now, some things are not only counterintuitive but they are
counterproductive. And as we look at this, certainly raising taxes on
those that are working to find alternative energy, raising taxes on our
businesses who are working for clean energy, it just doesn't make good
sense. It defies common sense. We see that in the CLEAN Energy Act.
Continuing on through the list, H.R. 976, the small business bill,
actually is a $45 million increase in taxes. So what we have is since
we have been here and since our colleagues across the aisle have taken
control of the majority, they have increased taxes on their
constituents by $32 billion. That is just tax increases. That doesn't
count the added spending that is coming to this floor day after day
after day, and we know that as we begin to work on budgets in coming
years that that is going to continue to mount up. Because what we have
learned is that the bill always comes due. Isn't it amazing, Madam
Speaker, the bill always comes due. Somebody has to pay the bill. Or,
as my used car dealership in my town says, Somebody's got to tote the
note. And unfortunately it is the American taxpayer that is toting the
note for the Democrats' spending habits.
You can go back to the Great Society and the New Deal and you can
look at the way this bureaucracy has grown and grown and grown in this
town. Madam Speaker, I would guess that many of this body are like me.
They have individuals and constituents from different agencies that are
coming in and visiting with them this week and what we are hearing is
good programs, veterans programs, conservation programs, the money is
not making it to the local level. And why isn't it? It is
[[Page H2017]]
because the bureaucracy is soaking up all of the money right here in
D.C. and our constituents' money is not leaving town. So we look at
this $32 billion that has been raised in taxes since the Democrats took
control, and we know that there is more note that we are going to have
to tote on this budget, but we know they are going to come along and
try to raise taxes again to pay for their spending habits.
We have got the spending that is increasing, we have got the taxes
that they are increasing, and lo and behold this week we have a bill.
It is called, well, you know, I kind of forget the name of it
sometimes. Employer, some kind of name they have for it, or Card Check.
I actually, Madam Speaker, prefer to call it the Worker Intimidation
Act. I think it is a very fitting name for this legislation because it
is not employee friendly, it is not security friendly, it is not job
friendly. What it does allow is intimidation. And I find it so
unfortunate that we see that embodied in this piece of legislation. I
had read a poll that had taken place over the weekend, and it seems
that most Americans, about nine out of 10 Americans, agree with me on
this issue, Madam Speaker. What we see is that most people agree that
an employee should be able to have a secret ballot. That it is
something that as our Secretary of Labor has said, it is an intrinsic
right. It is something that we hold very, very dear, the right to cast
that ballot, to express our opinion, and to do it without fear and to
do it without intimidation. Every worker deserves the right to cast
their ballot and express their opinion.
So this Card Check bill, we are going to hear more about this this
hour as we talk about the actions that have been taken and as we talk
about the consequences that those actions have on the productivity of
this Nation, the actions that those have on those consequences that
affect this Nation's health and its economy.
At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia as
he is joining us in this Republican Study Committee hour to talk about
this issue and the Republican Study Committee.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. I really want to ask you
a couple of questions, if I could, just to have a little conversation
here. You talked about taxes and what was being done. How about the
alternative minimum tax, the AMT, that was put in under the Democratic
majority back in the late sixties or early seventies, that was really
targeted to try to get 28 millionaires out of 250 million people that
live in this country, to target 28 people, to come up with this
alternative minimum tax that says, you know, if you fill out your 1040
and we don't feel like you paid enough tax, in other words, if you had
too many deductions or if your tax really wasn't where we thought it
needed to be, then you have to pay the alternative minimum tax.
I think the lady from Tennessee may have some numbers. I don't know.
I have heard the number that as high as 32 million people are going to
be affected, 10 percent of our population or over 10 percent of the
population is going to be affected by something that the Democrats did
to get 28 people to pay taxes. It should have been a little more simple
than that, shouldn't it?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. That is one of the things we have seen with
these unintended consequences or maybe intended consequences, because
we know for the liberal elite, you can never pay enough tax. And one of
the things when somebody says, well, we need to be taxing somebody
more, I say, you know what, walk on up here, write out a check for what
you think you owe and put it in the box. And I will offer to Madam
Speaker and my colleagues, I have never had anybody say, ``I am not
paying enough.'' I have never had one single person offer to write out
that check and give the government a little bit more. But it is so easy
to say, pay more, when it's not you, it's not me, it's the guy behind
the tree. And that, many times, is where they go, always wanting more
money, because government never gets enough of your money. They always
want more. They think they have a better idea. They think they're
smarter. They think they're brighter. They think that they know more
than anybody else. And the liberal elites do that.
We can go back and look at the beginning of the Federal income tax in
1913. It started in February 1913. Just 1 percent. Just on the few
millionaires in the country to make them pay for a war. And look where
it got us. And with the AMT, it was just going to be on 28 people, just
for a little while, just to get a little bit more out of their pocket.
And now, as you said, estimates of 30 million Americans, men and women
who are both working in order to be able to provide for their children
and their families so that they have that little piece of the American
Dream. And then they are affected by the AMT. They are affected by the
small business tax that has been paid, going to take another $45
million out of their pocket. They are affected by H.R. 2, that minimum
wage bill, that is going to put another $17 billion worth of mandates
on them. We see it just never stops. You give them an inch, they're
going to take a mile. And it is the hang onto your wallet Congress.
They just are coming for everybody's wallet and can't get to it fast
enough.
We want everyone to stay in touch with us on this issue, and as I
yield to the gentleman, I would like to call attention to our poster
there so they can stay in touch with us on the Card Check bill and on
different issues that are coming before us.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is exactly right. Here is the Web site right
here: [email protected]. And you can go to the Hensarling Web site,
our chairman, and let us know how you feel about the AMT. If this thing
has affected you, we want to know about it, because we are going to
make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that this AMT
does not continue to affect more and more of our taxpayers that go out
every day and work hard for their money. And, by the way, they are
probably still at work right now trying to earn some money.
Getting back to the Employee Intimidation bill, is it going to be an
open rule or a closed rule? I don't want to talk inside baseball or get
down in the weeds here, but are we going to be able to offer
amendments? Am I going to be able to offer an amendment to perfect this
bill? Or is it going to be a closed rule like we have been having where
the people of the Third District of Georgia or some of the people from
the lady from Tennessee's district or the gentleman from Texas'
district that has no say-so in the process? Have you heard if we are
going to be able to perfect this bill? Or is this bill perfect? Is this
bill perfect and doesn't really need any perfecting?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I think that what we are hearing from the other side,
they think that they have a perfect piece of legislation. It probably
in their minds would be something that they considered to be perfect.
As I said, they name it the Employee Choice or something but it is
indeed the Worker Intimidation bill, and they don't want anybody to
really bring this, they want it on and off the floor as fast as they
can get it.
One of the questions that we are asked a lot is wouldn't this give
employees more choice over their employment decisions? And we know that
the answer to that is a big ``no.'' It will not. It is going to have
the opposite effect.
We know that just as they don't want a lot of discussion on this
floor about this bill, they don't want employees to have more choice
and more freedom in how they choose to construct their work situations.
I would like to yield to the chairman of the Republican Study
Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, who is joining us. Again, anyone
who would like to be in contact with us and talk about what they are
seeing in the workplace, talk about the increased taxes that the
Democrats have brought forward, talk about the increased spending that
our Democratic colleagues have brought forward, we would encourage them
to be in touch with us at [email protected].
At this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for
yielding. I particularly appreciate her leadership not only within the
Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus in the House of
Representatives, but also her great leadership on issues that impact
the family budget,
[[Page H2018]]
spending, because we know in this institution that you can't increase
some Federal budget without decreasing some family budget.
At the moment we are talking about this thing, what most people call
Card Check, which sounds innocent enough on its face, but I would note,
as my colleagues have said, that it took the Democrats about 2 days to
go ahead and waive their own pay-as-you-go provision that supposedly
made sure we weren't going to get deeper in debt, it took them about 2
weeks to raise taxes on the American people, and, also, almost took
them 2 full months before they started to try to repudiate the right to
a secret ballot of American workers, before they try to take back the
franchise from American workers. They have been very busy since they
took over the House.
Now, the formal title of this piece of legislation that we are
speaking about this afternoon is the Employee Free Choice Act. Now,
Madam Speaker, we know that somewhere running around here in the
Capitol are people who are paid to come up with clever titles for
pieces of legislation. Well, whoever came up with that title surely
deserves a bonus.
San Francisco, California, not exactly known as a bastion of
conservative thought in America, one of their daily newspapers, the San
Francisco Examiner, called that title exquisitely Orwellian, in
referring to the famous author George Orwell and his book, 1984.
{time} 1515
Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but I know when I was in high
school many, many years ago in College Station, Texas, that was
required reading. For those who have read it either voluntarily or
involuntarily, they may recall that to be Orwellian meant to turn
things on their head to call black, white; to call up, down; to call
good, bad. I must admit that the Orwell estate must be doing well,
because people are still clearly buying his works.
This proposed Act has nothing to do with freedom. This proposed Act
has nothing to do with choice. This proposed Act is nothing less,
nothing less than a full frontal assault, a full, frontal assault of a
worker's fundamental right to cast a secret ballot to choose whether or
not they want to be a member of a labor union.
What is more fundamental to our democracy than the secret ballot? It
is one of the pillars. It is one of the pillars of democracy, and yet
the Democrats, in this cleverly titled bill, they want to take that
away.
I might suggest that if they want to take that away, that Members of
Congress who are going to vote for this Act, which will be on the floor
tomorrow, maybe they ought to think about cosponsoring some companion
legislation, and let's go ahead and just spread it all over America.
Why don't we just go ahead and provide for card check for congressional
elections?
Let's get rid of that secret ballot booth. Instead, why don't you
publicly have to come down and take a little card and check in front of
your friends, your neighbors, not to mention those who may not be too
friendly to you, and just say who you are voting for. If it is good
enough for congressional elections, it ought to be good enough for
labor union elections.
Yet, again, Democrats are going to come to this floor tomorrow and
vote on a piece of legislation to fundamentally take away the right to
a secret ballot from workers all across America. By the way, poll after
poll of labor union members say they are against this. They say it is
fundamentally unfair to take away their secret ballot.
Now the labor union bosses making the six-figure salaries out of
their dues, they have a different opinion. In fact, one was quoted
saying ``there is no reason to subject the workers to an election.'' No
reason to subject the workers to an election. Kind of sounds like
something Hugo Chavez might say in Venezuela.
You know, there is just no reason to subject the people to an
election. But it does appear to be every single reason to subject
workers to pressure and intimidation, and that is what this bill is all
about. There have been card check campaigns in the recent past. This is
known, you can go to public sources.
Now there was a union organizing at MGM in Las Vegas and union
organizers threatened those people who would not check that they wanted
to join a union. They said if we want to take over, we will get your
job one way or another. We will get your job.
There was a United Steel Workers official. He was told to threaten
migrant workers with deportation if they would not pick up the card and
check that they wanted to be in the labor union. I don't know where the
freedom is. I don't know where the choice is, but I certainly know
where the pressure and the intimidation is.
Recently, just this last week, we had testimony from a worker in
Oregon who said that when she would not publicly check the card that
she wanted to join a labor union, that her work life became miserable,
miserable when she refused to do this. Again, this is nothing more than
assault on a fundamental right to a secret ballot in a labor union
election.
This overturns decades and decades of custom and practice and law in
America on how people can choose.
Now, listen, we live in a free society. We should live in a free
society. Workers ought to be able to choose if they want to be part of
a labor union. That is not a question. There is only one question that
is going to be before the floor and that question is, should workers
have the right to a secret ballot? Are they going to be open to
intimidation, pressure and shakedown? Not one worker in America, not
one worker in America is going to be benefited by this.
Now, I can think of others who are going to be benefited by this,
because all of a sudden, labor union bosses are automatically going to
have access to hard-working Americans' paychecks where they used to not
have that, to source the money, and unfortunately, so many of these
issues come down to money.
Indeed, follow the money. It may be instructive. The Pew Foundation
has indicated that over half a billion dollars of labor union money has
gone to the Democrat party since 1994. You know, even in Washington DC,
a half a billion dollars is a lot of money. Seven out of the top ten
political contributors in America are organized labor. The American
people don't want this, workers don't want this, even unionized workers
don't want this, but labor union bosses do. They want a fundamental
assault on the right, the right to a secret ballot. What a day of
infamy it will be in this House, should we approve that.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for those well-
structured remarks. Again, we are talking about a bill, a piece of
legislation that would be a big win for big labor. It is something that
they have wanted for a long time. It is something that they have said
would strengthen them, the labor union, and, as my colleague from Texas
said, the labor union bosses. This is where they want to go to build
some power, to have access to those paychecks and access to the
information of what their members are doing.
Now, we have a couple of documents that some of our friends may want
to actually log on and get. Again, at www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc, you
can come to these documents and pull them down. One is the card check
issue, the end of secret ballots in America. I think this is very
instructive.
It is important for individuals to read, and as my colleague from
Texas said, are Members of Congress ready to do away with secret
ballots in their elections? If it is good enough for the American
worker, should it be considered for Members of Congress?
Now, in this document that I have just shown you, there is a list of
groups that are opposed to card check and a list of groups that support
it. Those that support it are ACORN, AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic
Action, Center for American Progress, Council on American Islamic
Relations, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic National
Committee, Earthwatch, Human Rights Watch, NAACP, Sierra Club,
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in Washington, DC,
and UNITE HERE!
Now, the groups that are in opposition to the card check proposal,
the American Hospital Association, the American Hotel and Lodging
Association, Associated Builders & Contractors, Associated General
Contractors,
[[Page H2019]]
Independent Electrical Contractors, International Council of Shopping
Centers, International Food Service Distributors' Association,
International Franchise Association, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail
Federation, Printing Industries of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I also have in front of me the statement that has come to us from the
Fraternal Order of Police. The Fraternal Order of Police in this great
Nation stands against the card check bill. They are not for this, and
their national president has called on Congress to reject the bill.
A couple things I would like to read to be certain that we get these
in the Record, because the men and women who are members of our local
law enforcement communities are there on the front line every single
day defending our streets and our communities and keeping our homeland
safe.
I think that it is worthy that we listen to them and that we heed
what they tell us. There is some wisdom in the thoughts that they
present to us. I am quoting from this press release. It says, ``The
legislation as proposed would replace the current democratic process of
secret ballots with the card check system that invites coercion and
abuse.''
Under this process, the identity of workers who signed or refused to
sign union organizing cards would be made public to the union
organizers as well as to the workers' employer and coworkers, leaving
these individuals vulnerable to threats and intimidation from union
leaders, management or both.
The most common method for determining whether or not employees want
a union to represent them is a private ballot election overseen by the
National Labor Relations Board.
Then going on further and quoting from Mr. Canterbury's release,
without the anonymity of the secret ballot, the FOP would probably not
exist today. The only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion
and intimidation is through the continued use of secret ballot
elections so that personal decisions about whether to join a union
remain private.
That is just comments from one of the organizations that understand
how harmful this piece of legislation, the card check bill, or, as I
have called it, the worker intimidation bill, would be on our Nation's
business structure. This is something that we need to think very, very
carefully about.
Another document that I would love to call attention to, from our
Republican Study Committee, and, again, send us your thoughts at
[email protected], and you can go to our Web site, www.house.gov/
hensarling/rsc, and you can pull this information down. But it is a Q&A
on the card check issue, with some of the myths and some of the facts,
the rights and the wrongs that spell this out, what it would mean to
our Nation's law enforcement community, what it would mean to our
Nation's business community.
Mr. HENSARLING. I wanted to follow up on the gentlelady's point,
again. We are trying to preserve the fundamental right to the secret
ballot in labor union elections. No matter what the opposition says
that this is going to do, what we know is from the actual people,
actual workers who are subjected to this card check procedure, we know
intimidation and harassment is taking place.
Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a statement from
Mike Ivey, materials handler at Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation
in Gaffney, South Carolina.
Statement of Mike Ivey, Materials Handler, Freightliner Custom Chassis
Corporation
My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate the opportunity to
share with the committee my experiences under an abusive card
check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\
years.
Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) in Gaffney,
South Carolina, has employed me for approximately 7 years. We
are a non-union facility and more than the majority of
employees are extremely proud of that fact. The problems we
have started in the fall of 2002.
During contract negotiations for their union facilities,
the UWA and Daimler Chrysler Corporation reached a card check
agreement to allow the UAW to try to organize their non-union
facilities. This agreement prevents FCCC from doing anything
positive for their employees, or discussing the situation
with the employees. This agreement also allows the union to
recruit and pay FCCC employees at this facility to handle
their card check system.
The card check system consists of coercing employees to
sign a card for the union. If enough cards are signed, 50
percent + 1, then the facility is considered to be a union
facility. In this process of obtaining the needed signatures,
there are a lot of untruths told.
Early on, the employees for a non-union FCCC signed and
submitted a petition which clearly states that they want no
union representation at this facility. More than 70 percent
of all employees signed this petition. The UAW and Daimler
Chrysler Corporation received these petitions with no
response, nor any halt in the card check drive.
In April 2003, the CEO of Daimler Chrysler promised the
employees of FCCC a wage increase at a plant-wide meeting. In
August 2003, when the time came to make good on that promise,
the union threatened a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler if
the wage increase was implemented. They feared that
if employees got the wage increase they had long been
promised, it would reduce support for the union. We
obtained free legal aid from the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation, and only after we filed charges
at the National Labor Relations Board, did the union allow
the pay increase.
Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card
only certifies that they attended the meeting. Employees are
also offered a free t-shirt if they sign a card. What they
are not told is that these cards are a legally binding
document, which states that the employee is pro union--thus
placing the union one step closer to their goal of complete
control of the employees' workplace lives without the
employees even realizing it.
In the workplace, the employees running the organizing
campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the
employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile
work environment, with employees who once were friends who
are now at odds with each other.
The employees who are not in support of the union should
have the right to go to work and not be harassed every day.
This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no
end in sight. Faced with this neverending onslaught, we
employees feel that the UAW is holding our heads under water
until we drown.
In April 2005, the UAW obtained the personal information of
each employee. It wasn't enough that employees were being
harassed at work, but now they are receiving phone calls at
home. The UAW also had union employees from other facilities
actually visit these employees at their homes. The union's
organizers refuse to take ``no'' for an answer. If you told
one group of organizers that you were not interested, the
next time they would send someone else.
Moreover, in many instances, employees who signed cards
under pressure or false pretenses later attempted to retrieve
or void this card. The union would not allow this to happen,
telling them that they could not do so.
After 4\1/2\ years of trying to organize our facility, the
majority of employees are still against the union by roughly
a 3 to 1 ratio.
We feel that the aggressive behavior of UAW organizers will
only escalate in 2007. All the union Freightliner facilities
are facing major layoffs in the coming months. We expect the
UAW to turn up the heat at our Gaffney facility to make up
for the dues revenue shortfalls at the union facilities.
I understand that some members of Congress would like to
mandate this abusive card check process for selecting a union
so that employees everywhere will go through what we continue
to experience. Rather than increasing this coercive practice,
Congress should ban it.
Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot vote.
Please give us a chance in our workplace to make the decision
on representation in the same manner.
I will read from it in part, ``My name is Mike Ivey, and I appreciate
the opportunity to share with the committee my experiences under an
abusive card check organizing drive which is still ongoing after 4\1/2\
years.''
So 4\1/2\ years this fight has been going on in Gaffney, South
Carolina. Apparently it is dating back to fall 2002. This gentleman
talks about what is going on in these 4\1/2\ years.
To quote from his letter, ``The employees who are not in support of
the Union should have the right to go to work and not be harassed every
day. This harassment has been going on more than 4 years with no end in
sight. Faced with this never-ending onslaught, we employees feel that
the United Auto Workers is holding our heads under water until we
drown.''
Quoting from his statement further, ``In April of 2005, the UAW
obtained the personal information of each employee. It wasn't enough
that employees were being harassed at work, but now they are receiving
phone calls at home. The UAW also had Union employees from other
facilities actually visit these employees at their homes.'' The
organizers would not take no for an answer.
[[Page H2020]]
``Some employees have had five or more harassing visits from these
union organizers. The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and
pressure is to sign the card.'' That's the pressure, that's the
intimidation.
I would quote further from this statement, ``Moreover in many
instances, employees who signed cards under pressure or false pretenses
later attempted to retrieve or void this card.''
{time} 1530
The union would not allow this to happen. After 4\1/2\ years of
trying to organize the facility, 4\1/2\ years, Madam Speaker, the
majority of employees are still against it by roughly a 3-1 ratio.
He goes on to say, and imploring this body, Madam Speaker, ``Rather
than increasing this coercive practice, Congress should ban it.
Everyone in public office is elected by secret ballot. Please give us a
chance in our workplace to make the decision on representation in the
same manner.''
Madam Speaker, again, every single person who comes to the floor of
the House, the Members of this institution, are elected by secret
ballot. Our constituents, our workers, both union and nonunion, cry out
for the same fundamental fairness and the same fundamental democratic
rights.
But since labor union bosses helped the Democrats, since labor union
bosses need more money in their coffers, they have found a new and
innovative way to get money, and that is through this thing called
``card check.''
And what is interesting, also, Madam Speaker, if you will look at
those who are bringing this legislation to the floor, for example, the
gentleman from California, the chairman of the Education and Labor
Committee, well, he seems to have done a bit of a flip-flop on the
issue. He and several other lead sponsors of this legislation, just a
few years ago, for whatever reason, counseled the Mexican Government
about labor union elections. Let me quote from their letter.
``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not
required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot
is absolutely necessary in order to ensure workers are not intimidated
into voting for a union they may otherwise not choose.''
I mean, this was sent by the sponsor of this legislation. So 5, 6
years ago, he believed that Mexicans fundamentally should have the
right to a secret ballot in labor union organizing. But now, in 2007,
he wants to deny that very same fundamental right to American workers.
I don't get it, Madam Speaker. What has changed?
Well, what has changed is clearly, number one, declining union
membership and an election. And I understand elections have
consequences, but the American people need to be watching very, very
closely, very closely what this is all about, because my guess is most
of them did not vote to fundamentally deny Democrat rights to American
workers, to fundamentally strip them of their right to a secret ballot
on whether or not they care to join a labor union. And so I hope, Madam
Speaker, that the entire attention of America will be on this body
tomorrow.
Again, 90 percent of Americans believe fundamentally you ought to
have the right to a secret ballot in these elections. Survey after
survey of workers, including unionized workers, believe this as well.
But apparently the Democrat majority and labor union bosses who put all
kinds of money into these races believe otherwise. And so it will be a
very significant vote on this House floor tomorrow.
Will this body stand for democracy? Will this body stand for the
secret ballot? Will this body stand for American workers? Or will this
body stand for labor union bosses who want to get their hands on more
worker money?
And with that I would be happy to yield back to the gentlelady.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
And, Madam Speaker, as he said, it took 2 days to go about raising
spending. Within a couple of weeks taxes were raised. We have seen
those taxes be raised on the American worker to the tune of $32 billion
that the Democrat majority has passed since taking control as the
majority party in this body; $32 billion in tax increases. We have seen
spending increased. And now what we are seeing is within the first
couple of months they are going to come along and they are going to
compromise the workplace. And they are going to push a piece of
legislation on the American worker that the American worker does not
want.
And again, looking at the poll that I have quoted from, when you ask
the question, tell me if you agree or disagree with the following
statement, every worker should continue to have the right to a
federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to
organize a union, and nearly 9 out of 10 individuals think that the
worker deserves that right.
You know, Madam Speaker, it is so interesting. We have moved away
from the days of coercion and intimidation and union bosses that would
beat up on people. That is how the National Labor Relations Board came
about, when people sought to have relief from that type of coercive,
intimidating activity that would strike fear in the hearts of families
and fear in the hearts of workers.
And how sad, how very, very sad that in this year and in this time,
and in this 110th Congress, we would take steps that would return to
those ways that would limit the freedom of men and women who have
chosen a profession, chosen a career, chosen a job that they want to
perform and would place them under the heavy-handed fist of a union
boss who would seek to challenge their viability in the workplace and
who would seek to challenge their freedom.
It is my hope that more of our Members will become familiar with the
statistics on this issue, and the desires of the American people, and
will realize there is nothing in this legislation that speaks to free
choice at all. That is a fancy, dressed-up name for card check, which
is a fancy, dressed-up name for a return to worker intimidation and
coercion. And it is unfortunate that we see it happening here in this
body.
One of the things that we do, that we put a focus on when we talk
about our job here and our work here, and those of us in the Republican
Study Committee as we gather and we talk, we talk a lot, Madam Speaker,
about what are we going to do to preserve this great union. What are we
going to do to protect its sovereignty? What are we going to do to
extend individual freedoms? How do we make decisions that are going to
be so that we are certain that we extend the opportunity for prosperity
to future generations?
And I can honestly say, increasing government spending doesn't do
that. Increasing taxes on our families does not do that. Increasing
taxes on our children and increasing the debt that they are going to
bear does not do that.
History shows us that when you create a government program, a
government program continues to grow. I have said many times on this
floor, as Ronald Reagan said, there is nothing so close to eternal life
on Earth as a Federal Government program.
We have 141 programs that we would like to see eliminated or reduced
this year. Unfortunately, we don't see that happening. What we do see
happening is they are increasing your taxes, they are increasing
spending, and now they are going to limit your freedom in the
workplace.
And I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding once again. And
we are going to have a very important debate tomorrow in this
institution about whether or not the Democrat majority will strip
workers of their fundamental right to the secret ballot in labor union
organizing elections.
But beyond that we know what is next on their agenda. It didn't take
them too long, about 2 weeks, to first raise taxes on the American
people; and that is the next big debate that will be taking place in
this institution. It is all about the budget.
Now, everybody in this House, both Republican and Democrat alike,
will all tell you they want to balance the budget. And you know what? I
believe each and every one of them. But there is a very, very different
way to go about it.
Today the debate in the House tends to be whether or not tax relief
that has been granted over the last 5 years was a good thing or bad
thing. Well, guess what? We put tax relief into the economy on this
end, and let's see what comes out on the other end: 7.2 million jobs;
7.2 million Americans who used to
[[Page H2021]]
not have work now have work. How many of them used to have to settle
for a welfare check, but now they have a paycheck?
How many took from the system, from unemployment and food stamps and
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, who now get to pay in the
system because they have a paycheck?
We have one of the strongest economies that we have had in decades.
We have one of the lowest unemployment rates we have had. All of that
was due to tax relief.
And, Madam Speaker, for purposes of this debate, and this is a very
important point, and don't take my word for it, go to the United States
Treasury. Tax rates have been lowered, and guess what? We have more tax
revenue. We have more tax revenue than we have ever had in the history
of the United States of America.
Now, how can that happen? Well, maybe it is difficult to understand
in Washington, D.C., but it is pretty easy to understand in Tennessee
Colony in Anderson County, Texas, that I have the pleasure of
representing in the United States Congress. If you will allow farmers
and ranchers, if you will allow small business people, if you will
allow American families to keep more of what they earn, guess what?
They will save. They will invest. They will go out and create their
American dream and put a new automobile transmission shop on one street
corner. They will add another couple of jobs at a barbecue stand. And
guess what? They create jobs of the future, and we have more revenue.
Now, Madam Speaker, some people may reject this theory. You can't,
you may have your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own
facts. You cannot debate that we have more tax revenue. But some people
don't see a link between job creation and tax relief.
Even if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, if you will look at the Federal
budget, if you will look at the Federal budget, if we had a line item
called tax relief in the Federal budget, it is 1 percent, a little more
than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. Even if that money was
wasted, burned, buried and didn't do any good to the economy, had no
connection to job creation, to home ownership, to people being able to
send their kids to college, it is about 1 percent of the budget.
My point is if you want to do something about the deficit, your focus
needs to be on the spending side. We have a deficit not because we are
undertaxed; we have a deficit because we are spending too much.
And listen, I take a back seat to no one as far as my concern about
passing debt on to future generations. I am the father of a 5-year old
and the father of a 3-year old. But even if we were to balance the
budget today, and thanks to Republican progrowth economic policies, we
will balance the budget, it has very little to do with spending
discipline. We know we don't find any of that among our Democrat
colleagues. It has everything to do with tax revenue growth.
But even if we were to balance the budget in the next few years, as
my colleague from Tennessee has indicated, in Washington, D.C., tax
relief is temporary, but spending is forever. So much spending has been
put on automatic pilot. And it just doesn't grow horizontally, it grows
exponentially.
If we don't do something now to reform the spending patterns in
Washington, D.C., the next generation will face a nasty fiscal fork in
the road. And don't take my word for it. Go to the General
Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the
Congressional Budget Office. They will all tell you the same thing. We
are on the verge of either having to double taxes on the next
generation or practically cut out the entirety of the Federal
Government except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Just think about it, Madam Speaker. There will be no United States
Marines. There will be no Border Patrol. There will be no student
loans. There will be no airport security.
If we don't take fundamental steps now to end wasteful,
unaccountable, runaway spending in Washington, D.C., that is the future
we are facing. The Comptroller General of the United States has said in
testimony before the Budget Committee that we may be on the verge of
being the first generation in America's history to leave the next
generation with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living.
{time} 1545
Madam Speaker, I don't plan to be a part of that, and I am going to
do everything I can to fight this on this House floor. So those who go
around saying we must balance the budget and those who won't do
anything to try to find ways to get better retirement security and
better health care at a lower cost, what they are really telling you,
Madam Speaker, is, I want to double taxes on the next generation. I
want to leave your children and your grandchildren with less freedom
and less opportunity.
Madam Speaker, how anybody can look themselves in the mirror and do
that, I don't know. Again, that is the magnitude of the tax increase
that Democrats are going to have to have if they won't join us in a
bipartisan fashion and do something about out-of-control entitlement
spending. It will be a massive tax increase the likes of which America
has never seen before. And once they impose that tax increase on the
American people, how many of our children will be able to send their
children to college? How many of our children will be able to realize
their American Dream and start their first business? How many of our
children will be able to buy their first home when this body doubles
their taxes for refusing, refusing, to do anything to stop runaway
spending?
So, Madam Speaker, that is where the fight is. That is where the
fight is. Republicans want to try to reform. Democrats want to raise
taxes, but they don't own up to the magnitude of the tax increases. But
the future of our country is resting upon this debate, and I hope the
American people will watch very, very closely.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. As he has pointed out, in the 2006 budget we had reduced
spending by $40 billion. It was called the Deficit Reduction Act, a
first step. Our colleagues across the aisle immediately increased
spending in what was to have been a continuing resolution.
Then we look at taxes. We reduced taxes, which stimulated the growth
of the economy and growth of jobs. Our colleagues across the aisle have
already raised taxes by $32 billion.
And as my colleague from Texas said, we have more workers than ever
in the American workforce at this point in time. There are more
Americans than ever holding a job and getting a paycheck. And over the
past 4 years, we have seen the addition of 7.2 million new jobs to the
U.S. economy. Now, these are not new hires. These are new jobs, newly
created jobs. And, Madam Speaker, I think that that is important for us
to put the attention on. These are jobs where a business owner sits
down and says, ``I can create a new position. We have our taxes down.
We have seen some regulatory relief. We are doing well. We see growth
in this business. We see a future that indicates growth.'' So they
create a new position, and they hire someone to fill that position.
That is how we get business growth. That is how we get business
expansion.
And now we find that on top of increasing spending and on top of
increasing taxes, our friends across the aisle are saying, We want to
let the union bosses get another hit at those workers. We want to take
away the workers' right to a secret ballot. We want to infringe on that
freedom in the workplace that American workers enjoy that was a hard-
fought battle decades ago, and we want to compromise that and give big
labor a win.''
And that, Madam Speaker, is how the liberal elites couch this battle.
It is, as was said in the letter that I read, a return to coercion and
intimidation. It is something that in the 21st century we should not
do. I do personally consider it an inappropriate step for this House.
This House should be focused on how do we expand freedom? How do we
expand hope? How do we expand opportunity? And how do we make certain
that every man, woman, and child has their shot at the American Dream
in a safe, free, and productive country.
____________________