[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.

                          ____________________