[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 35 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2043-H2091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
                        EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 203

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act 
     to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, 
     join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory 
     injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing 
     efforts, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). The 
gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I believe on the opening day of the 
session, did we or did we not pass House Resolution 6, that was the 
rules package?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, ma'am, is how many rules of 
that standing rules package did this Rules Committee waive in order to 
do this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, under a 
structured rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Madam Speaker, I am so honored to be here to talk about this rule and 
this bill. There is no fear quite like the fear of losing your job. It 
is paralyzing, because to fear for your job is to fear for your family, 
for their well-being and for your ability to provide for them.
  I know this fear because I have seen it on the faces of the people 
who help to make our world turn, the workers who struggle every day to 
do the jobs we could not live without.
  Before I was elected to Congress, I had the honor to serve as an 
attorney representing many of those workers. And Madam Speaker, when 
you work as a labor lawyer, unfortunately, often you see people with 
that fear in their eyes. They come to you because their jobs are being 
threatened, or worse, because they have been wrongfully terminated 
because they were attempting to organize a union or promote union 
activity to improve their lives and the lives of their coworkers.
  But it doesn't have to be this way. In this country, employees who 
actively promote union organizing have a 1-in-5 chance of getting fired 
for their activities. Every 23 minutes, a United States worker is 
retaliated against for their support of a union.
  In 1958, about 1,000 workers received back-pay awards because their 
employers violated labor organizing laws. In 2005, over 31,000 workers 
received back-pay awards.
  It is a common tactic of those who oppose workers' rights to cast 
those who support them as relics of another era. They speak of unions 
as entities

[[Page H2044]]

that were necessary remedies for abuses of a different time, and then 
they point to the dwindling union membership as evidence that 
organizing is no longer needed.
  But smaller union rolls are a symptom of a larger disease, not 
evidence of a cure.
  The quality of life we know in this Nation was built on the back of 
the American labor movement. More than half of the United States 
workforce says they would join a union right now if they could, yet 
only 12 percent of them are in one.
  Less people are joining labor unions, not because less people want to 
be a part of them; less people are joining labor unions because far too 
often irresponsible employers have perfected coercive tactics to fight 
their creation.
  Imagine if tomorrow you are taken into a room with your supervisor 
who sits you down and tells you, if you support organizing a union and 
the union wins, your business will close down. And then your boss tells 
you, if the union doesn't win, you will be fired anyway.
  The situation is not hypothetical. Research shows us that these 
threats and intimidation tactics are used to inhibit union 
organization. It sure may be illegal to fire an employee for voting in 
support of a union, but it is done anyway. And as things stand today, 
there are no real repercussions for doing so, because there are no 
fines or civil penalties for breaking the law.
  Let me tell you about a journeyman welder from Northeast Ohio and 
what he and his family have endured, all because he and others where he 
worked tried to form a union. His name is Dave, and the company he 
worked for was intent on keeping the union out. And as you will learn, 
the company was willing to go to extraordinary and egregious lengths to 
do it.
  So what happened to Dave? Since he began his efforts to help 
organize, he has been relegated to picking up cigarette butts at 
company headquarters instead of plying his skill in the field in an 
attempt to humiliate him.
  He has been singled out at captive audience meetings with verbal 
abuse by his employer that was so bad that Dave feared it would get 
violent. He has had supervisors make physically threatening remarks to 
him while he was in inherently vulnerable positions working in the 
field. And in a particularly reprehensible action, Dave's wife has been 
targeted for harassment that escalated to such a point that she was 
hospitalized, all to keep the union out.
  There is one thing that is clear, these tactics work. They are 
effective in suppressing the creation of unions, but they are not 
acceptable and they must stop.
  The Employee Free Choice Act establishes real penalties for employee 
intimidation by increasing the back-pay award when a worker is fired or 
illegally discriminated against. It also provides for civil penalties 
for willful or repeated violations. It will act as a disincentive for 
such egregious behavior.
  Furthermore, this legislation allows employees to unionize when a 
majority of workers sign cards in support of organizing, and forces the 
NLRB to recognize that union as a bargaining entity without giving the 
employer the opportunity to unilaterally veto that decision and demand 
an election that offers an opportunity for coercion and manipulation.
  This bill also continues to give employees the choice to form a union 
through a traditional secret ballot election as current law does.
  Now, let's be clear. It does not eliminate the opportunity for 
employees to have a secret ballot election. It simply eliminates the 
opportunity for an employer to require an election by secret ballot 
after employees have already voted for union representation through 
their chosen route of card check.
  Another important aspect of this bill is that it requires the NLRB to 
step in and stop illegal behavior when it is happening.
  And finally, and equally important, this legislation provides a path 
towards binding arbitration for first contracts. Right now, in 34 
percent of cases a first contract is not reached, they are dragged out 
with the hopes of employees giving up and disbanding the union.
  This law pushes both sides to bargain in good faith. And that is 
really where we should be going; a world where both employers and 
employees approach the table with an intention to make a good faith 
attempt to come to an agreement.

  The old paradigms do not need to exist as they once did. I have 
witnessed partnerships between giants of industry and the workers on 
the line that have enabled businesses to thrive.
  Lessons can be learned from situations where employers have respected 
their employees' stated desire to form a union through the majority 
card signing method. Companies like Kaiser Permanente and Cingular. 
Veering away from anti-union tactics, these employers have focused on 
and enjoyed success working with their employees, not against them.
  Cingular has not stood in the way of its employees forming unions, 
and the model they have committed to has not stopped them from becoming 
the Nation's top cell phone carrier.
  It doesn't have to be an either/or process, but it does have to be a 
fair process. And that is what this bill will accomplish.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this modified closed rule and to the Democrat leadership bringing 
legislation to the floor of this House which will provide for an 
unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a 
fundamentally anti-democratic process known as ``Card Check.''
  Today, the Democrat leadership has scheduled a vote on the most 
dramatic change to our Nation's labor laws since the Taft-Hartley Act 
of 1947, which identified and disallowed the most egregious union 
practices of its day. And every single Member of this body will have an 
opportunity to answer very plainly and clearly whether they think our 
economy should be nimble and adaptive to compete with countries that 
present tomorrow's challenges, or mirror the politics of Europe which 
will continue to keep our former competitors on the continent from 
realizing the jobs and the economic growth of the United States. We do 
not believe the policies of Europe are the way to go.
  This legislation will give every single American voter a chance to 
see whether their Member of Congress supports the private ballots, a 
right which is given to every single American voter for obvious 
reasons, or if they support government protection and special treatment 
for labor unions by silencing one side over the debate of unionism.
  Of course, as we watch what is going on today across America, 
everyone will be tuning in to C-SPAN to watch this debate to see how we 
are going to answer a number of statements from the majority about how 
this legislation will provide fairness and will improve conditions for 
American workers.
  What they will not hear from the other side of the aisle is an 
explanation about why 16 Democrat cosponsors of this legislation 
previously signed a letter to the Mexican government imploring it to 
use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections because it 
would ensure that workers would not be intimidated into voting for a 
union that they would not have otherwise had.
  Madam Speaker, I could argue this sentiment even more. I would like 
to insert a copy of this letter into the Congressional Record, and I 
doubt that that body will get an explanation from these signatories why 
they believe it is a matter of fairness that Mexican workers deserve 
protection from coercion, while American workers do not. We will find 
out. Perhaps they will take an opportunity to enlighten us later today.
                                                  August 29, 2001.
     Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla, 
       Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero,
     7 Norte, Numero 1006 Altos, Colonia Centro, Puebla, Mexico 
         C.P. 72000.
       Dear Members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje 
     of the State of Puebla: As members of Congress of the United 
     States who are deeply concerned with international labor 
     standards and the role of labor rights in international trade 
     agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret 
     ballot in all union recognition elections.
       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 that 
     workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they 
     might not otherwise choose.

[[Page H2045]]

       We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading 
     partner. and we feel that the increased use of the secret 
     ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real 
     democracy to the Mexican workplace.
           Sincerely,
         George Miller, Marcy Kaptur, Bernard Sanders, William J. 
           Coyne, Lane Evans, Bob Filner, Martin Olav Sabo, Barney 
           Frank, Joe Baca, Zoe Lofgren, Dennis J. Kucinich, 
           Calvin M. Dooley, Fortney Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, 
           James P. McGovern, Lloyd Doggett.

  Madam Speaker, the supporters of this legislation will also avoid 
coming to the floor to explain the fairness of allowing for the 
certification of unions through card check, but forcing workers who 
want to decertify their union to go through the same ballot process.

                              {time}  1030

  Once again, rather than providing ``fairness,'' it seems like this 
legislation is providing special consideration and privileges for 
unions.
  Supporters of this legislation will be notable by their silence in 
today's debate about how intimidating workers through harassment, lies, 
and fear tactics into signing these cards improves workers' conditions. 
In fact, sending card check collectors to workers' homes and providing 
unfair labor practices in order to legitimize a card check campaign, as 
testified by former union organizers in the only House hearing on this 
legislation, seems to do exactly the opposite for American workers.
  Finally, I fail to see how fining employers who take the initiative 
to provide improvements in compensation or working conditions during a 
unionization attempt is about ``improving workplace conditions.'' If 
this legislation's supporters were supportive of improving working 
conditions, it would seem like an employer's unenforced offer to 
improve them would be something that they would obviously support. 
Perhaps they will enlighten us. I am certainly not holding my breath.
  I don't think that the Members of this body or the American voters 
will hear the explanations for these or other contradictions between 
the Democrats' bumper sticker slogans and what the bill actually does 
because this legislation is not about ``providing fairness'' or 
``improving workers' conditions.'' It is about shielding unions from 
competition and stacking the deck in favor of union bosses at the 
expense of the workers.
  It is obvious why union bosses would be pushing for this special 
consideration when one looks at membership trends over the last 60 
years. In 2006, the percentage of employees in unions was 12 percent. 
This is down from 20 percent in 1983 and 35 percent in the 1950s. 
Today's increasingly mobile workforce no longer sees the value that 
unions add to their careers and increasingly resent being forced to pay 
compulsory dues, which can total thousands of dollars a year, to union 
bosses that are unresponsive to their needs and increasingly support 
policies that are counter to their interests.
  Let me give one short example from my hometown in Dallas, Texas. Last 
July the Department of Transportation announced it was opening up a new 
route to China, and American Airlines, which is based in Dallas/Fort 
Worth Metroplex, filed a proposal to serve this route from the DFW 
Airport. Unfortunately for consumers, servicing this flight would have 
exceeded the flying time cap demanded by the Allied Pilots Association 
by an average of 15 minutes. Despite having waived this cap a year 
earlier during negotiations on another route from Chicago to Delhi, 
India, and despite the fact that this route would have established a 
new foothold in Asia for America to produce more jobs for members of 
the union in the future, union bosses for the pilots dug in their heels 
and cratered the deal.
  So an opportunity that meant a great deal to creating more pilots' 
jobs, and also meant a great deal to the future of an airline fresh off 
bankruptcy and other employees, travelers, and shareholders impacted by 
the deal, was stopped by a few bosses in the union leadership who said 
simply ``no'' and put an end to the entire process.
  Madam Speaker, with cases like these, it is no wonder that fewer and 
fewer Americans believe that unions speak on their behalf and that 
union bosses must now come hat in hand to the House floor asking 
Members of Congress to stack the deck in their favor.
  I am asking every single one of my colleagues to stand up and oppose 
this process, this rule and the underlying legislation. This bill is a 
blatant attack on the free enterprise system as we know it in America 
today because it is a new government intervention into personal 
decision-making that allows the deck to be stacked in favor of the 
union bosses looking to pad their dues-paying membership. It will 
submit employees to intimidation tactics of hired union guns without 
regard to improving their working conditions.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would like to remind the 
gentleman from Texas that this does not eliminate the right of 
employees to have a secret ballot. They still have that choice. It 
simply eliminates the practice of employers superseding the employees' 
will by requiring them to submit to a secret ballot election.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman, the distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee, from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, our American democracy depends 
on a strong middle class, and our middle class has relied on 
institutions that support working Americans. The American institution 
that has done more to strengthen the backbone of our democracy and the 
rights of American workers is the labor union.
  At a time when you would least expect it, the middle-class American 
is losing ground. Corporate profits are up. Executive pay is up. 
Productivity of our workers is up. And yet our middle class is under 
assault. Worker incomes haven't kept pace with rising costs for 
education, health care, energy, transportation, child care, and 
housing. We haven't faced greater income inequality since before the 
Great Depression.
  Why is it that as our economy grows and CEOs have unfettered freedom 
to negotiate lavish contracts, our workers are left behind?
  Many believe, as I do, that strengthening the rights and 
opportunities of workers will increase opportunities for all and 
strengthen the American economy. Our economy has done best when all 
share in a stake in its success and all share in its rewards.
  Congress can help our workers achieve better wages, benefits, and 
working conditions. We can help level the playing field. The Employee 
Free Choice Act is based on the simple proposition that workers should 
have a protected right to organize when they choose to do so. That 
right must be straightforward, enforceable, and fair. If a majority of 
workers sign up for a union, they form a union. It is that simple.
  Congress today can play a positive role in promoting the vibrancy of 
our democracy and helping workers get ahead. Last month we began to do 
so by raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, and 
lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Today we act to protect the 
rights of workers as they pursue the American Dream.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from the Rules Committee, Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend 
from Texas for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I come to this debate as a strong supporter of the 
right of collective bargaining. I, in my personal experience not only 
as a lawyer but someone obviously who has been long interested in 
issues related to our rule of law including the right of collective 
bargaining, have witnessed examples of coercion in the workplace and 
many more examples I have witnessed actually coming from management 
than from labor. And I think that that is unacceptable. As a matter of 
fact, as I told the distinguished author of this legislation when he 
appeared before the Rules Committee, I think there are important 
aspects of this legislation, from my vantage point, that are positive, 
such as increased enforcement with regard to unfair labor practices 
that I would like to see move forward and actually could very much 
support because I think that coercion goes at the heart and attacks, 
attacks our rule of law in a most insidious manner.
  But I also think that the right to the secret ballot is 
extraordinarily important. And I know that my good friend

[[Page H2046]]

Mr. Sessions made reference to a letter, which I think is important 
because the letter deserves not only attention but respect, a letter 
that was sent by the distinguished author of this legislation and other 
distinguished Members of this House just a few years ago when there was 
an organizing campaign going on in the state of Puebla in Mexico, and 
this letter was sent to the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del 
Estado of the state of Puebla. I guess that could be translated as the 
mediation and arbitration board of that state.
  And the distinguished signers pointed out not only, and I quote, ``We 
encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition 
elections,'' but the letter goes on to say, ``We feel that the secret 
ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not 
intimidated into voting for a union that might not otherwise be their 
choice.''
  Now, it is important to recognize, as I did before, that I think 
there are more examples of intimidation from management than from 
unions, but the reality of the matter is that in this life I have never 
met a saint, much less an angel, and intimidation is a fact of life. 
And that is why in our human development, our imperfect human 
development, what we have achieved in terms of the ability for men and 
women to express their true sentiments is the secret ballot. And 
current law, by the way, permits, yes, it can be negotiated away. We 
give great weight and credence in our system to the right to contract, 
and the right to the secret ballot can be contracted, can be negotiated 
away. But it has to be mutually agreed to, according to current law, or 
if it is not mutually agreed to by employer and employees, then 
according to current law, 30 percent of the employees, if they sign 
cards, can have an election. So 30 percent of the workers in a unit 
can, by signing cards, get an election scheduled.
  Now, I think we should work on expediting elections by the NLRB, and 
we should work to make sure that elections for certification are as 
expedited as they are for decertification. That is another issue that I 
would like to work with my colleagues on. But I cannot support this 
legislation which goes to the heart of that most essential aspect of 
the right of human beings to express themselves in private, which is 
the secret ballot.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative 
Sutton from Ohio, who has been fighting her whole career for the 
hardworking families in Ohio and now in the Congress is fighting for 
American workers throughout our country.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. This 
legislation serves as tangible evidence of the new direction being 
charted by this new Congress under Speaker  Nancy Pelosi.
  A few weeks ago, this new Congress voted to raise the minimum wage. 
Well, like the minimum wage, the Employee Free Choice Act demonstrates 
our values and our commitment to stand beside hardworking men and women 
against powerful interests. This bill will restore the balance in the 
workplace and restore the National Labor Relations Act to its original 
purpose.
  It is unfortunate that in the blinding zeal for profits, inordinate 
profits, for a few, there are unscrupulous employers that stall for 
time after they learn that employees want to band together to advocate 
for a better workplace.

                              {time}  1045

  Let me give you some real life examples from my part of Florida. One 
very large Central Florida employer used delays and its insistence on a 
secretive election to put together a highly structured unlawful 
campaign of coercion and intimidation. Hundreds of supervisors were 
trained to conduct scripted meetings with small groups of employees and 
then the employees were forced to attend meetings replete with promises 
and threats. Day after day, week after week, the company ground down 
these folks in this illegal psychological war on employees. This must 
end.
  In another example, one central Florida company used the time waiting 
for the election to film employees in the workplace and then produce a 
film that wove in their pictures, their smiling faces, into a virulent 
anti-union film. In this illegal activity, the employees were forced to 
watch the film, which was slanted to give the false impression that 
those employees who had supported the UAW had switched sides. These are 
real-life examples, but it should not be this way.
  The people of America know what has been going on. For too long, 
powerful special interests have held sway in the halls of Congress. 
Well, this new Congress in its first 100 days has stood up to these 
powerful special interests, whether it is raising the minimum wage, 
standing up to the big drug companies, standing up to the big oil 
companies.
  There is a new day in America, and I am proud to stand today with my 
hard-working neighbors against powerful interests that would like to 
keep the act of joining a union more of a risk, rather than a right. I 
am proud to stand today with our Speaker and this new Congress to chart 
a new direction for our country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, it is now March 1, the third month since 
the Democrat Party took over Congress. For the first 2 months, after 
campaigning on a platform of reform, after years of complaining about 
alleged unfair process abuse by Republicans, Americans have been able 
to watch an unprecedented continued abuse of power in this House.
  After the abuse of power during the first 100 hours, we thought the 
aberration would end. Surely basic voting rights would return. In 
February, the abuse of power continued. The minority was deprived of 
basic voting rights through most of February as well.
  The American people voted last fall for change. They don't want to 
hear us complain about process. But process does matter. We are a 
republic, where we expect a democratic process, minority protections 
and the right to vote.
  Now, to start month 3 of Democrat control, the Democratic Party has 
brought forth a bill that deprives the American workers of the right to 
a private ballot. They have moved from abuse of power and undemocratic 
methods in Congress to applying this abuse of power directly to the 
American people.
  Put yourself in the shoes of an average American worker trying to 
decide whether they want to vote for or against establishing a union at 
the workplace. You would get lobbied on every side, but at least you 
get a private ballot. The bill before us today would deprive you of 
that private ballot. The card check replaces the vote. If a majority 
signed the card, there is no private vote. So a friend comes up to you 
with a card asking you to sign and you say you want to think about it. 
So a group comes encouraging you to sign, maybe even shunning you if 
you don't.
  But it gets worse. The process called ``salting'' allows roaming 
union organizers to go from company to company, not as long-term 
employees committed to keeping the plant profitable and the jobs in the 
community, but committed to expanding their special interest union. 
Often they are heavy influencers, sometimes even a thug or two. You may 
receive visits from them as well.
  In the Education and Labor Committee, the Democrats unanimously even 
voted down an amendment that would have said only American citizens can 
vote. You now, as an American worker, can have the majority of illegals 
sign a card and you are now bound to a union.
  This bill, because of its overt hostility to business, has unfair 
stiffer penalties for business than unions for the same violation of 
the law. We wanted to offer an amendment to equalize the playing field, 
but Congress was denied the right to vote on this and other amendments.
  The Democratic Party seems determined to eliminate the right to 
fairness and a private vote in union organizing elections and they 
won't even let Congress have clear votes on many of the amendments to 
protect the workers. Yet people wonder why some of us refer to them as 
the Democrat

[[Page H2047]]

party rather than the Democratic Party. Their actions speak louder than 
their words.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support as a family member 
from a strong union background. My father was a shop steward for the 
Teamsters and my mother was a proud worker for the United Rubber 
Workers, who worked tireless for 20 and 25 years. Without the health 
protection we received and the retirement benefits, I know myself and 
my seven siblings wouldn't be where we are today.
  It is important for people to have the ability, especially in this 
day than a time, when new women, new immigrants, are coming about, and 
want to be part of the American fabric. One of the ways they can do 
that is by joining the union, being part of that, to have those 
protections in place.
  When union people get paid good wages, that money stays in the 
community, it helps to provide a vibrant economy, it helps to also even 
send their children, like me, who is a child of immigrants and of a 
union household, to be able to come to college and to eventually even 
run for office. Wow. Outstanding.
  The unions always get a bad name by certain people in this area, but 
I will tell you one thing: I am very proud to stand with many of our 
union members to see how they have revitalized many of our communities, 
especially in Los Angeles.
  I ask for you to support H.R. 800.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this modified closed rule 
today. Although several worthy amendments were offered in the Rules 
Committee last evening, and I am grateful I will have the privilege to 
offer one here on this floor later on today, but only three were made 
in order, and three of those that were not made in order deserve 
special mention, I believe, here in this rules debate that we are 
having.
  The first would be Representative Musgrave's amendment to repeal 
those provisions that permit employers to require employees to join or 
pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment, that being 
the right to work amendment. I have long supported that language, going 
clear back into the seventies as an employer and a small business 
owner.
  Secondly, Representative Emerson and I both submitted separate 
amendments that would exempt businesses employing 50 individuals or 
less from the legislation.
  Third, Representative Chabot attempted to exempt small businesses by 
using the Small Business Administration definition.
  I have spent my life in small business. I started one in 1975. I met 
payroll for over 28 years. That is over 1,400 consecutive weeks. I 
faced the regulations day by day by day, and one of the reasons I 
stepped into public life was to try to reduce the regulations that are 
so oppressive to small business.
  One of the things that you will realize when you are a small business 
owner and entrepreneur is that you have to be an expert in all things. 
You can't have a whole floor of lawyers that are there to sort out all 
the regulations, and you surely cannot have union members that are in 
there that are there to organize your employees in a fashion that is 
unfair.
  If you are a small business, and say you have 12 or 15 employees, and 
I actually saw this happen on a job where there were 18 heavy equipment 
operators back in the early '70s asked to vote on whether we would go 
union or not, and I know exactly how every single member of that crew 
voted today. I can name them. I can tell you how they voted. You know 
that in that kind of an environment.
  We are here without a secret ballot. That is what is taken away from 
this. I hopefully will be able to offer a motion to recommit based upon 
that. But that is the Charlie Norwood language that needs to be 
considered here. There has got to be a secret ballot to protect small 
employers' employees, especially because the intimidation effect is far 
greater in a small company than it is in a large company. If I can 
remember over a period of 34 years how they voted on that vote back on 
that job in the interstate in Iowa City, then you will know every week 
how your colleagues are going to vote.
  We need to respect the initiative of Charlie Norwood, our good 
friend. We need to protect small business. We need to exempt small 
businesses from this. We are not going to get that real debate on 
exempting small businesses here, Madam Speaker, and that is 
unfortunate.
  I appreciate the fact that this process has been opened up some, but 
I do think if there is an idea that is good enough that you can present 
it and say this should be etched in stone for all of America, which 
this overall bill does, this card check bill, then we ought to at least 
have the courage of our convictions and debate those convictions here 
on the floor of the House of Representatives here in the United States 
Congress. A rule that doesn't allow that then is a rule that tells me 
the courage of your convictions really aren't there.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule.
  Like many of my colleagues who we have heard from today, my family 
was built on good working class union jobs. My grandfather and great-
grandfather worked at Fafnir Ball Bearing in New Britain, Connecticut, 
and I am, in some sense, the product of that American dream, a dream in 
which my grandfather's daughter could be the first woman in her family 
to go to college, a dream in which his grandson could be standing here 
on the floor of the House of Representatives, fighting for what is 
right and what is fair in the workplace.
  But, Madam Speaker, this disappearing middle-class has no lobby here 
in Washington, DC. They are not organized as a special interest. And 
maybe because of this, their interests haven't been very well 
represented on this floor in the past several years. But things are 
changing.
  Workers who belong to unions on average earn 30 percent more than 
nonunion workers. They are 63 percent more likely to have health care. 
They are four times more likely to have pension benefits. But 
unfortunately, over the years, the rights of these workers to join 
unions and to bargain collectively with their employers have eroded 
because of anti-union campaigns, employee intimidation and ineffective 
penalties for employers who violate worker rights.
  Today, we are making standing up for what is right in the workplace a 
little easier, Madam Speaker. This isn't about making doing business 
more difficult; this is about strengthening the society in which 
families like mine were allowed to succeed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member 
of the Rules Committee, who argued very strenuously yesterday on behalf 
of the free enterprise system for America.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for his very 
able handling of this rule, and I congratulate my friend from Ohio as 
well.
  Madam Speaker, I have to rise in strong opposition to this rule. We 
were yesterday on the House floor listening to the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services argue passionately in 
support of the need for an open amendment process and how great it is. 
And yet today we are given a rule that denies 12 of the 15 amendments 
that were submitted to us.
  It is interesting, the bill yesterday that was controversial enough 
that we had an open rule for it passed by a vote of, I think 423 to 
zip, 423-0. There was no controversy whatsoever. We had three 
amendments that we voted on here. But it was an open rule.
  Now we have a bill that is slightly controversial. In fact, it is 
extremely controversial. And yet we have closed down the amendment 
process, preventing Democrats and Republicans from having an 
opportunity to participate in this process, as they should.
  We, Madam Speaker, when we proceeded with the Rules Committee

[[Page H2048]]

meeting last night, my very good friend from Martinez, California, the 
distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. 
Miller, proceeded as he was sitting with the distinguished ranking 
Republican, Mr. McKeon, at the table, to tell me that I hadn't read the 
bill and I knew nothing about labor law.
  Well, I will tell you this: I admitted at that moment that I had not 
read the bill. But I have read the bill since that time, Madam Speaker. 
And I have not become a labor lawyer overnight, but I will say that I 
have talked to a lot of people who are expert on this issue, and I have 
come to the conclusion that the sanctity of the secret ballot is 
something very, very important and very, very precious.
  We in the Rules Committee spent a lot of time on the issue of 
institutional reform and, as we all know, for the first time ever, we 
got the Federal Government involved in providing Federal resources for 
local elections. Why? In the wake of the 2000 election, there was 
clearly a lot of controversy. Especially our friends from Florida 
raised a lot of understandable concerns.
  So the Federal Government got involved and we have put literally 
billions of dollars into our quest to ensure the sanctity of that 
secret ballot. Yet at this moment, for this institution, we are 
embarking on legislation which will take a retrograde step on the very 
important secret ballot for the American worker.
  Obviously, in the last half century we have seen a great diminution 
in the numbers of people who are in unions today. In the 1950s, roughly 
35 percent of the American workers were members of unions. Today, it is 
something like 7.5 percent. It has dropped dramatically. And that is 
due to the choice that exists that people have made.
  We have a strong economy, a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, growing 
increasing incomes that are taking place right now, and as we look at 
the challenge that many union organizations have with the auto industry 
and other industries, I believe that union control has really played a 
role in jeopardizing their potential for even greater success.
  We got the report yesterday that Tupelo, Mississippi, is going to be 
the site of a new Toyota plant, 2,000 employees, who will be earning 
$20 an hour, substantially higher than the wage rates that are paid in 
other parts of that region, high wage rates for virtually anyone around 
the country. It is very, very impressive that we are looking at this 
growth. And there is a sadness that many people have over the fact that 
the big three auto makers here in the United States are faced with real 
difficulty.

                              {time}  1100

  Well, Madam Speaker, I argue that part of that challenge has been the 
overwhelming control that unions have had and the union leadership has 
really jeopardized the opportunity for individual choice for members.
  I don't stand alone. Mr. McKeon just handed me a copy of this 
morning's Los Angeles Times. I do not always agree with the editorial 
policy of my friends of what I call my hometown paper, the L.A. Times, 
but I know them well and try to find areas of agreement. As I say, I 
don't always agree with them.
  But today, they have provided an editorial and I think it is very 
enlightening. The close of this editorial said: ``Unions once supported 
the secret ballot for organization elections. They were right then and 
are wrong now. Unions have every right to a fair hearing, and the 
National Labor Relations Board should be more vigilant about attempts 
by employers to game the system. In the end, however, whether to 
unionize is up to the workers. A secret ballot ensures that their 
choice will be a free one.''
  Madam Speaker, we are undermining that with this legislation that we 
are about to embark upon here today. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the honorable gentleman 
from Texas, I would just like to point out to my distinguished friend 
from the Rules Committee that the sanctity of the secret ballot is 
preserved in this bill. We have said it before, but the option for 
employees to have a secret ballot remains. The difference is just that 
under this bill, the employees cannot be forced by an employer after 
they have expressed their desire to form a union to submit to a secret 
ballot to drag things out.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green).
  (Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, let's not forget that it was 
with the help of organized, unionized workers that we acquired the 40-
hour work week, that we instilled child labor laws, that we have paid 
leave, that we have pensions, and that we have health care.
  Madam Speaker, in a world where loyalty to workers is becoming an 
endangered species, the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act helps 
to level the playing field between industry and workers, and it will 
give workers a fair chance to organize and fight invidious outsourcing. 
Our jobs are being taken overseas. We need to have workers on the 
ground in a position to fight this. It will give workers an opportunity 
to preserve health benefits and an opportunity to protect pensions.
  Workers are the first line of defense when it comes to protecting the 
standard of living that we have in this country. We must level the 
playing field and pass the Employee Free Choice Act. I encourage all of 
my colleagues to do so.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of giving our working 
men and women a fair chance and a free choice to form a union. As one 
of 234 cosponsors of this legislation I can confidently tell the men 
and women who literally make this country run that you are not alone in 
your fight for higher wages, improved benefits, and better working 
conditions. I can confidently tell you that we understand that the 
right to unionize is the right to pursue the American dream.
  It is as a result of unions that we can enjoy weekends with our 
families. It is as a result of unions that we can benefit from basic 
health and safety protections. It is as a result of unions that we can 
take advantage of family and medical leave.
  Unfortunately, under the current labor law system, employers often 
use a combination of legal and illegal methods to silence employees who 
try to form unions. The law says that employers cannot intimidate, 
coerce, or fire employees for attempting to exercise their democratic 
rights.
  Yet, in reality: Every 23 minutes a worker is illegally fired or 
discriminated against for their support of a union. 34 percent of 
employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribes or special 
favors. 51 percent of employers illegally threaten to close down 
worksites if employees vote for union representation. 75 percent of 
employers hire anti-union consultants to help kill union organizing 
drives. 91 percent of employers force workers to attend intimidating 
one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors.
  Madam Speaker, some people say that liars figure and figures lie, but 
I want the American people to hear these figures and decide for 
themselves whether they believe that American workers should have the 
right to unionize:
  Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union 
workers. Workers who belong to unions are 63 percent more likely to 
have employer-provided health care than non-union workers. Workers who 
belong to unions are 77 percent more likely to have jobs that provide 
short-term disability benefits than non-union workers. Workers who 
belong to unions are nearly 400 percent more likely to have guaranteed 
pensions than non-union workers.
  This discrepancy is even more pronounced among women, African 
Americans, and Latinos:
  Women in unions earn $9,300 more a year (31%) than their non-union 
counterparts. African Americans in unions earn $9,700 more a year (36%) 
than their non-union counterparts. Latinos in unions earn $11,300 more 
a year (46%) than their non-union counterparts.
  It is astonishing that some would try to prevent some of the hardest 
working Americans the right to organize at a time when:
  The average CEO in the United States makes more than 260 times the 
pay of the average worker. A CEO earns more in one day than an average 
worker earns in one year.
  We have seen an increase in:
  The number of people who are classified as poor (from 32 million in 
2000 to 37 million in 2004). The number of low-income households paying 
more than half their income on housing (from 9.4 million to 11.6 
million). The number of Americans who lack health insurance (from 40 
million in 2000 to 46 million).

[[Page H2049]]

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to hear the voices of our 60 
million working brothers and sisters: Who say they want a voice at 
their workplace, Who say they want a choice at their workplace, Who say 
they want unions.
  I urge my colleagues to join the distinguished Chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee, George Miller, and vote ``yes'' on the 
Employee Free Choice Act.

                        Employee Free Choice Act


                                SUMMARY

       1. Certification on the Basis of Majority Sign-Up. Provides 
     for certification of a union as the bargaining representative 
     if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a 
     majority of employees in an appropriate unit has signed 
     authorizations designating the union as its bargaining 
     representative. Requires the board to develop model 
     authorization language and procedures for establishing the 
     validity of signed authorizations.
       2. First-Contract Mediation and Arbitration. Provides that 
     if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for 
     their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 
     90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal 
     Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If 
     the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 
     days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to 
     arbitration, and the results of the arbitration shall be 
     binding on the parties for two years. Time limits may be 
     extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
       3. Stronger Penalties for Violations While Employees Are 
     Attempting to Form a Union or Attain a First Contract. Makes 
     the following new provisions applicable to violations of the 
     National Labor Relations Act committed by employers against 
     employees during any period while employees are attempting to 
     form a union or negotiate a first contract with the employer:
       (a) Civil Penalties: Provides for civil fines of up to 
     $20,000 per violation against employers found to have 
     willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an 
     organizing campaign or first contract drive.
       (b) Treble Back Pay: Increases the amount an employer is 
     required to pay when an employee is discharged or 
     discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first 
     contract drive to three times back pay.
       (c) Mandatory Applications for Injunctions: Provides that 
     just as the NLRB is required to seek a Federal court 
     injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause 
     to believe the union has violated the secondary boycott 
     prohibitions in the act, the NLRB must seek a Federal court 
     injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable 
     cause to believe the employer has discharged or discriminated 
     against employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate 
     against employees or engaged in conduct that significantly 
     interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first 
     contract drive. Authorizes the courts to grant temporary 
     restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief.


                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 Why do we need new federal legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act?

       America's working people are struggling to make ends meet, 
     and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity 
     working men and women have to get ahead is by uniting with 
     co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages 
     and benefits.
       But the current labor law system is broken. Corporations 
     routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and even fire people who 
     try to organize unions--and today's labor law is powerless to 
     stop them. Every day, employers deny working people the 
     freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a 
     union:
       Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union 
     organizing campaigns;
       78 percent of private employees require supervisors to 
     deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay 
     they control;
       And even after workers successfully form a union, one-third 
     of the time they are not able to get a contract.

               What does the Employee Free Choice Act do?

       It does three things to level the playing field for 
     employees and employers:
       (1) Strengthens penalties for companies that illegally 
     coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them 
     from forming a union;
       (2) Brings in a neutral third party to settle a contract 
     when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a 
     contract after three months;
       (3) Establishes majority sign-up, meaning that if a 
     majority of the employees sign union authorization cards, 
     validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a 
     company must recognize the union.

                   What's wrong with the current law?

       The National Labor Relations Act states: ``Employees shall 
     have to the right to self organization to form, join, or 
     assist labor organizations . . .'' It was designed to protect 
     employee choice on whether to form unions, but it has been 
     turned upside down.
       The current system is not like any democratic election held 
     anywhere else in our society. Employers have turned the NLRB 
     election process into management-controlled balloting--the 
     employer has all the power, controls the information workers 
     can receive and routinely poisons the process by 
     intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who 
     try to organize unions. On top of that, the law's penalties 
     are so insignificant that many companies treat them as just 
     another cost of doing business. By the time employees vote in 
     an NLRB election, if they can get to that point, a free and 
     fair choice isn't an option. Even in the voting location, 
     workers do not have a free choice after being browbeaten by 
     supervisors to oppose the union or being told they may lose 
     their jobs and livelihoods if they vote for the union.

            What is majority sign-up, and how does it work?

       When a majority of employees votes to form a union by 
     signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards 
     are validated by the federal government, the employer will be 
     legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers' 
     union.
       Majority sign-up is not a new approach. For years, some 
     responsible employers such as Cingular Wireless have taken a 
     position of allowing employees to choose, by majority 
     decision, whether to have a union. Those companies have found 
     that majority sign-up is an effective way to allow workers 
     the freedom to make their own decision--and it results in 
     less hostility and polarization in the workplace than the 
     failed NLRB process.

  Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot 
                               elections?

       No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election 
     at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government 
     to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply 
     gives them another option--majority sign-up.
       ``Elections'' may sound like the most democratic approach, 
     but the NLRB process is nothing like any democratic elections 
     in our society--presidential elections, for example--because 
     one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters' 
     paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak 
     against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-
     union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the 
     voters.

  Does the Employee Free Choice Act silence employers or require that 
                  they remain neutral about the union?

       No. Employers are still free to express their opinion about 
     the union as long as they do not threaten or intimidate 
     workers.

  Will employees be pressured into signing union authorization cards?

       No. In fact, academic studies show that workers who 
     organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-
     workers to support the union than workers who organize under 
     the NLRB election process. Workers who vote by majority sign-
     up also report far less pressure or coercion from management 
     to oppose the union than workers who go through NLRB 
     elections.
       In addition, it is illegal for anyone to coerce employees 
     to sign a union authorization card. Any person who breaks the 
     law will be subject to penalties under the Employee Free 
     Choice Act.

     Isn't this law really about unions wanting to increase their 
                              membership?

       This law is about restoring to working people the freedom 
     to improve their lives through unions.
       More than half of people who don't have a union say they 
     would join one tomorrow if given the chance. After all, 
     people who have unions earn 30 percent more than people 
     without unions and are much more likely to have health care 
     and pensions. With a free choice to join unions, working 
     people can bargain for better wages, health care and pensions 
     to build a better life for their families.
       With the economic pressures on working people today, the 
     freedom to pursue their dreams is crucially important.

               Who supports the Employee Free Choice Act?

       The Employee Free Choice Act has the support of hundreds of 
     members of Congress of both parties, academics and 
     historians, civil and human rights organizations such as the 
     NAACP and Human Rights Watch, most major faith denominations 
     and 69 percent of the American public.
       (For a detaiIl list of supporters, visit 
     www.EmployeeFreeChoiceAct.org.)

               Who opposes the Employee Free Choice Act?

       Corporate front groups are waging a major campaign to stop 
     the Employee Free Choice Act. They do not want workers to 
     have the freedom to choose for themselves whether to bargain 
     through unions for better wages, benefits and working 
     conditions. The anti-union network includes discredited 
     groups like the Center for Union Facts, led by lobbyist 
     Richard Berman, who is infamous for fighting against drunk 
     driving laws and consumer and health protections, and the 
     National Right to Work Committee and Foundation, the 
     country's oldest organization dedicated exclusively to 
     destroying unions.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has 
additional speakers. I believe she has about twice as much time 
remaining as we do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman reserve his time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H2050]]

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. It 
can help working people, and it will send a strong message that we need 
a National Labor Relations Board committed to fairness in the 
workplace.
  But as I said 2 years ago, I have serious reservations about 
lessening the role of the secret ballot in union elections. Workers 
should not be intimidated by pressure from either business or labor in 
making decisions about organizing a union.
  However, it is clear that the NLRB has clearly failed to protect 
workers from intimidation and union-busting. That is why I support this 
bill even though it is far from perfect.
  And while I support the rule because it allows the House to consider 
some meaningful amendments, I am disappointed that others were not 
included. For example, I thought we ought to have made changes to make 
the procedure for decertifying unions like those for establishing 
unions. We should also have considered setting deadlines for NLRB 
decisions.
  I would hope those amendments, and others, maybe even a sunset 
clause, will be considered in the Senate not only because they could 
improve this legislation but because open debate on amendments might 
help reduce the divisions and polarization about this bill.
  But the House should pass the bill, imperfect though it is, so the 
Senate can continue the process of reforming our labor laws to better 
protect workers' rights while also working towards balance, fairness, 
and objectivity in the way that the NLRB must do its job.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member 
of the Education and Labor Workforce Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and to this rule. 
The bill we are scheduled to debate today, the so-called Employee Free 
Choice Act, represents what I believe is the worst piece of legislation 
I have come across in 20-plus years of public service.
  What is wrong with it, let me count the ways.
  Number one, it undermines the secret ballot process in the workplace, 
a process all of us in this House rely upon, treasure, and would fight 
to defend when it comes to our own political careers, but apparently 
for some, not when it comes to the rights of workers.
  Number two, it leaves workers wide open to coercion and intimidation 
from those seeking to organize in the workplace. In an Education and 
Labor Subcommittee hearing last month, a former union organizer 
described such coercion through a practice organizers call a ``blitz.'' 
In a blitz, organizers go directly to the homes of workers to get them 
to sign an authorization card. And how do they find out where these 
workers live? From license plates and other sources that were used to 
create a master list.
  According to this witness: ``Workers usually have no idea that there 
is a union campaign under way. Organizers are taught to play upon this 
element of surprise to get `into the door.' ''
  Number three, it strips workers of their right to privacy in 
organizing elections and makes their votes completely and utterly 
public so their co-workers, their employers, and union officials know 
exactly how they voted.
  Number four, not only does it strip workers of their right to vote in 
organizing elections, but it also strips away their right to vote on 
contracts as well. Instead, that right is given to a third-party 
mediator.
  Number five, it levies civil penalties upon employers if they coerce 
an employee during a card check campaign. However, the bill remains 
silent on coercion from unions, looking the other way and providing 
tacit approval for such intimidation.
  Frankly, Madam Speaker, I can go on and on. In short, this bill is 
not only undemocratic; it is dangerous. And I will be proud to manage 
time in opposition to it in just a short while.
  When I think about how important secret ballot is, I remember when I 
first learned about it in grammar school. When we would elect our class 
officers, we put our heads down on our desk and raised our hand for the 
person we were supporting because it was important then, just as it is 
important now, that when we vote, no one knows how we vote.
  From those days in elementary school until now, having been elected 
many times to office, I prize the importance of that secret ballot. And 
I prize that secret ballot for the workers that are facing 
intimidation, the possible intimidation from either side, from labor or 
from management. They should be free of that, and the only way they can 
be free of that is secret ballot and that is what we are trying to 
preserve for them at this time.
  Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee in support of 
several amendments that would have made this debate as fair, open, and 
robust as possible. While I am pleased that they made in order my 
substitute amendment, this rule before us still is harsh and one that 
will stifle debate.
  Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to strengthen this debate and 
address head-on the many flaws of the underlying legislation, but we 
were denied that opportunity; and as such, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in opposing this rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank 
her for her great work in shepherding this bill along.
  I deeply respect the ranking member of the full committee, and I know 
his intentions are very sincere, but I think the Members of the House 
deserve a record that is accurate. Let me review the five points that 
he made and set forth what the bill actually says.
  The gentleman says that the bill does away with secret ballots. That 
is not the case.
  If those choosing to organize a union wish to have a secret ballot, 
they can follow the same procedure that is in the law now: get 30 
percent-plus to sign a petition for a secret ballot, and have one.
  The gentleman says that the bill legalizes coercion by unions. That 
is not the case.
  Coercion by a union against a worker is and still will be an unfair 
labor practice. The bill says if a signature is acquired by coercion 
and is involuntary, it is not presumably going to be a valid signature 
and therefore does not count.
  The gentleman says that the bill takes away the right of privacy from 
workers. Not so.
  The same process essentially by which people sign petitions under the 
present law, they would sign cards under the new bill. Perhaps the 
gentleman should be more concerned about the loss of privacy of workers 
during campaigns by employers to coerce and intimidate people to vote 
against the union.
  The gentleman says the bill takes away the right to vote on 
contracts. Absolutely not so.
  What the bill says is if there is not an agreement for a contract 
between management and labor, after negotiation, after mediation, then 
and only then there would be arbitration. It does not take away the 
right to vote on contracts.
  Finally, the gentleman says that penalties are somehow out of 
balance, but I think the gentleman respectfully misunderstands.
  If in a union-organizing drive the unions are found to have coerced 
people into signing cards, the cards are invalid and it is the death 
penalty for the union because they lose the organizing drive. That is 
the most significant penalty there can be.
  We are all entitled to our own opinion; we are not entitled to our 
own facts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, I stand here to support the 
Employee Free Choice Act because it is necessary.
  This bill would not be necessary were the administration and the NLRB 
neutral in labor relations. However, they are not and have not been. 
Therefore, I am hearing from my constituents, such as citizens of my 
district who work for a school bus company which won an election many 
months ago which has not yet been certified by the NLRB.

[[Page H2051]]

  While the NLRB is dawdling, there have been 16 consecutive labor 
charges filed against the union by the management. This company, by the 
way, is owned by another company in England which is 96 percent 
unionized in England. So apparently it is good enough for them to have 
union representation there, but not here.
  I speak and vote in favor of my constituent who distributes dialysis 
equipment and supplies around the New York and Hudson Valley area who 
was called in for repeated meetings with his supervisors when they 
learned that he was helping to organize a union drive. Even after the 
election was won, management filed an appeal and lost.

                              {time}  1115

  If it were not for such, I could go on for a long time with stories I 
have heard in my districts from my constituents, and what I am hearing 
is about harassment, intimidation, about anti-union propaganda on the 
lunch table, in the lockers, on the bus seats. Look at the evidence. 
Look at the disparity in income. Look at the increase in poverty rate 
and the explosion of wealth at the top of our income scale.
  What we are seeing here is the result of a systematic tilting of the 
playing field. This bill tends to tilt it back towards working 
families.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule.
  I am pleased that after 12 years of not just ignoring the needs of 
working men and women and their needed labor protections, but actually 
what we have seen is a concerted, specific program that has undermined 
those rights, I am pleased to see this legislation come forth today.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from California will have the 
opportunity to put his substitute before us and be able to debate back 
and forth.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, there are clear 
differences of opinion, but the facts are that we are simply 
strengthening opportunities for working men and women to overcome the 
serious abuse of the organizing process in this country.
  Time after time, we have had examples of where there have been clear 
cases of unfair labor practices that have undercut the opportunity for 
men and women to represent themselves. Often they win a sort of hollow 
victory because long after the fact, there is a slap on the hand for 
the company that doesn't play by the rules long after the damage has 
been done.
  What we need to do is have an appropriate process that guarantees the 
rights of working men and women in this country to organize. This 
legislation provides additional, valuable tools.
  I am under no illusion, given the attitude of this administration, 
and perhaps what will happen in the other body, that this bill which I 
hope passes today in the House, is going to become law anytime soon. It 
is however a long overdue signal that people in this House are going to 
stand up for the rights of working men and women, give them an 
opportunity to organize, and that we are going to reestablish a level 
playing field. We will be able to help organized labor, the people who 
brought us the 8-hour day, the people who brought us the weekend. It is 
time to allow them the opportunity to extend the rights of organized 
labor to other folks in the workforce.
  One of the first things I did as an elected official was be involved 
with collective bargaining rights for public employees in Oregon. There 
were all sorts of dire predictions about what was going to happen, but 
in fact, what has occurred is that we were able to provide a framework 
for solving issues that affected people in the workforce.
  As luck would have it, later in my career, I was on the other side of 
the bargaining table, working to represent management, but I never 
regretted having an aggressive, effective program for organized labor 
to be able to collectively bargain.
  This is the most civilized, effective and appropriate way to resolve 
workforce issues, and this legislation today is an important step in 
that direction.
  I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, Washington is under a barrage of people 
from all over the country, union organizers, union bosses, the business 
community, this week talking about this bill. They are talking about 
this bill because they recognize what it will mean. It is the biggest 
change since Taft-Hartley in 1947 to the workplace.
  I believe that you have heard today a story that this is an attack on 
the American free enterprise system, but Madam Speaker, I would also 
say that there are lots of groups that also understand the problems 
with this bill.

     Groups in Opposition to H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act

       Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, 60 Plus Association, 
     Alabama Chapter of ABC, Alaska Chapter of ABC, Alliance for 
     Worker Freedom, Aluminum Association, American Apparel & 
     Footwear Association, American Beverage Association, American 
     Conservative Union, American Frozen Food Institute, American 
     Hospital Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     American Meat Institute, American Seniors Housing 
     Association, American Shareholders Association, American 
     Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration, 
     American Society of Employers, American Supply Association, 
     and Americans for a Limited Government.
       Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform AMT--The 
     Association for Manufacturing Technology API, Arizona 
     Builders Alliance of ABC, Arizona Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, Arizona IEC, Arkansas Chapter of ABC, Arkansas 
     Hotel & Lodging Association, Arkansas IEC, Asheboro/Randolph 
     (NC) Chamber of Commerce, Ashland & Tri State Area Chapter 
     IEC, Assisted Living Federation of America, Associated 
     Builders & Contractors Heart of America Chapter, Associated 
     Builders and Contractors, Associated Industries of 
     Massachusetts, Atlanta Hotel Council, Automotive Aftermarket 
     Industry Association, Baltimore Metro Chapter of ABC, and 
     Bearing Specialists Association.
       BKSH & Associates for National School Transportation 
     Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association, Capital 
     Associated Industries Inc, Carolinas Chapter of ABC, Center 
     for Freedom & Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, 
     Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, CenTex Chapter 
     IEC, Central Alabama Chapter IEC, Central California Chapter 
     of ABC, Central Florida Chapter of ABC, Central Indiana IEC, 
     Central Michigan Chapter of ABC, Central Missouri IEC, 
     Central Ohio AEC/EIC, Central Ohio Chapter of ABC, Central 
     Pennsylvania Chapter of ABC, Central Pennsylvania Chapter of 
     IEC, Central Texas Chapter of ABC, and Central Washington 
     IEC.
       Centre County (PA) IEC, Charleston (SC) Metro Chamber of 
     Commerce, Chesapeake Chapter of ABC, Chesapeake IEC, College 
     and University Professional Association (The), Colorado 
     Hospital Association, Colorado Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Connecticut 
     Chapter of ABC, Cornhusker Chapter of ABC, Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste, Cumberland Valley Chapter 
     of ABC, Dakotas Inc IEC/Dallas Chapter IEC, Delaware Chapter 
     of ABC, East Tennessee Chapter of ABC, East Tennessee IEC, 
     East Texas IEC, Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of ABC, Eastern 
     Shore Chapter of ABC, and Eastern Washington Chapter IEC.
       El Paso Chapter IEC, Empire State Chapter of ABC, 
     Environmental Industry Associations, Federation of American 
     Hospitals, Florida East Coast Chapter of ABC, Florida First 
     Coast Chapter of ABC, Florida Gulf Coast Chapter of ABC, 
     Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, Florida West Coast 
     Chapter IEC, Food Marketing Institute, Fort Worth/Tarrant 
     County IEC, Freedom Works, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, 
     Georgia Chapter of ABC, Georgia Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     Georgia IEC, Golden Gate Chapter of ABC, Greater Cincinnati 
     IEC, Greater Columbia (SC) Chamber of Commerce, and Greater 
     Elkhart (IN) Chamber of Commerce.
       Greater Houston Chapter of ABC, Greater Raleigh (NC) 
     Chamber of Commerce, Greater Spokane Incorporated, Greater 
     St. Louis IEC,
       Guam Contractors Association of ABC, Hampton Roads Chapter 
     IEC, Hawaii Chapter of ABC, Hawaii Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, Heart of America Chapter of ABC, Heating, 
     Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International, 
     Hospitality Association of South Carolina, Hotel Association 
     of New York City, Hotel Association of Washington DC, HR 
     Policy Association, Idaho IEC, Illinois Chapter of ABC, 
     Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association, Illinois IEC, 
     Independent Electrical Contractors Inc, and Indiana Chamber 
     of Commerce.
       Indiana Chapter of ABC, Industrial Fasteners Institute, 
     Industrial Supply Association, Inland Pacific Chapter of ABC, 
     International Council of Shopping Centers, International 
     Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise 
     Association, International Warehouse Logistics Association, 
     Iowa Association of Business & Industry, Iowa Chapter of ABC, 
     Iowans for Right to Work, Kansas City IEC, Kentuckiana 
     Chapter of ABC, Kentucky & Southern Indiana Chapter IEC, 
     Kentucky Electrical Contractors Association, Keystone Chapter 
     of ABC, Las Vegas Chapter of ABC, Los Angeles-Ventura Chapter 
     of ABC, Lubbock Chapter IEC, and Maine Chapter of ABC.

[[Page H2052]]

       Maine Innkeepers Association, Management Association of 
     Illinois (The), Maryland Hotel, Motel & Resort Association, 
     Massachusetts Chapter of ABC, MEC-IEC of Dayton, OH, Medical 
     Savings Insurance Company, Metro Washington Chapter of ABC, 
     Mid Gulf Coast Chapter of ABC, Mid Tennessee Chapter of ABC, 
     Mid-Oregon Chapter IEC, Mid-South Chapter IEC, Midwest IEC, 
     Minnesota Chapter of ABC, Mississippi Chapter of ABC, 
     Mississippi Economic Development Council, Montana Chamber of 
     Commerce, Montana IEC, Montana Innkeepers Association, and 
     Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.
       Nashville IEC, National Alliance for Worker & Employer 
     Rights, National Association of Convenience Stores, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Association of 
     Wholesaler-Distributors, National Council of Chain 
     Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, 
     National Grocers Association, National Lumber & Building 
     Material Dealers Association, National Mining Association, 
     National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, National 
     Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National 
     Solid Wastes Management Association, National Stone, Sand & 
     Gravel Association, National Taxpayers Union, Nebraska 
     Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Nebraska Hotel & Motel 
     Association, Nevada Hotel & Lodging Association, and Nevada 
     Manufacturers Association.
       New England IEC, New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant 
     Association, New Hampshire/Vermont Chapter of ABC, New Jersey 
     Business & Industry Association, New Jersey Chapter of ABC, 
     New Jersey Hotel & Lodging Association, New Jersey IEC, New 
     Mexico Chapter of ABC, New Mexico Lodging Association, New 
     Orleans/Bayou Chapter of ABC, New York State Hospitality & 
     Tourism Association, North Alabama Chapter of ABC, North 
     Carolina Chamber of Commerce, North Carolina Restaurant & 
     Lodging Association, North Florida Chapter of ABC, North 
     Texas Chapter of ABC, Northern Michigan Chapter of ABC, 
     Northern New Mexico IEC, Northern Ohio Chapter of ABC, and 
     Northern Ohio Electrical Contractors Association.
       Northwest Pennsylvania IEC, Northwest Washington IEC, 
     Offshore Marine Service Association, Ohio Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, Ohio Valley Chapter of ABC, OKC Inc IEC, 
     Oklahoma Chapter of ABC, Oklahoma Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, Oregon IEC, Oregon Lodging Association, Oregon 
     Restaurant Association, Pacific Northwest Chapter of ABC, 
     Pelican Chapter of ABC, Pennsylvania Tourism & Lodging 
     Association, and Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors 
     Association.
       Printing Industries of America, Property Rights Alliance, 
     Public Service Research Council, Puget Sound Washington 
     Chapter IEC, Real Estate Round Table, Redwood Empire Chapter 
     IEC, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Rhode Island 
     Chapter of ABC, Rio Grande Valley Chapter of IEC Inc, Rocky 
     Mountain Chapter of ABC, Rocky Mountain IEC, Saginaw Valley 
     Chapter of ABC, San Antonio Chapter IEC, San Diego Chapter of 
     ABC, San Diego North Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Nevada 
     Chapter of ABC, Society of Human Resource Management, South 
     Carolina Chamber of Commerce, South Florida Chapter Inc IEC, 
     and South Texas Chapter of ABC.
       Southeast Missouri IEC, Southeast Pennsylvania Chapter of 
     ABC, Southeast Texas Chapter of ABC, Southeastern Michigan 
     Chapter of ABC, Southern Arizona IEC, Southern California 
     Chapter of ABC, Southern California IEC, Southern Colorado 
     Chapter IEC, Southern Indiana Chapter--Evansville IEC, 
     Southern New Mexico IEC, Stuart-Martin County (FL) Chamber of 
     Commerce, Tennessee Hospital Association, Tennessee Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Texas Coastal Bend Chapter of ABC, Texas 
     Gulf Coast Chapter IEC, Texas Gulf Coast Chapter of ABC, 
     Texas Hotel & Lodging Association, Texas Mid-Coast Chapter of 
     ABC, Texas Panhandle IEC, and Texas State IEC.
       Texas Warehouse Association, Texoma IEC, Tooling & 
     Manufacturing Association, Treasure State IEC, Tri-State IEC, 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 
     U.S. Human Recourses and Ethics Services, Uniform and Textile 
     Service Association, Utah Chapter of ABC, Utah Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Utah IEC, Ventura Chapter IEC, Vermont 
     Hospitality Council, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, and 
     Virginia Chapter of ABC.
       Washington IEC, Washington State Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, WECA IEC, West Tennessee Chapter of ABC, West 
     Texas IEC, West Virginia Chapter of ABC, West Virginia 
     Hospitality & Travel Association, Western Colorado Chapter of 
     ABC, Western Colorado IEC, Western Michigan Chapter of ABC, 
     Western Pennsylvania Chapter of ABC, Western Reserve Chapter 
     IEC, Western Washington Chapter of ABC, Wholesale Florist & 
     Florist Supplier Association, Wichita Chapter IEC, Wisconsin 
     Chapter of ABC, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce 
     Association, and Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association.
       American Bakers Association, Americans for Prosperity, 
     Fraternal Order of Police, and The Small Business & 
     Entrepreneurship Council.
                                  ____

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the 
     membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of 
     our strong opposition to H.R. 800, the so-called ``Employee 
     Free Choice Act,'' which was favorably reported by the House 
     Committee on Education and Labor.
       This ill-named legislation attacks the very meaning of free 
     choice. Without Federally supervised private ballot 
     elections, our democratic process would be extremely 
     susceptible to corruption, and the very foundation of our 
     Republic could be undermined. This bill would do the same 
     thing to our nation's workers by robbing them of their 
     privacy, power and voice in deciding who should represent and 
     defend their rights as employees. The scheme proposed by the 
     legislation would replace the current democratic process of 
     secret ballots with a ``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 worker's employer and co-workers, leaving these 
     individuals vulnerable to threats and intimidation from union 
     leaders, management, or both.
       Today, 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 (NLRB). The NLRB provides detailed procedures that 
     ensure a fair election, free of fraud, where employees may 
     cast their vote confidentially without pressure or coercion 
     from unions, employers, or fellow employees. Indeed, law 
     enforcement officers are uniquely susceptible to such 
     pressure. The FOP is an organization run by law enforcement 
     officers for law enforcement officers and without the 
     anonymity of the secret ballot, the FOP would probably not 
     exist today. We would be forced into competition with much 
     larger, much richer unions, but ones without any professional 
     law enforcement background.
       The courts have repeatedly ruled that Federally supervised 
     private ballot elections are the fairest method to determine 
     whether a union has the support of a majority of employees. 
     The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that ``It would be 
     difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining 
     the real wishes of employees than a `card 
     check.' '' Similarly, the Second Circuit ruled that ``It is 
     beyond dispute that the secret ballot election is a more 
     accurate reflection of the employees' true desires than a 
     check of authorization cards collected at the behest of a 
     union organizer.'' The Sixth Circuit also shared this view, 
     stating that, ``An election is the preferred method of 
     determining the choice by employees of a collective 
     bargaining representative.''
       The only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion 
     and intimidation is through the continued use of a Federally 
     supervised private ballot election so that personal decisions 
     about whether to join a union remain private. I urge you and 
     your House colleagues to join us in opposition to H.R. 800 
     and, instead, continue to protect the rights of the American 
     worker. If I can be of any further assistance on this matter, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director 
     Jim Pasco in my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
                                               National President.

  One of those groups that opposes this strenuously is the Grand Lodge 
of the Fraternal Order of Police. They are a union organization, and 
they note in their letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi: ``The Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals wrote that, `It would be difficult to imagine a more 
unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of an employees than 
a card check.' '' They also note, ``Similarly, the Second Circuit Court 
of Appeals ruled that `It is beyond dispute that the secret ballot 
election is a more accurate reflection of the employees' true desires 
than a check of authorization cards collected at the behest of a union 
organizer.' ''
  Madam Speaker, this is an assault on a free enterprise system. Today, 
what we see going on is directly related to the partisanship of a 
political party winning power and paying back the union bosses for 
their support for all these years.
  This bill, quite honestly, is about tilting the law in favor of those 
union bosses, not in favor of the workers. We have had person after 
person who has come and talked about how great this is for workers, how 
they are going to do things for workers.
  I would like to say, Madam Speaker, the prior majority, the 
Republican Party, for years has been trying to gain health care rights 
for workers. That is why the Republican Party believes that every 
single American should get their health care on a pretax basis. But 
today, what we understand is that the Democratic Party is for that, but 
you have got to join a union to get it. That is really what this is 
about. This is about being able to have the things available that 
unions offer in their argument to make life better for normal, average, 
working people.

[[Page H2053]]

  Madam Speaker, I believe that this new majority, the Democrat Party, 
should offer this same opportunity to every single American, to make 
their life better, the opportunity to have health care and better 
working conditions for their own families. We should include in the 
legislation not just this but the legislation that should be next by 
this new Democrat majority that says every single worker in America 
gets their health care by pretax basis.
  But instead, what do we do? We go to an attack on the free enterprise 
system. We beat up the employers who employ people, make us less able 
to be adaptive and nimble, and make us more susceptible to making sure 
we will lose jobs overseas.
  Madam Speaker, the free enterprise system works. It is alive and well 
in America today. It has produced the greatest amount of jobs in the 
history of this country. It is producing more and more revenue that 
soon will offer us the chance to balance our budget, and yet what do we 
find today? We find where this new Democrat majority is bringing union 
bills to the floor of the House of Representatives that will bind the 
hands of the free enterprise system.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, we have made it clear this morning why 
passing this bipartisan Employee Free Choice Act is so vital for 
workers and their families all across this Nation.
  Let me add that it is also important to the working families like the 
one I come from in Lorain, Akron, Barberton and other communities in my 
congressional district and all across Ohio.
  I stand before you as a person who practiced labor law but I also 
stand before you as a person, a daughter of a man who worked in the 
boilermaker factory his whole life, the wife of a former firefighter, 
the sister of a teacher, the aunt of a united food and commercial 
worker, the sister of a steelworker.
  This bill is about fairness for those who make the world turn, who 
provide for their families, who are good citizens that care about their 
communities.
  The EFCA will help end years of discrimination against workers who 
simply wish to be able to bargain for better wages, benefits and 
working conditions. We have a moral responsibility to stand up for 
these workers, and I will not sit idly by while their fundamental 
rights are being trampled on.
  For working families in Ohio and across this Nation, I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  As a longtime cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, I applaud 
our Leadership for bringing this bill expeditiously to the floor. 
American workers from coast to coast are standing up to cheer because 
their voices no longer fall upon deaf ears in the House of 
Representatives.
  Under this Democratically-controlled House, worker pleas for fairness 
in organizing are finally being answered.
  Consider, over the last 60 years, there have been only 42 instances 
where union misconduct was found by the National Labor Relations Board. 
In direct contrast, over 30,000 workers received back pay from 
employers who illegally fired them for their union activities in 2005 
alone.
  In my district, I have walked the picket lines with literally 
hundreds of workers who were wrongfully fired or laid-off for trying to 
organize a union. Whether it has been at a body armor plant or 
hospitals and nursing homes as well, I have seen, firsthand, employer 
intimidation aimed at discouraging union involvement.
  This legislation cracks down on intimidation and coercion. It also 
gives employees the choice--through a public or private ballot 
process--to decide whether or not they want to organize a union and 
experience all that one has to offer, including higher wages and better 
healthcare for its members. Whatever their decision, under this bill, 
the choice is theirs.
  Madam Speaker, when I was a child, my parents took us out of Florida 
in search of higher wages. Like every other American family, they 
wanted a better life for them and for me.
  When workers seek to organize and take advantage of their collective 
bargaining rights, they too are searching for an improved life for them 
and their families. They aren't trying to take advantage of the system 
or run the company which employs them out of business. All they want is 
fair pay and benefits for an honest day's work.
  The Employee Free Choice Act preserves and enhances the American 
worker's right to organize. I stand by these efforts and this much 
needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the rule.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 197, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)

[[Page H2054]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Green, Gene
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     McCrery

                              {time}  1152

  Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, McHUGH, SULLIVAN, POE and YOUNG of 
Alaska changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 195, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               AYES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     Musgrave
     Reynolds


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1201

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cleaver). Pursuant to House Resolution 
203 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 800.

                              {time}  1202


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an 
efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor 
organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor 
practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes, with Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).

[[Page H2055]]

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. At this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, I rise to strongly support this bill. The 
principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to 
organize, to bargain for better working conditions, fair wages and real 
benefits.
  There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. 
Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These 
employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics 
that amount to intimidation and harassment, if not outright firing. In 
fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These 
tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are 
not effective deterrents.
  Even after overcoming these obstacles and successfully organizing, 
many workers do not see the benefits of unionization for years because 
employers can drag their feet as in signing a first contract.
  The system destined to protect workers' rights needs fixes, and the 
Employee Free Choice Act is landmark legislation to do just that. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Any time democracy itself is placed at risk, it is the responsibility 
of each Member of this body to rise in strong opposition. I do so 
today, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Just under 4 months ago, in 435 separate elections, the men and women 
we represent in this Congress took part in a democratic process not 
unlike others that have come before it. Whether on paper ballots or by 
electronic voting, through absentee ballots, or at the polls on 
election day itself, they cast their votes and registered their voices. 
No one was looking over their shoulders when they did it. And unless 
they chose to discuss it on their own, no one needed to know for whom 
they cast their ballots ever.
  The privacy and sanctity of the secret ballot is the beauty and the 
backbone of this democratic process. And it is a right, not a 
privilege, that has become so customary that we probably have grown to 
take it for granted.
  The results of the election led to a change in the majority of this 
Chamber and on the other side of the building as well. And we have 
accepted it because we know when the ballots were cast, they were done 
so in a way we can all trust, privately and secretly, free from 
coercion. The people spoke, and as we move through this debate today, 
let none of us forget this: We are standing on this floor, considering 
this bill, and ultimately casting our votes at the end of the debate 
because of the power of the secret ballot.
  Not one voter signed a card to send us here. None of us sent our 
campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate 
information, a stack of authorization cards, a pen and a great, or 
possibly threatening, sales pitch. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted 
the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without 
intimidation, and we live with the results.
  So here we are, amazingly, but given the agenda the new majority and 
the special interests that helped it get here, not surprisingly, poised 
to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process enjoyed by many 
of the same men and women who sent us here last November.
  Let's be clear right at the outset. Every American has the right to 
organize. No one is debating that. Even if some on the other side of 
the aisle would like this debate to be mischaracterized as just that. 
This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made 
it possible for workers to do in the exact same way they elect their 
President, their Representatives of Congress, their Governors, their 
State legislatures, their local government, that is, through a secret 
ballot.
  Think about that. So fundamental and so sacred is the right to 
organize that we have guaranteed and protected in through the same 
process we elect our Commander in Chief and the 535 men and women who 
hold the power of the purse.
  Through the last 7-plus decades, that right has remained firmly 
intact. And in spite of occasional and admitted difficulties for which 
the law has built-in safeguards, workers have relied upon it.
  In the 1950s, about 35 percent of all workers chose to unionize. In 
the early eighties, that number slipped to about 20 percent. And last 
year it dipped to 12 percent; and a meager 7 percent in the private 
sector alone. However, regardless of the percentage of workers choosing 
to unionize, regardless of upward or downward trends for organized 
labor, there has been one constant, the right to a private ballot.
  That is really what today's debate is all about. That right is 
squarely in the cross hairs, and this Chamber is about to pull the 
trigger. Some of us will be tempted to make this a business-versus-
labor debate. Others may equate joining the union through a card check 
to joining the Republican or Democratic Party as if a person doesn't 
join one of those parties with the intention to vote in secret ballot 
elections that really count. And still, others may incorrectly claim 
that the bill before us still provides the right to a secret ballot, a 
myth put to rest by a Clinton-appointed National Labor Relations Board 
official in an Education and Labor Subcommittee hearing last month.
  Those are all distractions to what is really happening today. 
Brimming with hypocrisy and bluster, falsely defending free choice and 
workers rights, an untold number of duly-elected Members of the United 
States Congress will pull out their voting cards today, cards they are 
entitled to only because of a secret ballot election held less than 4 
months ago and cast an historic vote against workplace democracy and 
against the secret ballot.
  Last month, I took an oath in which I solemnly swore that I would 
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United 
States. Madam Chairwoman, because of that, I will not be one casting a 
vote in favor of this bill today. I urge my colleagues also to vote 
against it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota will be recognized as the 
minority manager.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, Members of the House, my colleague from the other 
side said that every American is guaranteed the right to organize, and 
that is what this legislation is about. You have a guaranteed right to 
organize, but when you do, very often what you find out is you do not 
get the right to organize on behalf of better wages or a pension plan, 
or holding onto your health care benefits, or the hours that you get 
paid at work, or the tension between your family life and work, the 
kinds of things that people organize for.
  In many workplaces, when you exercise your right to organize, you get 
fired, you get intimidated, you get harassed, you get followed home, 
your kids get followed to school, people park their cars outside your 
house. Your work shift has changed, you are on the graveyard shift 
instead of the daytime shift. That is what you get.
  What we are here about today is to redeem what has been in the law 
for almost 70 years, and that is the law that gives you the right to 
organize. It says you can either choose to go through an NLRB election 
or you can choose to have a majority sign-up. But then they inserted in 
the law many years later the right of the employer to veto that right 
to majority sign-up.
  So what the Republicans are suggesting in their opposition to this 
bill is that we should take away the choice from those workers that has 
been in the law for 70 years. So that those people, when a majority of 
people in a workplace decide that they need to organize their workplace 
to protect their jobs, to protect their salaries, to protect their 
pensions, to protect their health care, that they will be able to have 
that organization come into being.
  Today, you get harassed, you get intimidated, you get an election, 
and after the election, you get appeals. And you get endless bargaining 
that in our

[[Page H2056]]

own State of California, people have been waiting 7, 8, 9 years for a 
union that they won in an election. Apparently the secret ballot isn't 
enough to win your full share of democracy, and has not been enough for 
millions of workers across this country.
  So this legislation is very simple, it is only eight pages long. It 
says the worker gets to choose. That is the basis of American labor 
law. It is up to the employees to choose their organization and to 
choose how they want to arrive at that organization. They can choose an 
NLRB election or they can choose a card check majority sign-up. And we 
are simply saying, let the law work. Let the employees have the choice. 
And stop the illegal intimidation of workers.
  This last year, 30,000 workers had their pay restored to them because 
illegal actions were taken against them by employers because those 
workers did nothing else than exercise what the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle spoke to, the right in America to organize. But 
30,000 workers lost pay, lost hours at work, got fired. All of those 
things happened to them. And the year before it was 20,000, 20,000 and 
20,000.
  This has gone on far too long. It is time to empower the employees to 
make this choice about their workplace.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, at this time, I am very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, and the former chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Mr. Johnson.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, I appreciate that.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the effort to straggle 
employee free choice. This bill will strip individual workers of their 
right to vote anonymously when deciding to be involved in a union or 
not. Taking away this privacy right will subject workers to coercion 
and abuse.
  As the former chairman of the Employee-Employer Relations 
Subcommittee, I studied this issue for the last 6 years. And I want to 
tell you this bill will replace private ballot union elections with the 
interfere card check system. This means that a union could simply 
organize if a tiny majority of the workers sign a card. When truth be 
told, a worker might vote differently if given the option of the 
sacredly held practice of secret ballot. This would dramatically change 
the way small businesses operate, run from the outside by a union, and 
would have a devastating impact on the small business community. Card 
checks can be conducted so quickly that mom and pop employers rarely 
have a chance to address employees during an organizing campaign, 
resulting in a one-sided discussion between union and an employee.
  This vote is a Democrat way of paying back the labor unions for 
bankrolling their win in November. Over $2 million to the top 
Democrats.
  Small business owners are trying to live out the American Dream, 
which just so happens to be fueling our economy.

                              {time}  1215

  This bill forces them to do away with the longstanding freedom of 
voting by secret ballot. We can't let this happen to America.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the National Labor Relations Board was 
created to ensure that workers enjoyed the same freedom of association 
in the workplace that they did in the political arena, to guarantee 
free and fair union elections. And today the democratic principles in 
the workplace that built our vibrant middle class are at risk. Instead 
of holding companies who violate labor law accountable for their 
actions, the board routinely rules on the side of employers.
  In my community we have had several disputes in which a strong, just 
NLRB would make such a difference: employees at a hospital, a uniform 
company, graduate teaching assistants at a local university.
  The time has come for Congress to reform the NLRB. That is why I 
support the Employee Free Choice Act. It simplifies the organizing 
process. It expands remedies for employer interference and 
intimidation. It commits labor and management to collective bargaining.
  This legislation is about standing up for the efforts of working 
people to improve their lives, honoring their commitment and dedication 
that they bring to their jobs. It is our core responsibility as 
government to support the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairwoman, here we are back to Orwellian 
democracy. We are here considering the Employee Free Choice Act, which 
better is described as the ``Employee Intimidation Act,'' and we are 
here because it is the number one legislative priority of organized 
labor, and for Democrats it is the cost of doing business to gain the 
majority. Big Labor has given their marching orders and Democrats are 
executing them to a tee.
  The ``Employee Intimidation Act'' is incompatible with the interests 
of workers, individual liberty, and the principles of sound democracy. 
If this legislation passes, then Congress will effectively be stripping 
away the protection of secret ballot elections.
  Employers and union organizers alike shouldn't fear elections 
conducted by secret ballot. It is the only manner to protect an 
individual's choice without subtle or overt coercion. Secret ballots 
are the cornerstone of democracy.
  This card check process is not only biased and inferior; it is also 
rife with coercion and abuse. In fact, card checks have been challenged 
on the basis of coercion, forgery, fraud, and peer pressure. Testimony 
before our committee only three weeks ago revealed the practices union 
organizers undertake to manipulate the card check system and get 
employees to sign at any cost, including home visits and workplace 
intimidation, and granted, yes, intimidation that can occur on both 
sides, from the employer or from the union.
  The intent of this Employee Intimidation Act is to reverse the 
decline of union membership. Only 12 percent of workers belong to labor 
unions, down from 20 percent in 1983. But secret ballot elections 
remain the most effective way to determine the true wishes of the 
majority of employees at a work site. In fact, Federal courts have 
ruled that the secret ballot elections are the most foolproof method to 
determine support. Signing an authorization card in public before 
employers and the union and fellow employees is often done to avoid 
offending anyone or getting organizers off one's back. It is not a true 
gauge of union support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 800, 
the Employee Intimidation Act.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the leadership for 
bringing forth this very important human rights act. Human rights are 
labor rights; labor rights are human rights. And for the last several 
years, the only intimidation that has been going on has not been by 
labor unions but by employers.
  Ten employees of the Brinks Home Security Minnesota branch met in 
secret in 2004 to discuss problems with their employer. They feared for 
their jobs if talk about a union became public. But they decided a life 
with a living wage, some health care, and a pension plan was worth the 
risk. They signed authorization cards to have the IBEW represent them. 
This was in January of 2005. The National Labor Relations Board 
certified the IBEW as the employees' bargaining agent. That was on 
March 16, 2005. Contract negotiations began with Brinks in April, and 
they have dragged on for nearly 2 years now with no contract in sight.
  This is a company with an average monthly income of $27 million. Why 
should they work for a company who insists on contracts with their 
customers but not with their own employees?

[[Page H2057]]

  We need the Employee Free Choice Act to make sure we can get a 
contract. Thank you, leadership. Thank you very much.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. Kline for 
his leadership in protecting American workers.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of Ranking Member Buck 
McKeon's alternative to the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. Mr. 
McKeon's substitute, originally championed by the late Congressman 
Charlie Norwood, guarantees employees the right to hold secret ballot 
elections when deciding whether to form a union and prohibits the 
implementation of a coercive card check authorization.
  Just as American voters are free to elect their public officials in 
secrecy, so should American workers be free to vote for or against 
union representation. While no one would approve of exposing voters to 
public ridicule or intimidation at the voting booth, this is exactly 
what proponents of the Democrat card check bill are seeking to force 
upon American workers.
  Several of our colleagues wrote to Mexican officials in 2001 urging 
the sanctity of secret ballot elections be upheld. Specifically they 
penned: ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in 
order to ensure workers are not intimidated into voting for a union 
they may not choose otherwise.'' I hope today all of our colleagues 
adopt the original position of 2001 for a secret ballot.
  Evidence suggests that under card check agreements, employees are 
likely to be coerced or misled or falsely told the forms are nonbinding 
``statements of interest,'' requests for an election, or even benefits 
forms or administrative paperwork. The McKeon alternative will ensure 
workers are not left vulnerable to this type of arm twisting.
  A poll will be released today by the Coalition for a Democratic 
Workplace demonstrating that 87 percent of Americans believe workers 
should have the right of a secret ballot. In fact, 79 percent oppose 
the incorrectly named bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the wishes of the 
majority of Americans and voting in favor of Ranking Member McKeon's 
alternative.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chairman, 60 days ago I was still a small 
employer and a member of the chamber of commerce, which I had been for 
25 years. And as someone coming from that background, listening to the 
claims from the other side about stripping workers of their right to a 
secret ballot or subjecting employers to coercion and duress, I was 
concerned about my good friends in the small business community who are 
wonderful people and work every day and have control of their own 
lives, that somehow we were harming them.
  Read the law. Section (c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 
which guarantees workers the right to a secret ballot election if a 
``substantial number,'' only 30 percent, ask for it, is still 
preserved. It is not being repealed.
  Secondly, this bill provides in section 2 that people who have claims 
of duress, coercion, fraud on the part of union organizers have an 
avenue, have a remedy with the National Labor Relations Board.
  These cards are not the back of a napkin. There will be a process and 
a procedure which will be fair to employers and to workers.
  What this bill is about is restoring balance in the law, which, as 
the chairman indicated, the facts demonstrate is hurting workers, and 
it is our job to restore that balance.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, at this time I am pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Keller).
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 800.
  The secret ballot is absolutely critical to the integrity of the 
election process. Workers shouldn't be intimidated by corporate 
executives, labor bosses, or fellow workers. That is why nine out of 
ten Americans oppose stripping workers of their right to a private vote 
when determining whether or not to join a union.
  Now, let us be honest about what this bill is really about. Union 
membership is down, Democratic influence is up, and the secret ballot 
is headed out. I have to admit that I find it very ironic that just 
months after our Nation went to the polls and voted in secret ballot 
elections putting our Democratic friends in control of the Congress, 
they are now in turn trying to strip that very same right away from 
workers across this country.
  I believe that unions have done a lot of good for our society and 
have played an integral role in establishing and protecting the rights 
of workers. They have a very proud history and continue to provide 
competitive benefits, training programs, and workplace protections for 
millions of workers across the country.
  However, this legislation does nothing to level the playing field for 
a worker trying to determine whether or not to be represented by a 
union. Rather, it undercuts the law that it was designed to protect 
workers' rights in and terminates a vital right afforded to our 
Nation's workforce.
  The bottom line is that workers should want to join a union because 
of the benefits of that union, not because they are scared not to do 
so. I hope my colleagues will listen to the union workers for whom this 
legislation is purported to benefit. In 2004 Zogby International polled 
70 union members regarding this very issue. Seventy-eight percent of 
these union workers said that Congress should keep the existing secret 
ballot election process in place and not replace it with another 
process.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the rank and file union workers and 
vote to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 
800.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, this is not really about secret ballots or any of the 
other kinds of red herrings that are being dragged across here. It is 
about whether we want an even playing field so workers will have the 
opportunity to protect their rights and interests and advance the 
American economy. It should be obvious that an individual worker is in 
a position of lesser influence relative to the employer. Going back now 
70 years, the labor relations laws were put together so that there 
would be an even playing field. Now we need some adjustment in that 
because there is still not an even playing field.
  The track record of unions is clear. Unions help lift working men and 
women and, in fact, the entire economy. Union members earn median wages 
that are higher. They have more employer-provided health insurance than 
nonunion members do. They have better defined benefit pension plans.
  Unions benefit workers and benefit society. That is what this is 
about.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this misnamed bill, which should be called 
the Worker Intimidation Act.
  Madam Chairman, the National Labor Relations Act gives the private 
sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain 
collectively over wages and hours. However, this bill would eviscerate 
the protections for workers choosing to join or not to join a union by 
eliminating the requirement of a secret ballot system and requiring 
employees to make their ballots public. This bill strikes a blow to the 
privacy rights of workers throughout the country and would create 
opportunities for intimidation and coercion by union organizers and 
employees.
  Whom then does this bill benefit? Certainly not the American 
workforce, a large majority of which, as cited by the gentleman from 
Florida, overwhelmingly opposes this bill; nor the

[[Page H2058]]

American people. Maybe it is the Mexican workforce. The sponsor of this 
bill and 15 other Democrats, after all, seek to protect the privacy of 
Mexican workers in a letter that they sent where they said: ``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 that workers are not 
intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.''
  The words of those proposing to support and protect Mexican workers 
are not willing to do that for American workers. It is a crime.
  Madam Chairman, it strikes me as extremely ironic that the sponsor of 
this bill prefers to uphold the fundamental privacy protections of the 
Mexican workforce at the same time that he strips American workers of 
their privacy protections in their jobs here at home.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill that amounts to a 
betrayal of American workers.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ``It is one of the 
characteristics of a free and democratic nation that it has free and 
independent labor unions.''
  Today we are considering legislation that, in the spirit of FDR, 
would allow workers seeking free and independent labor unions a fair 
shot. The Employee Free Choice Act would change our current system, one 
prone to intimidation, harassment and discrimination; into a fairer, 
more democratic process.
  In most cases, to get elected to public office in the U.S.--whether 
at the Federal, State or local level--you need to win a majority of the 
votes. Based on this democratic principle, The Employee Free Choice Act 
provides that when at least 50 percent plus one of the employees decide 
to form a union, the will of that majority is carried out.
  The current system for organizing a union has some very undemocratic 
components. Under existing law, employers hold all the cards when it 
comes to the election process for employees to decide whether they want 
to form a union. The result is often a bitter, divisive, drawn-out 
process, in which union supporters are frequently spied on, harassed, 
threatened, strong-armed, and even fired. Surveys show that in 25 
percent of elections campaign workers are fired and that 78 percent of 
the time employers force supervisors to deliver anti-union rhetoric to 
workers whose jobs they oversee. While this type of coercive action 
might seem reminiscent of a banana republic, it is happening today in 
21st century America.
  Madam Chairman, despite the views of some in this body, unions do 
benefit the working man and woman. Union workers earn 30 percent more 
than non-union workers; they are 63 percent more likely to have 
employer-sponsored health care and four times more likely to have 
guaranteed pensions.
  We should be removing undemocratic hurdles impeding the formation of 
unions, not protecting them.
  Since 1935, the majority sign-up process has been available and used 
by fair-minded employers. It is a tried and true method, having stood 
the test of time. Making that process mandatory prevents employer abuse 
and gives workers a fair shot to form a union.
  Madam Chairman, our workers need good representation at the 
bargaining table and unions best provide that leadership. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation which would make the 
unionizing process fairer, more democratic and more representative of 
the will of the American worker.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a 
strong voice for American workers, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I am sure the American people may find 
it ironic to see a drumbeat here for a secret ballot in the very House 
of the people where we depend on having our votes for all the world to 
see.
  Workers rights are human rights, and the fight to broaden and 
increase workers' rights is a fight to bring economic justice and 
dignity to those who have created the infrastructure, the wealth and 
the prosperity of our Nation.
  In this fight, no tool is more fundamental than the right of workers 
to organize. Organization is power, and when wielded effectively, the 
results are obvious. Union members' weekly wages are 30 percent higher 
than the wages of nonunion members. Sixty-eight percent of union 
members have a guaranteed, fully insured pension, while only 14 of 
nonunion workers can say the same. Over three-fourths of union members 
receive health coverage from their employers. Less than a majority of 
nonunion workers have that same coverage.
  Despite protection in Federal law by the National Labor Relations 
Act, the right to organize has increasingly come under attack. This is 
a chance to stand up for the right to organize.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds only 
to point out in response to the gentleman pointing out that when we 
vote it is displayed on the board, I would remind the gentleman that 
when we vote it is on behalf of some 700,000 people who have a right to 
see how we voted. That is different in this case.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Frankly, I am 
disappointed that many of the amendments my Republican colleagues and I 
hoped to offer today were not made in order by the Rules Committee last 
night.
  My amendment would have provided workers the right to have their card 
returned if they had a change of heart. They don't have that buyer's 
remorse protection under current law.
  There are examples in Louisiana where employees tried to get their 
cards back, but were informed by a regional NLRB office that they had 
no authority to require the return of a signed card.
  Now, a cooling off period is standard in many areas of business. We 
allow it for purchases of homes and cars, but my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle don't think we should allow it for employees 
deciding whether or not they want the union as their exclusive 
bargaining representative in the workplace.
  A few years back, a company in South Louisiana, Trico Marine, became 
the unwilling target of a campaign to organize the vessel personnel who 
service our offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Louisiana is a proud right-to-work state and many hard-working mariners 
quickly came forward to protest the tactics used by the union. After 
eight visits, one vessel officers had to have an arrest warrant issued 
against a union organizer.
  But even more troubling, mariners were misled and told that they 
should sign the cards, and if they had a change of heart, they could 
vote their conscience in a secret ballot election. But the union's 
intent from the beginning was to bypass the secret ballot, gain the 50 
plus one signed cards, and then publicly pressure the company to 
recognize them. That attempt failed and the union office has since 
disbanded. But that is what this legislation allows. It allows a union 
to gather a majority of signed cards, often under questionable 
circumstances, and bypass a secret ballot election where workers are 
free to vote their conscience in private without coercion or outside 
influence. This example provides some balance to the arguments made by 
my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  And let's be straight, there are bad actors on both sides. But our 
number one priority here should be protecting the right of all hard-
working Americans. If the system is broke, let's work together to fry 
to fix it. But denying workers the fundamental right to a secret ballot 
election isn't the answer.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.
  Section 6 of the bill makes it clear that if a card is invalid, it 
will not be counted, and an employee who asks for his or her card back 
clearly would be an invalid card.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth), a gentleman who has run a successful small business.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Chairman, this week, opponents of the Employee 
Free Choice Act have tried to frame this debate as unions versus 
workers. I don't think it is working, but what a

[[Page H2059]]

miraculous bit of political gerrymandering it would be if it did.
  The opponents are trying to create the illusion that somehow unions 
and workers are on different teams. But the truth is that in today's 
economy, the only consistent advocate for America's workers, both union 
and nonunion, have been America's unions.
  This bill isn't employers versus employees, and it is certainly not 
unions versus workers. This is simply Americans for America, because 
when our working families thrive, all of us benefit.
  Therefore, on behalf of not only the employees, who are the backbone 
of our economy, but on behalf of all our citizens, I urge my colleagues 
to support the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of 
balancing time, I reserve my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Nevada 
(Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Employee Free 
Choice Act. I think it is very important for people listening to know 
that this piece of legislation does not take away the right for a 
secret ballot. It adds an additional right and a protection of a card 
check. In addition to that, even though that is what the other side is 
focused on, it adds other protections that are necessary to protect a 
worker's right to organize in this country.
  This country is filled with wonderful employers, and certainly my 
district has about the best employers that you could find anywhere. But 
there are abuses and there are problems that this piece of legislation 
addresses.
  I have a woman from my district, Anishya Sanders, who is here in 
Washington this week to tell her story, and let me very briefly tell 
you about her.
  She has worked as a traffic control flagger for 3 years, helping to 
make sure that everyone gets around construction sites safely. In Las 
Vegas, that is a big deal, because every road is a construction site. 
This is a woman who has fought for the right to unionize and we should 
pass this on her behalf.
  Anishya, a single mother of five, has fought to form a union because 
she needs health insurance so she can take her children to a doctor 
when they are sick, because she wants to be paid enough to provide for 
her children's basic needs, and because she wants to be safe at work.
  Anishya coordinated the effort that led to a majority of employees at 
her company choosing to form a union. Instead of respecting the 
employees' decision, the company fired two workers and has harassed and 
intimidated Anishya and others. Under the current system, these workers 
are treated like second-class citizens.
  It is up to us to protect workers against the injustice that has been 
done to Anishya and her coworkers. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Employee Free Choice Act so that all Americans can freely decide 
whether they want to organize in order to negotiate for better working 
conditions.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of 
the subcommittee who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of 
years.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, it is the policy of the United States to 
encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. It is 
the policy of the United States to protect the exercise of workers of 
full freedom of association. It is the policy of the United States to 
protect their self-organizing and their ability to designate 
representatives of their own choosing.
  You wouldn't think that were true to listen to what we are hearing 
from the other side. It is the best man-bite-dog story we have heard, 
and the irony is not lost when people stand up there professing to care 
about the workers on this, while all the while, the National Labor 
Relations Act, section 7, protects those rights, and section 8 
prohibits a variety of practices, and is not doing a very good job of 
that.
  It would prohibit employers from interfering with or coercing or 
intimidating or discriminating against employees in the exercise of 
their rights. It has not been successful in that fact at all.
  These protections have not been enough. The reality is when employees 
want to try to organize a union, one out of every four get fired 
illegally. Fired. Twenty-five percent of the people for the union 
activity. Their remedy? Go to court for years and years, and then if 
you are successful, you might get rehired, you might get some back pay, 
but, of course, you would have to offset that with whatever you earned 
in the meantime. Too many employers think that is a pretty good deal, a 
risk worth taking.
  In 2005, 31,000 workers received back pay because of illegal employer 
discrimination. That should do away with any thought that this is just 
a minor problem. Over three-quarters, 78 percent of employers in 
organizing drives forced their employees to attend one-on-one meetings 
against the union with their own supervisors. There is no ``truth 
squad'' in there and nobody making sure what they say is fair and 
balanced. Ninety-two percent of employers force employees to attend 
mandatory captive audience meetings, again, the union, and three-
quarters of employers in organizing drives hire consultants or union 
busting firms to fight the organizing drive. How naive would we have to 
be to think that those union busters are in there to make a fair and 
level playing ground?
  The fact of the matter is employers have also been notorious in 
dragging out the initial negotiations, for years. That is not good 
faith bargaining as it is supposed to be protected in that Act. They 
are making a mockery of the National Labor Relations Act, unless we 
have this bill take effect.
  If this were internationally, if we were looking at elections, we 
would expect that people would be able to have a playing field. We 
would expect there would be some protection against being pressured to 
support one particular position. We would expect that there would be 
some protection against a direction that you vote for a specific 
candidate. But that is not what is happening here.
  Madam Chairman, let me tell you that what we are doing here is simply 
altering the playing field a bit back to fairness. We have had, for 
years, the ability that you could either have an election, or you could 
have an ability to sign a majority of people that you wanted. At some 
point, a few decades ago, they changed that dynamic and said we are 
going to let the employer veto that choice.
  We are rebalancing this here. We are going to give the choice and the 
ability to balance back to the worker, so they can choose whether they 
want an election to indicate their ability to organize or whether they 
want a majority of people to sign a card. They want that fair process. 
We need it because their ability to do that protects them, and that is 
what we should be about.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. One of the 
most cherished protections in our democracy is the ability to vote 
freely and anonymously and without fear of retribution. The bill before 
us today would take this right from American workers when deciding 
whether or not to bargain collectively and open the doors to fear and 
intimidation and coercion.
  The underlying bill would hit small businesses particularly hard 
because they operate in smaller environments. Card checks could cause 
serious management problems in these smaller environments, because each 
employee could know how every other employee voted, the results of 
which could be seriously disruptive for the small business.
  This bill would also mandate compulsory, binding arbitration between 
the employer and the employee, where all decisions would be made 
through a third party government official. In essence, this means that 
the fate of a small business owner, the one who has built a company 
through years of hard work, the one who may have placed every penny 
earned back into the business, and the one who employs families, 
friends and neighbors and who contributes to the local economy, in the 
hands of organized labor and bureaucrats in Washington. Is that fair? 
No.

[[Page H2060]]

  I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have 
exempted small businesses and protected small business employees from 
this ill-conceived legislation. Unfortunately, the majority blocked 
consideration of it on the floor today. They seem intent on limiting 
debate on this bill, and with a bill this bad, that is understandable.
  Madam Chairman, this bill sacrifices the right of American workers to 
freely determine their future on the altar of big labor, and it dares 
small businesses to survive after having the rug of independent 
elections pulled out from under them.
  This is a bad bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is a 
very dangerous bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman's point about small business.
  The minority was given and has taken advantage of a full substitute 
here. If the minority had chosen to include the provision in the 
substitute, it was in their prerogative. They failed to do so.
  I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a strong voice for working people in this 
country.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, which is designed to level the 
playing field for those wishing to form and join labor unions.
  Thomas Wolfe once said, ``To every man his chance, his golden 
opportunity to become whatever his talents, ambitions and hard work 
combine to make him.'' That is the premise of America. And I would 
imagine if he was alive today, he would just say, to every man and to 
every woman, their golden opportunities to become.
  The ability to join like-minded people in pursuit of fairness, equity 
and increased opportunities should be the right of all people. This 
legislation affirms that right and helps to protect the greatest 
economy in the world, working class Americans who belong to unions.
  I agree with those who say that every American has the right to 
organize. But those rights must be protected, promoted and made real. 
H.R. 800 does exactly that, I and strongly urge its passage.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I reserve my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a new Member of Congress who speaks 
with authority on this issue and many others.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Employee Free 
Choice Act, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this vital and 
important legislation.
  For 13 years, I cut suits at Seaford Clothing Company in Rock Island. 
I would not be here today as a Member of the United States Congress if 
it weren't for my union. My membership in my local union, Local 617, 
gave me access to higher wages, good benefits and invaluable workplace 
safety protections. My union helped me send my kids to college, it 
helped me buy a house and to begin to build a secure retirement. But, 
sadly, more and more Americans are seeing these opportunities slip 
away.

                              {time}  1245

  Worker productivity is up, but wages are declining. Corporate CEOs 
are enjoying record profits, yet average workers are struggling to pay 
their home heating bills, affordable health care, and save for college 
for their kids.
  Current law allows employers to refuse recognition of a union when 
the majority of employees sign cards saying they want a union. In 
addition, there are weak penalties for employers who intimidate, coerce 
or fire workers who try to organize a union or secure a first contract.
  The bipartisan Employee Free Choice Act levels the playing field 
between employer and employee relations by requiring employers to 
recognize a union formed by a majority sign-up, stiffening the 
penalties for employers who violate the law, and providing an 
arbitrator if labor and management cannot agree on a contract.
  In closing, let me just say that I chose to join a union. I was able 
to make it from the cutting room floor of the Seaford Clothing factory 
to the floor of this Chamber.
  I urge Members to give every American that same opportunity by voting 
``yes'' on the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Chair, let's be clear about what this 
act does: it sidesteps a free and fair election process, and it 
subjects hardworking Americans to coercion and intimidation.
  At a time when my hometown is proud to report twice the national 
average in job growth, job growth in manufacturing, high-tech 
construction, this bill heads us in the wrong direction.
  I want to focus on health care. We have all heard the concerns about 
a growing workforce shortage in this country. The card check process 
for unionization further puts health care at risk. It would discourage 
much-needed health care professionals from entering into the health 
care field.
  I have heard from Ferry County Hospital and from Dayton General 
Hospital, both small, critical-access hospitals in eastern Washington, 
that this bill would increase costs and is a slap in the face for 
collaboration between management and employees.
  What is the biggest concern for these hospitals, the undue pressure 
on their employees. Rich Umbdenstock, who is the president of the 
American Hospital Association and past president of the former 
Providence Services in Spokane, Washington, said, ``The hardworking men 
and women of our Nation's hospitals are entitled to choice.'' I 
couldn't agree more. They have it right.
  Hospital employees should have the same right in choosing their labor 
representative as they do in choosing their elected representatives.
  As eastern Washington's voice in this House, I must object on behalf 
of individuals and families that I represent. I will vote against this 
bill in public so as to preserve the citizens' right to do so in 
private.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure at this time to yield to 
someone who has walked in the shoes of the people who will be best 
helped by this act, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 2 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, actually I am going to speak today as a 
former human resources manager and human resources professional for 
over 20 years. I know what it takes to manage competitive and 
productive workforces; and believe me, I know the difference that 
paying a decent wage, having health and retirement benefits make in a 
worker's life, and how work performance is enhanced when workers know 
that a full workday results in pay that they can actually afford to 
live on, to raise their family on.
  Unfortunately, today workers are facing falling wages, they are 
facing fewer benefits, and that is a fact that is directly related to 
the disappearance of our middle class here in the United States of 
America.
  Since union workers earn about 30 percent more than nonunion workers 
per week, are almost twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health 
benefits and defined pension plans compared to only one in seven 
nonunion workers, the ability to organize will make a huge difference 
in bringing our middle class back.
  Madam Chair, H.R. 800 is the prescription that we need to right a 
weakened middle class, bring it back to health again. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill, support American workers.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The feedback I get from individual workers in my district, they 
believe that stronger laws are needed to protect the secret ballot 
election process in the workplace. H.R. 800 would strip away this right 
from workers, and this is simply unfair.
  Removing secret ballot elections is unfair to individual workers 
because it opens them up to retaliation. By having to publicly express 
support for or against any measure, this legislation would leave 
workers vulnerable to coercion and intimidation, and I cannot in good 
conscience support it.

[[Page H2061]]

  Secret ballots actually enhance collective bargaining. Because I 
believe a worker's right to a secret ballot should be protected, I am 
cosponsoring the Secret Ballot Protection Act. This legislation would 
guarantee individual workers the right to secret ballot elections and 
ensure them the right to freely choose whether or not to join a union.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for individual worker's rights, to 
protect the secret ballot, and to vote against H.R. 800.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to an 
individual who has turned the direction of this institution and the 
country towards the forgotten middle class, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank him for his great leadership, along with Chairman George 
Miller, in bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  I proudly rise in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. I salute 
again the leadership of the committee. This legislation has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support; it took a Democratic majority to give us a 
chance to vote on it on the floor.
  The Employee Free Choice Act is the most important labor law reform 
legislation of this generation. But this legislation is about more than 
labor law: it is about basic workers' rights. It is about majority 
rule. It is about ending discrimination and harassment in the workplace 
over organizing, and it is about protecting jobs. Under this bill, when 
a majority of workers say they want a union, they will get a union.
  It is important to note, Madam Chair, that many of the benefits all 
workers, union members and others, all workers enjoy today are the 
results of the struggles of organized labor. Their victories have not 
just benefited union workers, but all workers. Millions of those who 
have never had the chance to join a union enjoy better wages, safer 
workplaces, and greater rights because of the battles fought by union 
members. Unions have helped make America the most prosperous, most 
productive Nation in the world with a vibrant middle class, so 
essential to our democracy. Organized labor has helped put America in 
the lead.
  Today, 57 million workers say that they would join a union if they 
had a chance, to be part of an effort to keep America number one. And 
many, many hundreds of thousands of employers throughout this country 
work cooperatively with their unions representing their employees. In 
fact, this bill is very fair to employers, giving them recourse should 
they question the validity of the signatures on the card check.
  The Employee Free Choice Act puts democracy back in the workplace so 
that the decision to form a union can be made by the employees that the 
union would represent. This is a standard right that we routinely 
demand for workers around the world. And it illustrates not only a 
respect for workers but a commitment to democracy. We should accept no 
less a standard here in America.
  Many people, including the NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, many religious organizations support this legislation 
because it is fair. It has been cosponsored by 226 House Democrats. It 
has the support of 69 percent of the American people.
  Democrats believe that we must make our economy fairer, and we began 
in the first 100 hours by passing the minimum wage bill with a strong 
bipartisan vote.
  Today, we will take the next step with a strong bipartisan vote to 
ensure that America's working families have the right to organize, 
because the right to organize means a better future for them and for 
all of us. It means a future that is economically and socially just. It 
is that economic and social justice that drew so many religious 
organizations in support of this legislation, a future where the 
workplace is safe, a future where retirement is secure.
  Madam Chair, every day when we begin the Congress, we begin with a 
pledge to the flag and how proud we are to do that. And we all take 
great pride in pledging the flag, to very clearly enunciate ``under 
God,'' ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 
for all.'' That is the pledge we make every morning, and we pledge it 
under God, liberty and justice for all.
  Well, it is I think a disservice to that pledge and a dishonor to God 
whom we invoke in that, if we don't do in our work here, work that 
promotes liberty and justice for all. And that is what this bill does. 
It is about justice for all: all who want to express themselves in a 
way so they can bargain collectively, so that workers have the strength 
and the leverage to strengthen our middle class, to reach the 
fulfillment for their families, to make our democracy stronger.
  I believe that this bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, is an honest 
continuation of the pledge that we make in the morning for liberty and 
justice for all.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, well, renaming things does not change the 
facts. A few minutes ago we just heard that somehow the Pledge of 
Allegiance has something to do with banning secret ballots, and that 
somehow those of us who favor private elections and secret ballots are 
anti-God. I just simply do not understand the escalation of that 
rhetoric.
  Secondly, one of the senior Members of the other party was just down 
in the well and said why are we Republicans complaining about a secret 
ballot, more or less admitting that is what, in fact, they are 
eliminating, saying that votes are publicly posted. We represent, as 
Mr. Kline said earlier, 700,000 people. Think why you wouldn't want 
your vote posted. Are we heading towards posting in private elections 
and fall elections where there is no longer the secrecy of the private 
voting box? If you posted who you voted for, you could be subject to 
all sorts of discrimination.
  The practical fact here, as I said earlier in the rules debate, is an 
individual is going to be approached to sign his card that would 
circumvent a secret ballot. Then other people are going to come up to 
him. Furthermore, through salting, there are likely to be organizers 
inside that workplace putting further pressure on him. He may get 
shunned. He doesn't have the right to change his mind. There are all 
sorts of subtle, indirect, direct, physical, verbal, and business 
pressures put when you lose a secret ballot. A card is denying the 
vote. It is denying the secret ballot, and no tricky wording can change 
the fundamental fact of what is happening here.
  I would like to insert into the Record a letter from 16 Members of 
Congress led by the distinguished chairman of this committee, Mr. 
Miller, that was sent to Mexico regarding the right to a secret ballot. 
What he says in this letter, and we have heard it described several 
ways, that it had to do with a particular question around a particular 
Mexican election. It states: ``We are writing to encourage you to use a 
secret ballot in all union recognition elections.'' Apparently what is 
good for the Mexican worker is not good for U.S. workers.
                                                  August 29, 2001.
     Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla, 
       Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero,
     7 Norte, Numero 1006 Altos, Colonia Centro, Puebla, Mexico 
         C.P. 72000.
       Dear Members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje 
     of the State of Puebla: As members of Congress of the United 
     States who are deeply concerned with international labor 
     standards and the role of labor rights in international trade 
     agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret 
     ballot in all union recognition elections.
       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 that 
     workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they 
     might not otherwise choose.
       We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading 
     partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret 
     ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real 
     democracy to the Mexican workplace.
           Sincerely,
         George Miller, Marcy Kaptur, Bernard Sanders, William J. 
           Coyne, Lane Evans, Bob Filner, Martin Olav Sabo, Barney 
           Frank, Joe Baca, Zoe Lofgren, Dennis J. Kucinich, 
           Calvin M. Dooley, Fortney Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, 
           James P. McGovern, Lloyd Doggett.

  Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 800, the 
so called Employee Free Choice Act.

[[Page H2062]]

  Madam Chairman, the right to a private ballot is fundamental to a 
democratic society such as yours. Private ballots preserve individuals' 
freedom of conscience and protect them against coercion, pressure, and 
intimidation. Incredibly, however, by allowing workers to unionize 
through the ``Card Check'' system, the ridiculously-named Employee Free 
Choice Act would tell American workers contemplating whether to join a 
union that they don't deserve this cherished democratic right. Indeed, 
passage of this bill would put an end to workers' ability to freely 
choose whether they want to unionize, while the opportunities for union 
organizers to pressure or intimidate workers would multiply 
considerably.
  Furthermore, Madam Chairman, this bill is entirely one-sided. It 
imposes penalties for unfair labor practices on employers, but does 
nothing to punish union organizers who coerce workers. This is grossly 
unfair. Both employers and unions should be harshly penalized for 
illegally interfering with organizing drives. But in H.R. 800, only 
employers are singled out for penalties. H.R. 800 exposes workers to 
increased coercion from organizers, while at the same time muzzling 
employers with new penalties. This is a shameful inequity and 
demonstrates an utter lack of respect for those who have driven the 
recent job growth of our economy. Employers and employees will always 
have their disagreements when it comes to union organizing, but surely, 
Madam Chairman, Congress can do better than this.
  Federal law simply should not provide endorsement to a process like 
``Card Check'' that stifles workers' free speech and undermines the 
very essence of our democracy--the right of all Americans to think and 
act with coercion. I strongly oppose this bill, and urge my colleagues 
to do the same.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, this bill has the potential, I believe, 
to do great good for the working people in this country. I believe it 
has the potential to reenergize the middle class of our country. But I 
believe the opponents of the bill have grossly overstated the severity 
and magnitude of the changes that are proposed.
  We repeatedly hear the phrase that we are ``doing away with the 
secret ballot.'' This is false. The bill sets up two mechanisms for 
people to organize and join a union. The first is to get a majority of 
those eligible in the bargaining unit to sign a card, at which time 
there will be an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. 
It will determine the validity or invalidity of the cards. If the board 
determines that a majority of the bargaining unit has signed a valid 
card, then there is a union recognized.
  There is one key difference between this provision in the bill and 
the law under which we have lived for the last 6 decades-plus. We have 
had the majority sign-up procedure for more than 60 years, but present 
law says even if a majority sign valid cards, the employer can 
arbitrarily veto that choice of a majority. This bill transfers the 
power from the employer's veto to the employees' majority.
  Secondly, if the employees instead wish to organize by pursuing the 
election path, by getting at least 30 percent to manifest their 
intention to have an election, then there is an election. It is very 
important, and we have heard different points about who the union 
leadership is.
  In my district, I will tell you who the union leadership is. They 
coach baseball teams. They read the epistle at mass. They volunteer in 
fire companies. They sign up and recruit people for the United Way. 
They are the first people to show up if there is a fire or a flood. 
They are the hardworking, basic core of this country.
  I know there have been instances of intimidation on both sides, but 
it is important we look at the record. A group that is strongly opposed 
to this bill scoured over 60 years of court cases, and in those 60 
years, they could find only 42 examples which they chose to highlight 
where there was a finding of coercion by a union person in an 
organizing job.
  By contrast, in 2005, more than 31,000 workers in 1 year were awarded 
back pay because it was found that their rights had been violated. Yes, 
there is coercion on both sides, but the record shows that the coercion 
has been disproportionately on the management side. That is why this 
leveling of the playing field is needed.
  This bill replaces the employer's arbitrary veto with a valid 
expression of majority will. It does not eliminate the secret ballot. 
It eliminates the systemic coercion under which we live today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, this bill stands for the principle that: 
Americans should not have a right to a secret ballot, but 89 percent of 
Americans want their Member of Congress to defend a secret ballot; 
Americans do not want their votes made public, but this bill stands for 
the principle that your vote will be made public, despite the fact that 
89 percent of Americans want their votes to remain private. In sum, 
this bill lacks support from 79 percent of Americans who oppose its 
provisions.
  Madam Chairman, the Fraternal Order of Police opposes this bill. The 
American Hospital Association opposes this bill. Thirty other major 
organizations oppose it because it is ironic that as we insist on free 
elections with secret ballots for Afghans, we remove that right for 
Americans.
  I am sorry that over 300,000 Americans dropped their union 
memberships last year, but this Congress cannot rescue big labor from 
its own loss of popularity.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, since we have only one speaker at this 
point, I would reserve my time. I will tell my friend that the majority 
leader is en route to the floor. We are waiting for him as well, but we 
simply have the majority leader and the chairman of the full committee 
left on our side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. We are doing some math here, Madam Chairman. 
Could you give us, again, the time remaining on each side? We have been 
trying to keep track of the minutes here, but I have kind of lost a 
little bit.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. DeGette). The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Would you like to take some of that time now?
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will yield, I will yield to the 
majority leader, yes.
  Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader 
of the House who has brought this consequential legislation to the 
floor, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I want to congratulate George Miller, to start out with, as the 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. George Miller has been, 
throughout my career, all 26 years that I have been here, he and I have 
served together. He has been one of the most courageous, emphatic and 
faithful speakers on behalf of working Americans that we have in this 
House.
  I want to thank my friend, Rob Andrews, who has been an indefatigable 
advocate of making sure that working Americans had opportunities in our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, the Employee Free Choice 
Act, is simply about establishing fairness in the workplace and 
providing America's workers with a free choice to bargain for better 
wages, benefits and work conditions.
  I think that is absolutely essential if we are going to stop this 
growing disparity between the very wealthy and the haves and the 
increasingly have-nots.
  America is a great and strong country because of its middle class. 
That is shrinking. That is a challenge to our country. This is an 
effort to address that.
  The fact of the matter is the current system for forming labor unions 
is badly broken and undemocratic. Far too often, employers intimidate, 
harass, coerce or even fire workers who support a union.
  To address this blatant unfairness, this legislation simply allows 
workers to form a union if a majority signs cards saying they want a 
union. Under current law, workers may use the majority sign-up process 
only if their employer agrees.

[[Page H2063]]

  In contrast, the Employee Free Choice Act would leave this choice, 
whether to use the National Labor Relations Board election process or 
majority sign-up, with the employees, not the employer.
  It is simply a red herring to claim that the legislation abolishes 
the NLRB election process. Although I will say as an aside that the 
delays, the underfunding, the rule complication essentially abolishes 
in some respects the NLRB's intent. In any event, it does not abolish 
the NLRB. The NLRB process is still available if workers choose it.
  We all know what is really going on here today. It is no secret. The 
administration and many in the Republican Party have a long-standing, 
deep-seated animosity toward the organized labor movement, despite the 
fact that working men and women are the backbone of our economy and 
have built this country into what it is today.
  Now, I am a strong proponent of the free market system. I am a strong 
proponent of business and those who grow businesses and create jobs. I 
say all over this country, the Democratic Party is the party of 
workers. If we are going to be the party of workers, we have to be the 
party of employers, but we need to make sure there is a balance.
  We are not the representatives of either. What we are representatives 
of is the American people. We need to make sure that it is a fair 
opportunity.
  Over the last 6 years, the administration, among other things, has 
dropped an ergonomic safety standard, tried to eliminate Davis-Bacon 
protections, denied collective bargaining rights to Federal employees. 
800,000 Federal employees, we have denied bargaining rights, 800,000 
Federal employees. Now, there are about 1.8, 1.9 million civilian 
Federal employees, and we just reached in and said, oh, no, if you are 
a DOD, Defense Department employee or a Homeland Security employee, you 
cannot have collective bargaining rights.
  I asked the Office of Personnel Management to cite me one instance in 
the last half a century where collective bargaining rights have put at 
risk any national security issue. They could not name one in the last 
half century, not one. I have the gentleman there pointing at himself; 
I can name you one. Well, this administration's Office of Personnel 
Management could not.
  It is no surprise today that they would oppose this legislation, 
which seeks to give workers a meaningful choice in selecting their 
representation and stiffen penalties for discrimination against workers 
who support a union.
  Madam Chairman, hardworking families today are increasingly squeezed 
by stagnant incomes and the rising costs of education, health care, 
transportation, food and housing, and there is not an employee who is 
on even footing as an individual. I say that. Perhaps that is not 
correct.
  I was with Alonzo Mourning just the other day. He is almost 7 feet 
tall. He may be on equal footing because his employer needs him very, 
very, very badly, and there may be some few like that, but if you are 6 
foot 2 you may not be in that position.
  American workers deserve to be fairly compensated for the dedication, 
loyalty and skill they bring to their jobs, and this legislation will 
help restore fairness to the workplace.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to be pro-labor 
or pro-business but to be pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-growing 
America. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I could not agree more with what the distinguished majority leader 
just said. This is not about business versus labor. We should all be 
pro-worker, and I believe that this bill is anti-worker.
  I agreed with the distinguished Speaker of the House who said it is 
about liberty and justice. I would add it is about the American way. It 
is about the sanctity of the private ballot, the secret ballot. It is 
about preserving the security of our workers, and make no mistake, 
despite claims to the contrary, the effect of this bill would be to 
eliminate the secret ballot and the process of selecting a union. Now, 
there is a subparagraph in there, 6(c) or something like that, but the 
effect of this will be to eliminate the secret ballot.
  Madam Chairman, let us, today, protect the essence of democracy. Let 
us protect the American workers. Let us support Mr. McKeon's substitute 
and let us oppose this bad legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
very proactive Member from Texas, my friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished 
manager and I thank the distinguished speaker, and as well, George 
Miller, the chairman of the Education Committee, for his statement he 
made just a few weeks ago, how he had seen an absence of recognition of 
middle class workers in America being addressed in his committee and he 
was going to address it.
  I want my friends to know that the first amendment guarantees the 
right to freedom of association. That is what the Employee Free Choice 
Act does in H.R. 800.
  Let me thank the president of my local union AFL-CIO, Mr. Wortham, 
the Secretary/Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Shaw and SEIU because I 
want them to know that my presence with them in the janitorial 
organizational effort over the last couple of weeks reinforced the 
importance of this Employee Free Choice Act.
  My standing with the old PACE union in front of energy refineries 
years ago reinforces the need of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a 
simple process. All it does is it allows individuals to form unions and 
to engage in collective bargainig. Without this protection, many union 
organizers and members would be fired.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I ask that this legislation 
be supported, because middle-class working America deserves this 
protection.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support, and as a proud co-
sponsor of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). I support 
this bill because despite several years of economic growth and high 
corporate profits, middle- and working-class families like the ones I 
represent in Houston have actually lost ground. They are squeezed 
between shrinking or stagnating incomes and rising costs for the basic 
necessities of modern life such as education, health care, 
transportation, food, and housing. One of the most effective and 
practical ways of reversing this undesirable trend is to restore the 
freedom of workers to join together to bargain collectively for better 
wages, benefits, and working conditions.
  Madam Chairman, on average, workers who belong to a union earn 30 
percent more than nonunion workers. Members of unions, on average, 
receive 15 days of paid vacation annually, which is almost 50 percent 
more than their nonunion counterparts. Union members also fare better 
when it comes to health care: 80 percent of union members have 
employer-provided health care; only 49 percent of non-union workers 
have the same benefit. And, perhaps most important of all, workers who 
belong to a union earn on average 30 percent more than nonunion 
workers.
  Madam Chairman, no group or association deserves more credit than 
organized labor and the trade union movement for the creation and rise 
of the American middle class, the 5-day work week, the 40-hour work 
week, the existence of employee pension plans, and many of the other 
employment benefits which we take for granted today.
  The right to form a union is a fundamental human right and an 
essential element of a free and democratic society. But today, the 
right to organize and bargain collectively, protections that the 
National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 to protect, have been 
so weakened that immediate action is needed to restore them.
  The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935 to 
protect the rights of workers to join unions and to bargain 
collectively with their employers. Unfortunately, over the years these 
rights have been dramatically eroded because of aggressive and 
intimidating employer anti-union campaigns, ineffective NLRA penalties 
for employers who violate worker rights, and lengthy employer appeals 
of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases in the courts. As a 
result, it is now increasingly uncommon for workers to successfully 
organize by going through an NLRB-conducted election. When workers do 
choose to be represented by a union, moreover, employers use a variety 
of legal and illegal tactics to keep the union from obtaining a first 
contract.
  H.R. 800 will help restore the worker protections in the NLRA by: (1) 
requiring employers to bargain with a union when a majority of workers 
sign valid authorization cards; (2) providing for mediation and 
arbitration for a first contract; and (3) increasing penalties for 
employer violations of the NLRA. I support each of these provisions.

[[Page H2064]]

                            Majority sign-up

  Madam Chairman, a large and growing percentage of employers either 
take advantage of loopholes in the NLRA or simply violate the NLRA to 
spy on, harass, threaten, intimidate, suspend, fire, deport, and 
otherwise victimize workers who attempt to exercise their right to act 
collectively through a union. According to a highly respected Cornell 
University survey, 36 percent of workers who vote ``no'' in union 
representation elections explain their vote as a response to employer 
pressure.
  This statistic is not surprising given the intensity of employer 
anti-union campaigns. According to the Cornell survey, employers 
illegally fire at least one worker in 25 percent of all organizing 
campaigns. And 92 percent of employers make their employees attend 
``captive audience'' meetings, where they are required to sit through 
one-sided, anti-union presentations. (Union supporters are given no 
opportunity to speak.) Also, 78 percent of employers hold repeated 
closed-door, ``one-on-one'' meetings with workers, which are very 
intimidating to most employees. In the manufacturing sector, over 75 
percent of companies threaten or ``predict'' the workplace will close 
or move if workers vote for the union.
  EFCA requires employers to recognize and bargain with unions when a 
majority of workers have signed valid authorization cards. With 
majority sign-up, workers are able to decide for themselves whether 
they want to form a union, free from the assault of an intimidating 
employer anti-union campaign, which is generally triggered at the 
moment a union files a representation petition with the NLRB.


                       Mediation and arbitration

  Madam Chairman, when workers do manage to get over the obstacles to 
forming a union, they often face employer resistance to negotiating a 
first contract. With the use of anti-union consultants, delay, and the 
inadequacies of the NLRA, many employers drag out negotiations for a 
first contract until one year passes, at which time employees who were 
active in the ``vote no'' committee file a petition to decertify the 
union. In fact, 32 percent of workers who demonstrate majority support 
for union representation lack a collective bargaining agreement one 
year later. Without a contract as a bar, the decertification often goes 
forward and the union--seen as weak and ineffective--is frequently 
voted out.
  EFCA provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in 
bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement 
within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If the FMCS is 
unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, 
the dispute is referred to arbitration and the results of the 
arbitration are binding on the parties for 2 years. The time limits may 
be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.


               Stiffer penalties for Employer Violations

  Madam Chairman, the NLRA has woefully inadequate remedies for 
employer violations. There are no punitive damages. There are no 
provisions for repeat violators, as there are under the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act or the Environmental Protection Act. And the 
limited back pay penalty is so weak that it is in the economic interest 
of most employers to fire key union supporters to chill an organizing 
drive.
  To rectify this situation, the third prong of EFCA would strengthen 
the penalties for certain employer violations of the NLRA during an 
organizing drive or negotiations for a first contract. Specifically, it 
would: (1) require the NLRB to seek a federal court injunction whenever 
there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has illegally 
discharged an employee or otherwise engaged in conduct that 
significantly interferes with employee rights; (2) provide for triple 
back pay when an employee is illegally discharged or discriminated 
against, and (3) provide for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation 
against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated 
employees' rights.
  Madam Chairman, these are modest and reasonable but necessary 
protections if the fundamental right to organize is to be preserved. It 
is difficult to understand how anyone could be opposed to such sensible 
legislation. But opponents of H.R. 800 have launched a major campaign 
to derail the bill. As discussed below, there is little or no merit to 
any of the major claims being raised to scare and intimidate supporters 
of the bill.
  The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor 
Relations Board's ``secret ballot'' election process. That process will 
still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation 
simply provides an alternative means for workers to form a union 
through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB 
election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority 
sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act 
would make that choice--whether to use the NLRB election process or 
majority sign-up--a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will not result in intimidation and 
harassment by labor unions against workers. Research has found that 
coercion and pressure actually drops when workers form a union through 
a majority sign-up process. But more importantly, harassment by unions 
is not the problem. In a study covering a period of more than 60 years, 
the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases involving 
allegations of union deception and/or coercion in obtaining 
authorization card signatures. A careful examination of those cases, 
however, revealed that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 
113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers 
received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise 
discriminated against them for their union activities.
  Contrary to the claims of opponents, the Employee Free Choice Act 
does not require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get 
rid of a union. Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as 
cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the 
union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of 
the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election 
is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw 
recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee 
Free Choice Act would not change this.
  The Employee Free Choice Act does not require ``public'' union card 
signings. Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to 
show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, 
under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up 
process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. 
Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from 
these card signings under current law.
  The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is 
treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a 
majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under 
the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would 
receive the cards and determine their validity.
  Madam Chairman, opponents of H.R. 800 claim the bill is hypocritical 
because some of its sponsors support secret ballot elections for 
workers in Mexico, but not in the United States. This is a short horse 
soon curried. Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 
arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers 
there were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with a real, 
independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with 
this; it requires an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to 
replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of 
the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those 
cases where multiple unions were competing--particularly where one was 
a sham company union and another was a real independent union.
  All in all, Madam Chairman, H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, 
is good for working- and middle-class families and that means it is 
good for America. Adopting this legislation is another step in the 
right direction for our country. A new and better direction is what 
Americans voted for last November. By supporting H.R. 800, as I do 
strongly, we are delivering on our promise to the American people.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield at this time to the new Member 
from Ohio who knows these issues very well, my friend from Ohio (Mr. 
Wilson) 1 minute.
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, today the administration says that 
our economy is moving. And in my section of eastern Ohio, it is moving, 
it is moving overseas. The middle class of our country is being left 
behind. It is time for some much needed fairness and relief to what is 
going on in our labor movement.
  Madam Chair, the Employee Free Choice Act is a step in the right 
direction. The facts speak for themselves: Workers who belong to unions 
earn an average of 30 percent more than ones who do not belong. Union 
workers are also much more likely to have health care and pension 
benefits and a better opportunity in life.
  As our middle class continues to feel the squeeze, it is time that we 
give workers a fair chance for representation and the benefits they 
deserve. Right now that isn't happening. The current system is broken. 
Workers are often denied the right that they need to form a union. 
Those who take part in legal organizing activities are often

[[Page H2065]]

punished. Some even lose their jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act also 
cuts through the red tape and delays.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, the Employee Free Choice Act puts into place 
another important common sense measure. It provides workers with union 
representation when a majority of those workers have signed up for 
union representation. This option doesn't eliminate the existing 
``secret ballot'' election process. It just gives workers another 
choice in how to select a union.
  Madam Chairman, our middle class is hurting. Costs for basic needs 
like health care and transportation are climbing, but wages are not 
keeping up. The Employee Free Choice Act helps open up important 
opportunities for working families, and it brings balance to a system 
that sorely needs it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. With the indulgence of the minority, which we 
appreciate, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee 
whose expertise is matched only by her passion in this area, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) 1 minute.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chair, I rise in strong 
support of the Employee Free Choice Act.
  The ability to form a union and bargain has been instrumental in 
helping families reach the middle class. Workers who belong to unions 
earn more and have better benefits than workers who don't.
  The Employee Free Choice Act is about ensuring that workers can join 
a union. More than half of U.S. workers would join a union if they 
could.
  But to prevent workers from forming a union, 92 percent of employers 
will force employees to attend anti-union propaganda sessions, and 25 
percent will illegally fire at least one employee for pro-union 
activity.
  I learned from an early age how difficult it can be to organize a 
workplace and also how important unions can be to families. At the 
factory where she worked, my mother helped lead an effort to organize 
shop workers and get health benefits and pensions.
  Later, I tried my own hand at organizing janitors and home health 
care workers, and, like my mother, faced staunch opposition from 
employers. It took the pleas of the religious community to get many 
workers reinstated.
  Current law is simply not strong enough. Management-controlled 
campaigns, firings, and intimidation are not the hallmarks of the 
democratic process--but they are the hallmarks of the current system in 
which employers hold all the power.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I am now very pleased to yield 
the balance of our time to the ranking member on the Committee of 
Education and Labor, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This debate has been exactly as we expected it would be, provocative, 
passionate, and, yes, quite predictable. After all, the script that was 
written many, many years ago by special interests chomping at the bit 
to see this bill come to the floor, and as we near its conclusion they 
won't be disappointed. They have gotten the payback they have long 
sought.
  When you strip away all the statistics, all the rhetoric, all the 
letters to foreign governments, and all the talking points, this debate 
comes down to a basic struggle between those defending democracy and 
those defending hypocrisy. Those opposing this bill do so because it 
offends the very concept of democracy itself. It undermines it in the 
workplace, and it turns its back on those who count on it when they 
expect to have their privacy protected when it matters most.
  On the other hand, those supporting this measure find themselves 
defending the staggering record of hypocrisy that card check proponents 
have amassed through the years. They have struggled to explain how a 
card check is inherently prone to intimidation some of the time, just 
not all of the time. They have attempted to square their self-
proclaimed title of ``protectors of the working class'' with their 
support of a bill that strips the working class of one of its most 
fundamental rights of all, the right to vote. And they have grappled 
with their staunch support of a bill purported to safeguard free choice 
when it actually eviscerates it.
  The last point is perhaps the most important of all, and on this 
question, card check supporters never have had a consistent or rational 
answer: How exactly does this bill protect free choice? When you sign a 
card, everyone knows how you voted, and right away. Your co-workers, 
your boss, the union organizers, and the union bosses. Anyone 
associated with that unionization drive knows exactly how you came down 
on the issue. And once that vote is exposed for all the world to see, 
there is no turning back. And that is not free choice, not in this 
country, anyway.
  You know, we have agreed that there could be intimidation from both 
sides. The secret ballot is the only way to free people from any 
intimidation.
  I would like to conclude by inserting in the Record an editorial that 
was in The Los Angeles Times, not noted for being a conservative 
newspaper today. They ran an editorial titled, ``Keep Union Ballots 
Secret.'' Doing away with voting secrecy would give unions too much 
power over workers. Unions once supported the secret ballot for 
organization elections. They were right then and are wrong now. Unions 
have every right to a fair hearing, and the National Labor Relations 
Board should be more vigilant about attempts by employers to game the 
system. In the end, however, whether to unionize is up to the workers. 
A secret ballot ensures that their choice will be a free one.
  Vote against this bill today to take away that right of the workers 
of America.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2007]

                       Keep Union Ballots Secret


 Doing away with voting secrecy would give unions too much power over 
                                workers

       THE HOUSE of Representatives is expected today to approve a 
     bill, favored by organized labor, whose stated purpose is 
     glaringly at odds with its key provision. The Employee Free 
     Choice Act is portrayed by its supporters as a way to allow 
     workers to choose whether to join a union.
       Unfortunately, the legislation would do away with a secret 
     ballot in so-called organizing elections, making it easier 
     for union leaders to pressure co-workers in what should be a 
     free choice. Instead of having the option of insisting on a 
     secret ballot election, employers would have to accept a 
     union formed on the basis of authorization cards signed by 
     workers--not by a secret process.
       Unions and their supporters in the Democratic-controlled 
     Congress say the so-called card-check system is the only way 
     to overcome aggressive (and sometimes illegal) anti-union 
     tactics by employers. In announcing support for the bill, 
     Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) complained that employers 
     often fire workers who seek to organize. Such reprisals are 
     illegal, and part of the Employee Free Choice Act increases 
     the sanctions for employer violations.
       Unfair labor practices deserve tougher penalties. But 
     improper influence can work both ways. As a rule, union 
     membership improves worker prosperity and safety. Even so, 
     the bedrock of federal labor law is not unionism under any 
     conditions, but the right of workers to choose whether they 
     want to affiliate with a union.
       Obviously, employers shouldn't punish workers for wanting 
     to join a union, float falsehoods in trying to influence an 
     organization election or bar union representatives from the 
     workplace. Just as obviously, the penalties they face for 
     doing so are laughable and need to be strengthened. By the 
     same token, however, supporters of unionization shouldn't be 
     able to pressure unwilling or hesitant employees to join a 
     union. And you don't have to be a critic of unions to 
     recognize that the card-check system invites such abuses.
       Unions once supported the secret ballot for organization 
     elections. They were right then and are wrong now. Unions 
     have every right to a fair hearing, and the National Labor 
     Relations Board should be more vigilant about attempts by 
     employers to game the system. In the end, however, whether to 
     unionize is up to the workers. A secret ballot ensures that 
     their choice will be a free one.

  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to someone whose diligent efforts are about to pay off with a 
victory on this vote, the chairman of our committee, the author of the 
bill, our friend from California, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate.
  At a time when the middle class standard of living in America for 
millions of Americans is at greater risk than at any time in recent 
history, at a time when people see employers arbitrarily terminating 
their pensions, freezing their pensions, shifting the cost of their 
health insurance, cutting the benefits under health insurance; at a 
time when they see that they have no new money to take home in their 
wages, that their wages have been flat;

[[Page H2066]]

at a time when CEOs are awarding themselves golden handshakes, golden 
parachutes, and golden hellos, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, 
at that time at that moment we have an opportunity here to redeem a 
provision of the law which has been in the law for 70 years to simply 
give the workers a choice. They can choose an NLRB election, or they 
can choose a majority signoff.
  That is a simple choice that these adults in the workplace can make. 
It is a choice that was given to them 70 years ago, and it was a choice 
that later was taken away by a veto of the employer.
  Imagine, a majority of the Americans get together and they do 
something and one person gets to veto it. One person gets to veto it in 
the workplace. Think of what the relationship is between that employer 
and those employees. Think about how those employees must have felt 
that they needed to organize in the workplace, because employees know 
that they do if they are going to stop the trend and the bleeding that 
they see today, against the benefits that they have at their workplace, 
against their salaries, against their hours at work, against their 
right to a retirement nest egg that means something.
  Every day you pick up the business journals of this country and you 
read where again another employer has terminated a pension, has 
restricted the pension, won't pay into the pension, puts the pensions 
into bankruptcy. You want to know why people need card checks? People 
need card checks so they can have the freedom of choice to choose do 
they want an election, do they want a card check. It is in the National 
Labor Relations Act today, it is the law, but for the veto, the veto of 
the employer.
  How more arbitrary can you possibly get that a single employer could 
override the desires of a majority of the employees in its workplace? 
How more arbitrary can you get? It is the same arbitrariness those 
employers show when they cut your health care benefits and your 
pensions and your retirements without any say by the employees, without 
any negotiations. That is why millions of Americans want representation 
at work, so that they can have a voice in that workplace, they can have 
a voice in their future, they can have a voice in whether or not they 
are going to be able to buy a home, buy a car, educate their children, 
have a health care policy that they can afford that will be there when 
they need it.
  That is what this is really about. This is about whether or not we 
are going to strengthen and help maintain and grow the middle class in 
this country. Because it is not happening under the arbitrary policies 
that are imposed on workers today by their employers. This Employee 
Free Choice Act gives the workers that choice, the choice that is 
currently in the law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation when it 
comes time for passage. Again, I thank all my colleagues for 
participating in this debate, I thank the Chair for the courtesy they 
have shown both sides.
  Madam Chairman, We all know that workers in the U.S. are among the 
most productive workers in the world. Yet for far too long, they have 
not been reaping the benefits of their hard work.
  For years and years now, many workers have found themselves working 
harder and harder just to stay in place. And many more have been losing 
ground financially despite their work.
  This is troubling enough on its own. But what makes it even more 
troubling is that, over the last several years, our economy has been 
growing. The stock market is doing well. Corporate profits are high.
  Consider the facts.
  Since 2001, median household income has fallen by $1,300. Wages and 
salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six 
decades.
  The number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 
million since 2001, to 46.6 million, a shocking record high.
  The number of Fortune 1000 companies that have frozen or terminated 
their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001.
  Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 4 million more 
Americans have joined the ranks of the poor since 2001.
  And meanwhile, corporate profits make up their largest share of the 
economy since the 1960s.
  Madam Chairman, there are a lot of explanations for the growing 
inequality in our economy. Congress' failure to raise the minimum wage 
for 10 long years is an obvious example. But perhaps the most 
significant explanation is that workers' rights to join together and 
bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been 
severely undermined.
  Today, when workers want to form a union, their employers can force 
them to undergo a National Labor Relations Board election process. That 
process is broken, because it allows irresponsible employers to harass, 
coerce, intimidate, reassign, and even fire workers who support a 
union.
  Take the example of Ivo Camilo. Mr. Camilo is from Sacramento, not 
far from my district. For 35 years, he worked at a Blue Diamond Growers 
plant in Sacramento. In 2004, he and several dozen coworkers sought to 
form a union. For that, Mr. Camilo was fired. After 35 years of 
service, Blue Diamond tossed Mr. Camilo out on the street, just because 
he wanted a union.
  The same thing happened to Keith Ludlum when he supported union 
representation for him and his coworkers at a Smithfield foods plant in 
Tar Heel, North Carolina. Mr. Ludlum, a veteran of the first Gulf War, 
was fired in 1994 because he wanted a union. It took him 12 years of 
litigation to get his job back.
  What happened to Mr. Camilo and Mr. Ludlum happens with distressing 
frequency in this country. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were 
receiving back pay from employers that had committed unfair labor 
violations.
  Earlier this year, the Center for Economic and Policy Research 
estimated that employers fire one in five workers who actively advocate 
for a union. A December 2005 study by American Rights at Work found 
that 49 percent of employers studied had threatened to close or 
relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a 
union.
  And Human Rights Watch has said, ``[F]reedom of association is a 
right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United 
States try to exercise it.''
  Corporate executives routinely negotiate lavish compensation packages 
on their own behalfs, but then they deny their own employees the 
ability to bargain for a better life.
  This debate is about restoring workers' ability to choose for 
themselves whether or not they want a union. To make that happen, the 
Employee Free Choice Act does three things.
  First, it says that when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing 
a union, they get a union. The legislation requires the National Labor 
Relations Board to develop model authorization language and procedures 
for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.
  The legislation does not take away workers' ability to have a 
National Labor Relations Board election instead of majority sign-up if 
that's what they want. It gives them the choice. If 30 percent sign 
cards saying they want a union and petition the Board for an election, 
they get an election. But, if a majority of workers sign cards saying 
they want a union and they want recognition now, they get a union.
  This majority sign-up is not a new idea. Under current law, when a 
majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, then they can have 
a union if their employer consents to it. But instead of consenting, 
employers often reject the employees' choice and force them through an 
NLRB election process that is dramatically tilted in the employer's 
favor. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take this veto power 
away from employers. Under current law, it's the employer's choice that 
matters. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employees' choice 
that matters.
  Majority sign-up has a proven track record for reducing coercion and 
intimidation. In cases where responsible employers, like Cingular 
Wireless, have permitted their employees to form a union through 
majority sign-up, both sides have praised the process for increasing 
cooperation and decreasing tension.
  Second, the legislation increases penalties against employers who 
fire or discriminate against workers for their efforts to form a union 
or obtain a first contract.
  Under current law the National Labor Relations Board is required to 
seek a federal court injunction against a union whenever there is 
reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the secondary 
boycott prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act.
  Under this legislation, the Board must seek a federal court 
injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to 
believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against 
employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate against employees, 
or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee 
rights during an organizing or first contract drive. The legislation 
authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other 
appropriate injunctive relief.
  Employers found to have discharged or discriminated against employees 
during an organizing campaign or first contract drive must pay those 
workers three times back pay, instead of the simple back pay required 
under current law. Employers found to have willfully or repeatedly 
violated employees' rights during

[[Page H2067]]

an organizing campaign or first contract drive would receive civil 
fines of up to $20,000 per violation.
  Under current law, remedies are limited solely to make whole 
remedies: back pay (minus any additional interim wages the employee did 
or should have earned), reinstatement, and notice that the employer 
will not engage in violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Many 
employers conclude that, even if caught, it is financially advantageous 
to violate the law and pay the penalties rather than to comply.
  And third, the legislation provides for mediation if an employer and 
a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are 
unable to reach agreement within 90 days. After 30 days of mediation 
the dispute would be referred to binding arbitration. Under current 
law, employers have a duty to bargain in good faith, but are under no 
obligation to reach agreement. As a result, a recent study found that 
34 percent of union election victories had not resulted in a first 
contract.
  Madam Chairman, we have heard a lot of shamefully misleading claims 
from the critics of this bill. Those critics claim that they have 
workers' best interests at heart, and that they are trying to protect 
democracy.
  Yet their claims are belied by the fact that some of the nation's 
leading workers' rights and prodemocracy organizations support this 
bill, including Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Worker Justice, and the 
Drum Major Institute--among many, many others.
  These are organizations that are dedicated to the mission of 
improving the lives of American workers. I can tell you that if this 
bill would do the kind of harm that its critics claim it would, then 
these respected organizations would not be supporting it today.
  I want to close by just reminding people how much is at stake here.
  We can continue on our nation's current path, where our society grows 
more and more unequal and polarized. If we stay on the same path, then 
our middle class will keep getting squeezed, and will struggle to pay 
for just the basic necessities of life, like housing, healthcare, 
education, and transportation.
  We can stay on that path, or we can go in a new direction. We can 
ensure that every American worker gets his or her fair share of the 
benefits of a growing economy.
  To strengthen America's middle class, we have got to restore workers' 
rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
  After all, union workers earn 30 percent more, on average, than non-
union workers. They are much more likely to have retirement and health 
benefits and paid time off.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 800 so that we can 
finally start to reverse the middle class squeeze and create an economy 
that benefits all Americans.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, today, the House of Representatives took 
a long awaited step toward improving the lives of America's working-
class and middle-class families. For far too long, the playing field 
has been tilted against workers and the unions that represent them. 
Today's House passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which I strongly 
supported, will help balance the inequity in the relationship between 
management and workers; an inequity that management has far too often 
used to stifle the will of workers.
  An objective review of the recent history of labor relations in this 
country shows that in the majority of cases employer coercion, 
intimidation, and harassment have been used as tools to manipulate and 
successfully thwart union organizing drives.
  Workers are often fired or otherwise discriminated against because of 
their efforts to organize. One out of every four employers illegally 
fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing 
campaign; 78 percent of employers force their employees to attend one-
on-one meetings with their supervisors to hear anti-union messages; and 
92 percent force employees to attend mandatory, captive audience anti-
union meetings.
  Clearly, even when a solid majority of employees have requested 
employer recognition of union representation, the more likely reaction 
of management has been to launch repressive anti-union campaigns rife 
with illegal tactics.
  During the minority party's 12 years of power in Congress, and now 6 
years in the White House, case after case of illegal employer 
intimidation leveled against union organizing efforts would arise. That 
little was often done in response only encouraged impunity among the 
forces opposed to negotiating with workers in good faith.
  Now, is the Democratic Party's turn to hold the reins of power in 
this institution, and with this legislation, the Democratic majority 
demonstrates its unyielding commitment to workers' rights and a decent 
life for all working Americans and their families.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, 
Employee Free Choice Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
in favor of it.
  I support the Employee Free Choice Act because I believe in 
protecting America's workers and their rights in the workplace. The 
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was landmark legislation that 
allowed workers to organize and bargain collectively. These rights need 
to be safeguarded for the benefit of our working men and women who make 
up America's middle class. However, in a time of economic growth and 
high corporate profits, these middle class families have actually lost 
ground. Ensuring their freedom to join together and bargain for better 
wages, benefits, and working conditions is crucial to improving their 
plight in today's economy.
  H.R. 800, Employee Free Choice Act protects workers in several ways. 
The bill increases penalties for employers who violate the National 
Labor Relations Act while employees are attempting to organize. It 
enables both the employer and the union to seek arbitration and 
mediation during talks for their first contract. Finally, H.R. 800 
allows workers to form a union if the National Labor Relations Board 
finds that a majority of workers have signed authorizations to 
designate the union as their bargaining representative. This ``card 
check'' process means workers can still choose to unionize through the 
current secret ballot method if they wish, but they also would have an 
avenue that is more protected from intimidation and manipulation from 
employers who act in bad faith.
  In addition, I oppose any amendments designed to weaken this bill. 
The substitute amendment presented by Representative McKeon would strip 
the Employee Free Choice Act of its original intent. The amendment 
would prohibit employers from recognizing a union despite a majority of 
workers signing authorization cards. The amendment introduced by 
Representative Steve King would outlaw the organizing tactic known as 
``salting.'' The Supreme Court has expressly upheld this practice under 
the National Labor Relations Act. In addition, the amendment presented 
by Representative Foxx concerning ``Do Not Call List'' would have the 
effect of cutting off communication between organizers and workers. It 
could be too easily used as a tool by unscrupulous companies to 
pressure employees.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 800, Employee Free 
Choice Act and protecting the rights of our working men and women.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
800, the Employee Free Choice Act to allow America's workers to make 
their own free decisions about whether or not they want to freely 
associate and form unions.
  H.R. 800 is designed to tighten rules and regulations and close labor 
law loopholes that have been either manipulated or exploited by those 
seeking to stifle or defeat organizing efforts through methods other 
than open and transparent debate. Employers have increasingly hired 
consultants to file motions and appeals aimed at delaying elections 
that could be easily certified by the National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB). These delays have frequently resulted in denial of workers' 
rights. If the system were not in disrepair; if the NLRB was working as 
intended, this legislation would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the 
system is broken and we must act to repair it.
  Accordingly, H.R. 800 will replace the current two-step process that 
now requires 30-percent of employees to sign a card followed by an NLRB 
election, with a simpler, fairer single step process. Under the bill, a 
majority of employee signatures, 50 percent plus 1, on an authorized 
card establishes a designated union as the official bargaining unit. My 
state of New Jersey has already implemented an Employee Free Choice Act 
for its public employees; H.R. 800 would do so for everyone in the 
Untied States.
  Employers utilize union busting consultants more than 80 percent of 
the time, and use delaying tactics that can prevent any final decision 
for years. Moreover, the NLRB is less prepared to handle the legal 
dealings than it was 20 years ago. At last count, the staff is only 
about one-third the size of what it was in the early '80s.
  In addition to reforming the process, H.R. 800 would also impose new 
and increased penalties for unfair labor practices, including higher 
civil penalties such as a $20,000 fine for each violation of coercion.
  Recently at Rutgers University in New Jersey attempts were made to 
discourage the organization process. For example, emails sent from the 
Human Resources Department for

[[Page H2068]]

the employees stated in part ``we believe the facts strongly support 
the conclusion that union representation would not benefit you, and we 
will be providing important information that supports our belief.
  Fortunately, a neutrality agreement, currently in force, was signed 
on January 25, 2007. It forbids all anti-union campaigning on behalf of 
the University and prevents the University from making disparaging 
remarks about the union, and discussions on the question of 
unionization are permitted at work as long as they do not disrupt 
educational functions. I want to commend President Richard McCormick 
for signing a comprehensive neutrality agreement.
  Coercion of any kind is now expressly forbidden by either the 
University or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Rutgers is 
forbidden from holding captive audience meetings, one-on-one meetings, 
and the University can't question or monitor employees about 
unionization. The organization process at Rutgers is now working. One 
study shows that 91 percent of employers force employees to attend 
anti-union briefings and meetings. This is not expected to happen at 
Rutgers.
  Pursuant to the neutrality agreement and relevant law, no employee 
can be subjected to any intimidation, threats or reprisals, promises of 
benefits or other offers, or subjected to speech designed to influence 
his or her decision to join the union.
  None of these actions, as well as others, are permitted as of the 
date of the neutrality agreement and mechanisms are also now in place 
to adjudicate any infractions. These protections are essential, 
necessary, and justified.
  Amazingly, it is the research done in part by Rutgers Professor 
Adrienne Eaton and the Eagleton Institute that has suggested that 
``while pro-union workers and union organizers can attempt to make 
their case persuasively, it is the employers who control the workplace 
and frequently use their power to hire, fire, and change work schedules 
to pressure workers during the weeks leading up to an NLRB election.''
  Another long labor organizing effort in New Jersey involves nurses 
and other employees at South Jersey Healthcare. While these healthcare 
workers finally got their union several weeks ago, organizing was not 
easy. Michele Silvio, a registered nurse for 13 years, who spent her 
last eight years in the emergency room, was told ``like it or leave 
it'' when she and other employees tried to make their concerns known. 
According to Michele, problems began after the consolidation of several 
facilities into one large medical center. Up to three times the patient 
volume was being experienced and Michele and her other co-workers felt 
they needed a voice to make their concerns about quality patient care 
known.
  During the process, however, management used the tools of a captive 
workforce to try to ``persuade them'' to change their minds. Nurses 
were forced to sit through mandatory meetings on work time where 
management gave anti-union presentations. Workers were also 
interrogated and sometimes intimidated by management during one-on-one 
meetings.
  When faced with organizing drives, the research has found that 30 
percent of employers fire pro-union workers; 49 percent threaten to 
close a worksite if the union prevails, and 51 percent coerce workers 
into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.
  This is not free or fair, and the right to associate and form labor 
unions must be protected. The Employee Free Choice Act will level the 
playing field and bring fairness to the organizing process.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  Despite the rosy economic forecast provided by the administration, a 
broad array of indicators shows otherwise--namely that despite record 
levels of corporate prosperity, the economic pressures exerted on our 
middle class continue to build.
  Middle class families have and continue to lose ground, faced with 
stagnant incomes and rising costs of essential services like health 
care, gasoline and a college education.
  One of the most important things we can do to relieve this middle 
class squeeze is to restore workers' freedom to join together to 
bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Indeed, on 
average, union workers earn 30 percent more on average than nonunion 
workers and are much more likely to have health care and receive 
pension benefits.
  Yet the current system governing the formation of unions is badly 
flawed, and permits an unfair process greatly tipped in favor of 
employer efforts to block unionization drives. At present, organizers 
can present cards signed by a majority of the workforce in support of 
union representation, but the employer has absolutely no obligation to 
recognize this effort. Instead, employers can force a National Labor 
Relations Board election, which can take months to take place, during 
which time employers are free to erode union support using company 
resources through mandated anti-union activities at the workplace. Any 
pro-union activities are explicitly prohibited at the workplace.
  H.R. 800 levels the playing field by requiring employers to recognize 
the card-checking procedure, ensuring a fair and equitable process that 
balances the rights of employers with the rights of workers to form a 
union.
  This bill also provides negotiation benchmarks to ensure that initial 
collective bargaining agreements are negotiated in earnest. These 
provisions address problems with the current system which relies 
entirely on both parties engaging in a ``good faith'' effort to reach 
an agreement. In reality, this system permits employers to indefinitely 
delay negotiations during which time they can rekindle efforts to 
disband the newly elected union representatives.
  Lastly, the bill includes tougher penalties for violations of 
workers' rights. Currently, about one in five pro-union employee 
activists are illegally fired for their union activities, in large part 
because the remedies for these employer violations are so weak. By 
strengthening these penalties, we are further ensuring that employers 
follow the rule of law.
  The middle class is the backbone of our society. And the middle class 
is stronger when workers can join together to bargain for a higher 
standard of living. Years ago, it was unions that helped pave the way 
towards employer sponsored health care and pensions benefits. Now more 
than ever, it is vital that we address the current inequities faced by 
those who are fighting for workers' rights to bargain collectively. In 
doing so, we foster a stronger middle class and a more prosperous 
nation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 800.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Madam 
Speaker, this legislation is long overdue.
  Under the previous majority, Congress was quick to provide tax cuts 
for large corporations, but legislation to improve the lives of working 
families was kept off the floor of this chamber.
  Labor unions are responsible for almost every benefit to wage earners 
in this country:
  Unions created the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, maternity leave, 
and worker's compensation.
  Unions represent the people that make our country work--The grape 
harvesters, the home builders, telecommunications workers, ice cream 
scoopers at the SavOn Drug store in Anaheim. When I had that job, I was 
represented by Local 324 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and 
proud of it.
  In every sector of the economy, laborers have always looked to their 
unions to make sure that their interests were put ahead of the interest 
in the bottom line.
  And it's about time Congress do the same.
  Opponents of this legislation will claim that this bill is 
undemocratic. But how democratic is it for an employer to intimidate or 
fire workers before they even get a chance to vote?
  Let's look at the numbers: 75 percent of employers will hire union-
busters to stop organizing drives. 92 percent will mandate employees to 
attend anti-union meetings, and one quarter of companies illegally fire 
pro-union employees during organizing drives. How can you have a ``free 
and fair vote'' with this kind of intimidation going on?
  All this bill does is level the playing field. It removes 
institutional barriers and gives workers a chance to organize if they 
want to.
  You know, government is actually behind the private sector on this 
issue. Many employers already allow for this type of organization. They 
recognize that it is good for workers, and it's good for management 
too. These leading companies have seen growing job satisfaction, better 
retention of qualified professionals and increased productivity.
  Madam Chairman, I urge Congress to do the right thing. Let's pass 
this legislation and give employees a real opportunity to organize.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ensure 
that employees have the right to choose how they will organize their 
own unions. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 800 because 
it is a key step toward strengthening America's middle class.
  Current law allows a majority of workers to sign cards to form a 
union. However, an employer can veto that decision and demand an 
election through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under H.R. 
800, if a majority of workers sign cards indicating their support for a 
union then the NLRB must certify the union as a bargaining agent for 
those workers. This legislation would not eliminate the election 
process and would allow workers to choose an NLRB election if they 
wish. This bill gives employees a voice and choice in the work place, 
and eliminates the unilateral employer decision for an NLRB election. 
The legislation also puts teeth to good faith collective bargaining by 
establishing a system of mediation

[[Page H2069]]

and arbitration that would apply to an employer and union that are 
unable to reach a first contract. Finally, the bill would toughen 
employer penalties for violating workers' rights during an organizing 
drive.
  The reality is that workers in unions earn 30 percent more in weekly 
wages than non-union workers. Unionized workers also receiver better 
benefits and working conditions than non-union workers. It's time to 
move this country in a new direction. I believe that passage of this 
legislation is crucial and will give working families the freedom to 
bargain for a better life.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, when overzealous employers opposed to 
union organizing can exert undue pressure on workers, the whole idea of 
workers having a say in their own future means nothing.
  The Employee Free Choice Act supports working families by eliminating 
pressure from employers, who will no longer be able to demand a second 
election after a majority of workers have already voiced their will. 
This bipartisan legislation has 234 cosponsors and is supported by 69 
percent of the American people . . . and it is long overdue.
  Workers will retain their right to voice their will on union 
organizing, either through the standard methods of holding an election 
or turning in pledge cards. Employee Free Choice Act merely eliminates 
subsequent--or ``do-over''--elections forced by employers.
  In addition to eliminating ``do-over'' elections, the bill also 
strengthens employer-union mediation and arbitration provisions, and it 
strengthens penalties for violations of the union organizing process. 
Workers must have the ability to make their union decisions without 
hostility directed towards them. Those that flout the law should be 
held accountable.
  Despite several years of economic growth and high corporate profits, 
middle-class American families have actually lost ground--squeezed 
between stagnating incomes and rising costs for health care, education, 
and housing.
  Giving workers a free choice to join together to bargain for better 
wages, benefits, and working conditions is a critical step to easing 
the squeeze and strengthening the middle class. The current system for 
forming unions is badly broken and undemocratic, with employers 
routinely intimidating, harassing, coercing--or even firing--workers 
who support a union.
  Responsible employers already voluntarily recognize a union when a 
majority of workers sign up for one. It is time that all workers have 
this free and fair choice in selecting their representative, so they 
have a fighting chance to bargain for better wages, benefits and 
working conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill--and I hope the Senate will 
follow us quickly--to put real teeth in the law by strengthening the 
penalties for discrimination against workers who favor a union.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today to 
express my disappointment over the iron-fist manner in which the 
majority brought this measure to the floor. I offered a common-sense 
amendment in the Rules Committee that Democrats soundly rejected. My 
amendment would have prevented labor unions from collecting any 
membership fees from one of their employees without verifying that the 
individual is a citizen or lawful resident permitted to work in the 
United States. With our immigration problem, taking the time to verify 
the legal status of their membership is certainly an area in which 
labor unions could help.
  Listen up America. This flawed piece of legislation will do nothing 
to address our country's problems. Instead, it is nothing more than a 
piece of red meat being thrown to the foaming-at-the-mouth liberal wing 
of the Democratic Party. This bill is so bad that the communist party 
has gone on the record in support of it.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 800.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act, and I thank the Gentleman from California 
[Mr. George Miller] for introducing this legislation and for bringing 
it to the Floor for workers in America. I am a proud original co-
sponsor of H.R. 800.
  H.R. 800 contains three very strong protections for unions. First, it 
streamlines the process for obtaining National Labor Relations Board 
certification when a majority of employees have signed up for 
representation. Second, it provides for easy referral to mediation and 
arbitration when an employer and a union cannot reach an agreement 
within 90 days of negotiations so that employees are guaranteed an 
opportunity to reach an agreement. Third, it enhances penalties for 
discrimination, unlawful discharge, and other violations of the labor 
laws.
  According to a study conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, 
the probability of a pro-union worker being fired during an organizing 
campaign went up from half a percent in the period between 1970 and 
1974 to one percent in the period between 1996 and 2000; between 2001 
and 2005, this figure rose to 1.4 percent. America needs this 
legislation because workers are being mistreated and need strong and 
effective representation.
  My State of California is home to the largest number of stakeholders 
in support of this legislation. Nationally, there were 15.4 million 
union members, and a little under half (7.5 million) lived in six 
states--California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania. One of the main reasons why we need this legislation is 
because although these six states make up about half of the union 
members in the entire country, they only account for a mere one-third 
of the national wage and salary employment.
  In California, there were 2,424,000 union members (16.5 percent of 
the state's workforce) in 2005 and 2,273,000 union members (or 15.7 
percent of the state workforce) in 2006--which is the largest 
percentage in the country.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that nationally, in 2006, there 
were about 1.5 million wage and salary workers who were represented by 
a union--even though they were not members themselves. Therefore, this 
legislation will help America's workers even if they do not belong to a 
union.
  This trend of retaliatory firing has played a major part in the sharp 
decline in organized labor. Organized labor went from 30 percent in the 
1960s to just 13 percent in 2003--and during this period, America saw 
the largest upward redistribution of income in its history--according 
to a report by Human Rights Watch.
  In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 
2005 and 2006, the percentage of national union members fell from 12.5 
percent to 12 percent. The actual number of union members decreased by 
326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million, and there has been a steady rate of 
decline from 20.1 percent in 1983.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation is necessary and drafted to address 
very specific problems that organized labor faces. Livable wages, a 
decent work environment, and a fair dispute process are rights that we 
should all enjoy.
  I support H.R. 800, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, today there are powerful forces 
in America that want to take us backward, not forward. In the name of 
global competition, there are some who say that in order to be 
competitive in the world market that we must give away our standard of 
living and our high working standards. To those people, I say ``no.''
  We have to ask ourselves, as a nation and as a people, what kind of 
nation do we want to be? Are we really free and successful, if too many 
of our citizens are harassed and intimidated on the job when they are 
trying to form a union to protect their rights?
  People living in a democracy should not have to work in an atmosphere 
of fear and oppression. And they should be able to exercise their 
rights to organize. There are many corporations in Atlanta, like UPS, 
Coke and others, that are profitable international institutions who do 
not sacrifice the dignity and the integrity of their employees.
  We have to ask ourselves whether we can be truly comfortable, if 
somewhere in America somebody is working hard, struggling to make ends 
meet, but they fear the retaliation of their employer if they try to 
protect their dignity and worth on the job? How long can we live in 
comfort before this injustice comes knocking at our door?
  I have always been a strong supporter of labor and working Americans, 
and why I am an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. It 
is our duty as members of Congress to protect our workers and to 
encourage citizens and corporate citizens to implement these values of 
respect in our society. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, the legislation we have before us today 
is not a debate between the interests of big business versus the 
interests of unions; this legislation is instead intended to serve the 
interests of the American worker. The Employee Free Choice Act is a 
bipartisan agreement that America's workers are not being served by our 
current system. We already know that workers who are able to unionize 
enjoy a higher standard of living than their nonunion counterparts and 
that those higher standards contribute to a stronger middle class. In 
fact, union workers' median weekly earnings are 30 percent higher than 
nonunion workers' and a full 80 percent of union workers have employer-
provided health insurance while only 49 percent of nonunion workers do.
  Those facts are clear and so is the fact that the current NLRB 
election process is broken. The current system does not allow workers 
the ability to fairly judge for themselves if they want to join a 
union, instead it allows their employers to unfairly place pressure 
upon them to reject unionization. This is demonstrated by the fact that 
75 percent of employers hire unionbusting consultants to help fight 
union organizing drives. It's not surprising then to learn

[[Page H2070]]

that 25 percent of employers in organizing drives fire at least one 
worker for union activity and a striking 51 percent of employers 
threaten to close the business if the union wins the election. Under 
the current broken system these employers are allowed to threaten, 
harass and fire employees without any real consequence. The Employee 
Free Choice Act fixes this broken system and puts the onus back on 
employers to provide the American workers the rights they have so truly 
earned.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
``Employee Free choice Act,'' H.R. 800. This is a historic moment for 
working families, and I am proud to be a part of it. Unions matter. The 
Washington Post reported yesterday that 12-year-old, Maryland resident 
Deamonte Driver died from a bad tooth. A routine, $80 tooth extraction 
might have saved him. Instead, the infection from the bad tooth spread 
to his brain. Unfortunately, the bakery, construction and home health-
care jobs Deamonte's mother has held did not provide the insurance 
necessary to pay for his care.
  This tragedy might have been avoided if Deamonte's mother were a 
union employee. Eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided 
health insurance, compared with on 49 percent of nonunion workers. Our 
health care system is broken in this country, and unions provide a 
solution for so many families. I would like to thank Chairman Miller 
for his leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues to vote 
in favor of it.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act. Now, more than ever, American workers need 
effective bargaining tools to negotiate with their employers for higher 
wages, safer working conditions and better benefits. As the income gap 
between the wealthy and the middle class widens, it becomes more 
important to protect and support American workers.
  Being part of a union can provide invaluable benefits to American 
workers. According to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics the 
median weekly income for unionized workers is 30 percent higher than 
that of non-union employees. We need to facilitate organization among 
workers, not impede it. The card check method authorized by this 
legislation will help to do just that.
  For decades, workers have had the right to join a union and for that 
union to be recognized. Secret ballots have been beneficial in 
determining support for unions in the past, but a growing number of 
reports of worker intimidation and even job termination prove that 
secret ballots are no longer enough.
  Secret ballot elections, a sacred and long-held tradition in American 
government, take on vastly different consequences in the workplace. 
Such elections often follow widespread harassment and coercion and the 
results become a byproduct of the fear and intimidation initiated by 
employers. If an election process cannot be conducted in a fair manner, 
then we must provide a legal alternative for unionization.
  This legal alternative is the card check method authorized by the 
Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow employees to express their 
support for unions without being subject to anti-union propaganda 
leading up to a secret ballot. This legislation also enacts strict 
penalties that will deter employers from abusing and manipulating their 
workers. Our workers deserve the rights and protections that are 
required by the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill 
because it will hurt our economy and deny working Americans the right 
to vote--free from intimidation--by secret ballot.
  I'm sure that each of my colleagues can boast of successful union and 
non-union employers in their districts. I had the opportunity to tour a 
number of these businesses in Ohio's Fourth District over the recess.
  These companies and the workers they employ represent the best 
America has to offer. They are the reason our economy is the envy of 
the world.
  Today, our economy is growing faster than in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. 
We've improved our competitiveness with good public policy like tax 
cuts. But we still draw our strength from good old fashioned hard work 
and values. This bill is antithetical to every principle that makes 
America great.
  Removing the secret ballot protection for workers invites the type of 
coercion described by one of our constituents, Clarice Atherholt of 
Upper Sandusky, Ohio, in testimony before the Senate. She told of 
unsolicited home visits by union organizers and other high-pressure 
tactics, saying that ``[m]any employees signed the [union 
authorization] cards just to get the UAW organizers off their backs, 
not because they really wanted the UAW to represent them.''
  So much for ``employee free choice.''
  Madam Chairman, America faces a number of critical challenges. We 
must continually focus on improving our economy and remaining 
competitive in the world marketplace.
  We're making progress, but this bill represents a step backward. It 
has drawn opposition from every pro-growth, pro-business voice 
imaginable, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it as well.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Employee 
Free Choice Act (EFCA), H.R. 800. This bipartisan bill brings forth 
long overdue changes to the broken National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB) system. EFCA would add the option of majority sign-up for 
forming unions and bargaining; provide an efficient timeline for good 
faith mediation and arbitration, and stronger penalties for violations 
during the organizing and initial contract negotiations. Ultimately, 
EFCA would restore workers' freedom to form unions and bargain.
  Responsible employers voluntarily recognize unions when a majority of 
workers signal their desire to unionize. Studies have shown that 
workers believe the sign-up method to be a fair process, free of the 
pressures and coercion stemming from NLRB elections. Asian-American and 
Pacific Islander communities share the strong work ethic and desire for 
advancement at the core of the American Dream and labor membership is a 
key component to a fair and open competition for jobs.
  Our Nation is stronger when workers join together and bargain for a 
better life. Union membership helps to offset some of the race and 
gender disparities in the labor market. Activism by organized labor has 
given Americans better wages, paid sick leave, child labor laws, paid 
vacations, stronger work safety regulations, and more secure 
retirement. Union workers receive better benefits and higher weekly 
earnings than their non-union counterparts. Furthermore, workplaces 
unionized through majority sign-up have better employee relations and 
greater employee focus on the business.
  Madam Chairman it is time we allow the workers to choose, not the 
employer. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of the American 
worker and in support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  In the words of President John F. Kennedy, ``The American labor 
movement has consistently demonstrated its devotion to the public 
interest. It is, and has been, good for all America. Those who would 
destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor--those who 
cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the 
unorganized--do a disservice to the cause of democracy.''
  Like my dad, I have always supported working families and am happy to 
see this bill on the floor today.
  For the past few years, workers in this country have been under 
relentless attack by those who seek to abolish their fundamental right 
to organize.
  Simply put, the legislation we are debating today will provide that a 
majority of workers is sufficient for the formal recognition of a 
union.
  Quite frankly, I don't see what the controversy is all about. If the 
majority of employees want to be represented by a union, they should 
have the right to do so. Labor unions stand for decent wages and 
benefits and safe working conditions. They fight against poverty and 
unemployment, and for equal justice and human rights.
  Unions represent the basic right to a fair day's pay for a fair day's 
work. They provide a voice for individual workers to express their 
concerns without fear of retribution. Unions understand that raising 
the bar for workers helps raise the bar for all Americans. We are all 
much better off today because of the efforts of unions over the years.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and to be 
here today to vote for it. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
standing up for the rights of hardworking Americans by supporting the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, when I agreed to cosponsor 
this important legislation two years ago I made clear in a floor 
statement that I had serious reservations about weakening the secret 
ballot in union organizing elections. I believe American workers ought 
to make decisions about organizing unions in a way that is free from 
intimidation by labor or employers.
  It is because the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has largely 
failed in their responsibilities to protect the rights of American 
workers to organize that we even have to consider this legislation.
  Despite my reservations, therefore, I am persuaded that we ought to 
pass this imperfect bill so that the Senate may take up reforms in the 
labor-business relationship that will protect the rights of workers to 
organize, and at the same time preserve balance, fairness and 
objectivity in the way the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 
conducts elections.

[[Page H2071]]

  Before I get to the merits of this legislation, however, I want to 
register my disappointment that more amendments were not allowed for 
our consideration. The majority may not be well served by an open 
process that allows for deeper debate and the consideration of 
amendments, but our country would be better served. And on legislation 
with such far-reaching consequences for the balance between business 
and labor, I believe we are ill-served by not debating and considering 
more amendments.
  There are other improvements to this bill that we should have 
considered, and that I hope will be considered in the Senate. For 
example, I hope the Senate will consider amendments that address 
decertification procedures and deadlines for the NLRB to reach 
decisions. And I am hopeful the Senate will consider carefully whether 
this legislation should apply equally to small businesses. Perhaps the 
Senate will also consider the wisdom of a sunset provision for this 
legislation so that we can revisit it later--in order to determine 
whether it will have the desired effect for workers and for our 
economy.
  As I said in 2004, I am reluctant to endorse changes in current law 
that could be seen as preventing workers to make decisions in private 
about union representation.
  I agree with those who say a secret ballot process is preferable in 
most cases, and think that the burden of proof is on those who say that 
an alternative should be used.
  However, I have been and remain disturbed by reports of employers 
using heavy handed techniques to discourage workers from organizing in 
the first place and intimidating and even illegally firing workers who 
decide to join.
  But there is a real possibility that the NLRB won't do that--which is 
the primary reason I support this bill.
  I am disturbed--I think we should all be disturbed--by the serious 
questions that have been raised about whether the NLRB is doing its 
job. And I am worried that recent NLRB decisions tilt too far toward 
allowing employers to intimidate union organizers.
  For example, the NLRB has decided that as workers are considering 
whether to form a union, an employer may explicitly ``inform'' them 
that workers in two other facilities lost their jobs after they decided 
to organize.
  I understand that in the case in question the regional NLRB director 
ruled this ``clearly implied'' the union was responsible for the 
firings and insinuated the same would happen to others who chose a 
union. In other words, the NLRB official closest to the case saw this 
as an example of an illegal threat of retaliation.
  But in a 2-1 party line vote--with two appointees by the current 
Administration in the majority--the NLRB overruled the regional 
director's decision and claimed the memo ``did not exceed the bounds of 
permissible campaign statements.''
  I think that decision shows just how far the playing field has been 
tilted away from a fair balance between employers and employees who 
want to bargain collectively.
  And the purpose of this legislation is to move back toward a fairer 
balance.
  Consider what the law says about ending--not establishing, but 
ending--union representation. Under the National Labor Relations Act, 
if 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a petition 
that they no longer want to be represented by their union, the employer 
can withdraw recognition without an election.
  And if just 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a 
Decertification Petition, the NLRB will conduct a secret ballot 
election on the question of ending union representation. Not a 
majority--just 30%
  In other words, the current law makes it harder for workers to get a 
union than to get rid of one--and, as I just said, current policies of 
the NLRB add to the burden of people who want to have a union. I don't 
think that's balanced. Why should it be harder for workers to get a 
union into their workplace than it is for them to get the union out?
  This bill would not completely change that. But it would say that 
just as signatures of a majority of workers can end union 
representation, a majority of signatures could start it. And I think 
that is reasonable and equitable.
  Also, the bill would correct some of the problems with the current 
NLRB by changing parts of the law under which it operates.
  Current law says the NLRB must go into federal court and ask for an 
injunction against a union if the NLRB thinks there is reasonable cause 
to believe that the union has violated the law's prohibition of 
secondary boycotts. Under the bill the NLRB would have to take the same 
action to enforce the law that protects workers against pressure to 
reject a union as it does to enforce the law's limits on what a union 
can do to put pressure on employers. I think that is fair.
  And the bill also increases the amount a worker could collect if he 
or she has been unlawfully discharged or discriminated against during 
an organizing campaign or first contract drive and by providing for 
civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to 
have willfully or repeatedly violated the law. Again, I think these are 
improvements over the current law.
  Finally, I think some of the attacks on this bill have been 
exaggerated. For example, some have said it is intended to deprive 
workers of their right to an election. But under current law, elections 
are not always required--if a majority of workers sign cards saying 
they want to have a union, their employer can agree, and then the union 
is established without any election. So what the bill does is to 
deprive employers of the option of insisting on an election any time a 
majority of the workers have signaled that they want a union.
  Madam Chairman, this bill is not perfect, and in some ways I think it 
might have been better to take a different approach to the problem, 
with even greater emphasis on changing the law governing the operations 
of the NLRB rather than the card-check process. But I think it can, and 
should be improved before final passage by the Congress, and should go 
forward to the Senate for further and, hopefully more deliberate, 
consideration.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. We will hear today about how 
this bill will deny workers their fundamental right to a secret ballot. 
It sounds compelling but it's just not so.
  Here is what the bill will deny: it will deny the employer the 
ability to veto a workforce's effort to form a union by virtue of 
majority sign up. Under current law, if a majority of workers sign 
cards indicating their support for a union, it is the employer, not the 
workers, who gets to choose if there is a secret ballot election. Under 
current law, therefore, if the employer doesn't like the result of the 
sign up process, he can, in effect, demand a do-over. How is this fair 
to workers?
  Our bill places the power to choose to seek a union affiliation where 
it should be--with the workers, not with the management. If the 
majority of workers want a union--they get a union.
  As a son of a union member, I witnessed firsthand the advantages of a 
unionized workforce. In fact I stand here today because of the 
protections my father's union afforded him, as they allowed him to 
provide for his family and send kids to college.
  This bill will finally give workers the protection they need. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
straightforward legislation.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 800, 
the Employee Free Choice Act.
  There has been much said during this debate about what effect this 
bill will have for American workers and for our business community.
  In the simplest terms, the operative language of this bill allows 
American workers to have a voice in the workplace. It allows individual 
workers greater ability to come together and bargain collectively with 
their employer.
  In some cases it would mean that workers would have the opportunity 
to have a say when the company closes its pension fund or moves jobs 
overseas and lays off its workers.
  In some cases these hard-working Americans would have a chance to 
question exorbitant salaries paid to company CEOs. These workers may 
actually have a chance to bargain with their employer over health 
benefits.
  Now, it may seem threatening to some folks, that these workers will 
have a better chance to have a voice in the workplace. But that's 
basically it, that's what this bill is all about.
  Giving a little bit of power to workers who may have had their 
pensions eliminated and their jobs eliminated.
  These workers who would be powerless to have any effect individually 
will be able to get together, to associate, and bargain as one.
  For twenty years I worked as a union ironworker, one of the most 
dangerous occupations in our society.
  The safety standards that were maintained and enforced to make the 
job as safe as possible were made possible by the Ironworkers 
International Union and my brothers and sisters of the American Labor 
Movement.
  I can honestly say that I often find it strange that in a country as 
great as the United States, founded on individual freedom, freedom of 
expression and freedom of association, that it is necessary to actually 
have a Federal statute passed so you can join with your fellow workers 
in order to have a voice in the workplace.
  This bill actually allows human beings to exercise a moral right, a 
God-given right. The time is now, our cause is just, Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act 
and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, an original cosponsor of the Employee 
Free Choice Act, I rise in strong support of the bill.
  Last November, Americans responded to our commitment to change, and 
voted in the

[[Page H2072]]

new Democratic majority. Last month we affirmed that commitment by 
voting to increase the minimum wage--the first increase in over a 
decade. Today, we further that commitment by helping to increase access 
to health care, better pay, and better retirement benefits for millions 
of American workers by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.
  America's workforce desperately needs our help. During this period of 
so-called economic growth, American workers have seen their incomes 
flat-line while the salaries of the wealthiest one percent have 
skyrocketed. They have seen the costs of basic necessities such as 
health care, education, transportation, food and housing rise while the 
number of quality jobs falls.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will help narrow this growing income 
disparity by making it easier for American workers to unionize if they 
so choose. Statistics show that unionized workers earn higher wages, 
have greater access to health care, and receive better retirement 
benefits. This bill will level the playing field and help narrow the 
growing income gap that is plaguing our Nation.
  The ability of workers to unionize is a fundamental right that must 
be protected. While many employers treat their workers fairly, and 
respect their right to unionize, many more do not. For far too long, 
some employers have routinely restricted the rights of workers by 
threatening, coercing and even firing employees who attempt to form a 
union.
  Opponents of the bill claim that current law adequately protects the 
rights of workers who want to form a union. However, any American 
worker will tell you that it does no such thing.
  Under current law, employers can force employees to attend mandatory, 
closed-door meetings to listen to anti-union propaganda, while 
employees I are denied the right to rebut.
  Under current law, employers can block the formation of a union by 
dragging out negotiations indefinitely, while employees are denied the 
collective representation they voted for.
  And, under current law, employers routinely fire workers for merely 
discussing union activities, and employees are denied their pay while 
the NLRB takes months to take action.
  The truth is that the system is badly broken, and must be repaired. 
This bill would begin to fix the system by making it easier for 
employees to form unions and giving workers a fair seat at the 
bargaining table by establishing a system of mediation and arbitration.
  Too many employees have been denied their rights for far too long. It 
is time that we stand up and protect America's workers from the abuse, 
coercion, and intimidation they have endured for generations. While 
much work still must be done to protect these workers, the Employee 
Free Choice Act is a strong step in the right direction.
  I urge my colleagues to help America's workers, and vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 800.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, today we vote on a bill that quite 
frankly hurts American workers. The derisively named ``Employee Free 
Choice Act'' removes employees' choice in choosing to organize by 
having them reveal their vote on an authorization card, under the 
watching eyes of union officials; not on a secret ballot.
  This is wrong, not only in the workplace, but in any scenario where 
peer pressure can exert itself. In government elections, secret ballots 
are the foundation of democracy worldwide. We send election observers 
to developing nations to see that, among other elements, their ballots 
are cast in private.
  The Fraternal Order of Police labor union wrote to our Speaker on 
Tuesday against this bill, saying: ``This ill-named legislation attacks 
the very meaning of free choice. Without federally supervised private 
ballot elections, our democratic process would be extremely susceptible 
to corruption, and the very foundation of our Republic could be 
undermined. This bill would do the same thing to our Nation's workers 
by robbing them of their privacy, power and voice in deciding who 
should represent and defend their rights as employees.''
  Employees who just want to go about their business and peacefully do 
their jobs without fear of reprisal from either their employers or 
union bosses deserve the same secret ballot with which all of us were 
elected.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise today 
as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of the Employee Free 
Choice Act.
  Abraham Lincoln once said, ``If any man tells you he loves America 
yet hates labor, he is a liar.'' President Lincoln's words are no less 
true now then they were when he spoke them over a century ago.
  Organized labor has played a critical role throughout our history. 
Without it we would never have witnessed the rise of the greatest 
middle class that the world has ever seen. But there is more to be 
done. Madam Chairman, over the last six years, our middle class 
families, including those in my district in Pennsylvania, have been 
squeezed by the anti-worker policies of this administration.
  The late Senator Wellstone, a champion of organized labor used to 
tell this story about the great abolitionist Wendell Philips. One day 
Philips, in his usual fashion, gave a fiery speech, and said that 
slavery was unconscionable, an outrage and should be abolished. He 
finished speaking and a friend came up to him and said, ``Wendell, why 
are you so on fire?'' He turned to his friend and said ``Brother May, 
I'm on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt.''
  We too have mountains of ice to melt. Madam Chairman, there is much 
to be done to strengthen our middle class and to make sure that they, 
like their parents, can ensure that their children will have more than 
they did. For middle class families, the Employee Free Choice Act is a 
good start down the path to greater prosperity.
  Everywhere families turn they face ever increasing costs. Health 
care, education, gas, food, housing. Prices are up, wages are down and 
middle class families are struggling. People can sit around and argue 
all day about why the middle class is getting squeezed, but when I 
think about my friends and neighbors back home in Pennsylvania, it is 
clear that arguments are no longer good enough--we need to do 
something. Letting workers organize fairly is a good start.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to use my time here to set the record 
straight. For too many years now and for far too many Americans, 
joining a union has been a risk, rather than a right. I don't think 
that it's too much to ask that if a majority of workers want to join a 
union, they should be free to do so. And they should be free to do so 
without coercion and without misinformation campaigns.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  As a 30 year veteran of the Great Northern Paper Company mills and a 
proud union member, I know firsthand how crucial it is for workers to 
have the right to organize and bargain together to secure their rights 
in the workplace.
  On average, workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than 
nonunion workers, and they are much more likely to have health care and 
pension benefits. Polls tell us that 58 percent of eligible workers 
would join a union if they could, yet union membership in the private 
sector plummeted to 7.4 percent in 2006, a record low.
  The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers more freedom to form 
unions, so they can seek their share of America's prosperity, and fair 
treatment for an honest day's work.
  The current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken. EFCA 
is the right bill to fix it, and I urge my colleagues to give it their 
support. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, the history of organized labor in the 
United States goes beyond the colorful to include stories of drama, 
heated conflict, and even violence.
  Any objective view of history shows that legitimate efforts of 
workers to organize and represent themselves have been subjected to an 
amazing array of extraordinarily aggressive behaviors on the part of 
employers and at times even of the government itself. Indeed it was 
regarded by many business and government leaders as a subversive 
activity. There has been violence and intimidation on both sides but 
systematic repression against workers is certainly one of the darker 
chapters in our history.
  Over the last century, organized labor has brought about the five-day 
workweek, overtime pay, and workplace protection; ultimately, unions 
helped create America's middle class. These are benefits that we now 
take for granted, but which were fought by many business interests who 
had taken advantage of unorganized workers. These issues arose out of 
intense conflict and were faced with great difficulty. There are 
numerous examples in today's workplace that attest to the continuing 
need for workplace protection.
  Recently we have found that the Federal Government has no longer been 
serving as a neutral protector of collective bargaining within the 
organizing process. I'm convinced that legitimate rights have been 
systematically undercut and the Federal Government has been 
indifferent, at best, to providing a level playing field to workers and 
redress against abuse.
  Today's Employee Free Choice Act is a small step in correcting that 
imbalance by restoring choice in a system that is currently driven by 
aggressive employers and coercion, as well as anti-union consultants. 
Instituting a level playing field for workers who want to unionize will 
ultimately improve wages, working conditions and job security for 
workers.
  While it is highly unlikely, given this administration's antagonism 
toward organized labor, that this legislation would ever find its way 
into law, passage of this bill today in the House is a vital and 
important step in giving workers a toehold again.
  This legislation will help end the official hostility and 
indifference by initiating a process that spotlights workers' 
opportunities and employers' responsibilities. I am confident that

[[Page H2073]]

the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act will ultimately give 
unionizing rights to all workers.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, today the Democratic Majority has brought 
to the House floor legislation chairman representing one of the 
greatest assaults ever on the American worker. Today the Majority in 
Congress will strip American workers the right to a secret ballot 
election when deciding whether or not to unionize. This freedom 
stealing legislation, complete with a misleading title, does nothing to 
enhance ``free choice''--rather it undermines workers' freedom of 
choice to vote by secret ballot.
  Our country is a democratic society committed to preserving and 
protecting the rights of American citizens to vote for those who 
represent them. Secret ballot elections are conducted when electing our 
state legislators, our congressmen, our senators and our President. 
Secret ballots are used by Unions to elect their own leadership and 
pass resolutions changing their bylaws. Yet the Democratic Majority 
wants to strip that right away from Americans in their own place of 
work.
  More accurately characterized as the ``Secret Ballot Elimination 
Act'', this legislation opens the door wide for union organizers to use 
intimidation, coercion and compulsory tactics on workers who hesitate 
to join their efforts. In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police, a union 
representing thousands our nation's law enforcement officers, has urged 
opposition to this legislation stating, ``The scheme proposed by the 
legislation would replace the current democratic process of secret 
ballots with a `card check' system that invites coercion and abuse.''
  It is clear that Big Union organizers said ``Jump'' and the 
Democratic Majority asked ``How high?'' as they crafted this 
legislation that panders to their Big Union bosses by allowing them to 
force workers to join their unions.
  Today, Democrats are trying to justify their support of allowing 
union organizers to intimidate workers by debating the pros and cons of 
unionizing. Not only does this further the agenda of Big Union leaders, 
it avoids the true issue at hand--the basic right of American workers 
to vote by secret ballot when choosing whether or not to unionize.
  Working families in New Mexico and America deserve to decide whether 
or not to join a union without the threat of coercion and intimidation. 
The denial of secret ballots is something you only expect in nation's 
like North Korea, Cuba or other Dictatorships where citizens and 
workers don't have the right to organize at all. The Democratic 
Majority is once again chipping away from the freedoms of our democracy 
and I stand in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I rise today to provide my strong support 
for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Representing 
Wisconsin's workers in Congress is a privilege I am honored to have. 
That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 800, because protecting 
workers ability to form unions is of the utmost importance for the 
continued prosperity of our country.
  Our Nation's economic success depends on the viability of the 
American workers, but the current Administration's policies have 
created an unfavorable climate. I fear that if Congress doesn't act to 
protect employee free choice and change current labor law to discourage 
unfair labor practices by employers, the legislative victories of the 
past will be at stake. With the Employee Free Choice Act, which amends 
the National Labor Relations Act to establish a more efficient system 
for monitoring labor relations, I see an opportunity for Congress to do 
just that.
  Americans have waged countless battles to improve conditions in the 
workplace and to pave the way for a better life for all working 
families. Yet today they lack the adequate measures to address 
workplace inequities and to safeguard against unfair labor practices. 
The National Labor Relations Act, enacted by Congress in 1935, no 
longer works to protect the right of workers to form and join unions. 
But the need to monitor relations between unions and employers is just 
as important today as it was 72 years ago.
  The Employee Free Choice Act would combat obstructionist behavior by: 
1) guaranteeing free choice through majority recognition; 2) 
facilitating initial labor agreements through mediation and 
arbitration; and 3) providing more effective remedies against employer 
coercion.
  Having grown up in a labor household, I know there is no question 
that union workers benefit from a collective voice, thus improving the 
lives of all working Americans and their families. The wages of workers 
are 26% better than for non-union workers; and union workers generally 
have better healthcare benefits, pensions and disability compensation 
than workers not associated with a union. Therefore, it is clear to me 
that protecting the right to form a union is critical.
  The current system fails to provide a responsive mechanism for 
workers when their rights have been unjustly denied. The Employee Free 
Choice Act makes necessary changes to the National Labor Relations Act 
to fill in the gaps of the current law and guarantee workers a voice 
without the threat of unwarranted penalties.
  The rights of the American worker are far too important to ignore and 
not preserve. I promise to continue the fight against any changes that 
will reduce workers' benefits and pay while supporting initiatives that 
increase workers' rights and protections in the workplace. Madam 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the rights of 
their constituents.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support 
of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Today, American workers' 
freedom to form unions is not only at risk. It is in serious jeopardy.
  We've seen lax enforcement of labor laws. Judicial decisions under-
cutting organizing protections. Administration interference in 
collective bargaining efforts.
  At the same time, business interests have aggressively worked to 
strip overtime protections from millions of workers. Corporate America 
has pushed through trade deals sending American jobs overseas, further 
weakening workers' power to organize and bargain.
  The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical measure that restores 
workers' freedom to form unions. It protects America's hard-working 
middle class families. The legislation protects workers against 
employer interference in organizing drives. It safeguards workers 
against practices of intimidation. Practices that are increasingly 
common.
  This is a deeply personal issue for me. I know what happens when 
workers have no protection.
  My grandfather was a Boston police officer who was fired for trying 
to organize a union. When he worked as a police officer, the work week 
was 96 hours. There was no vacation or overtime. There were no 
benefits.
  Worker rights have advanced in this country only when unions are 
strong, but today those rights are being trampled. The hard-earned 
worker protections are disappearing. This should not happen in America, 
a country built on the efforts of workers across the decades.
  During our history, the rise in the American middle class has 
directly paralleled the rise in the number of unionized American 
workers. The more workers in unions, the larger and stronger the 
American middle class is. The stronger the American middle class, the 
stronger our democracy. Today, we are regressing--at an alarming rate. 
Median family income has dropped every year of the Bush 
Administration--every single year. American worker paychecks have been 
flat or declined in more than half of the 65 months of the Bush 
Administration.
  When workers are able to make their own decisions--freely and 
fairly--about whether to form a union, they can bargain for better 
treatment on the job. The middle class standard of living improves. 
Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union 
workers, and they are much more likely to have healthcare and pension 
benefits.
  And the American people know it. In a recent survey, 68 percent of 
respondents believe that unions can make a difference for today's 
workers. An even higher percentage support the Employee Free Choice 
Act.
  Every day, millions of Americans work hard and play by the rules. Yet 
they still struggle--just to get by.
  Workers represented by unions are far more likely to have health 
insurance and guaranteed pensions, access to job training opportunities 
and higher wages. If we want to improve working conditions for 
America's workers, strengthen America's families and rebuild America's 
middle class, we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Employee Free 
Choice Act.
  Currently, more than 15.4 million workers in America are enjoying the 
right to unionize, earning an average 30 percent more than workers 
without unions.
  New Yorkers make up approximately 2 million out of the 15.4 million 
unionized employees nationwide--making it the second most unionized 
state in the Nation.
  But far too many workers looking to have collective bargaining rights 
are denied and the people who are often looking to organize are those 
working in the service industry--many of whom do not have access to 
collective bargaining, the right to affordable health care, or the 
ability to earn a living wage.
  I encounter these people--working people--far too often in my own 
district in Queens and the Bronx, New York.
  This bill will help get rid of many arcane tactics some employers use 
to prevent employee organization, thereby giving a helping hand to 
those workers and the groups who are trying to defend their rights to 
respect in the work place. That is why I support the Employee Free 
Choice Act.

[[Page H2074]]

  There are far too many people in this country who work hard, play by 
the rules, and cannot get ahead--this bill is a helping hand to a 
better life for themselves and their families.
  Opposing this bill is opposing the ability of Americans to attain the 
American Dream.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.
  Labor unions are critically necessary to address the daily imbalance 
between employers and employees. We measure the quality of democracy in 
developing nations by their government's support for freedom of 
association to form and join unions. Unfortunately, an aggressive 
assault on American workers, and the institutions that represent them, 
has dangerously eroded these rights right here in the United States, 
resulting in a steady decline in the percentage of Americans in labor 
unions.
  Workers are not joining unions because our Nation's method of labor 
organization is a biased playing field, full of loopholes that unfairly 
advantage employers. The Employee Free Choice Act would address this 
unfair advantage by amending the National Labor Relations Act to 
replicate the majority sign up system currently used in Canada.
  H.R. 800 provides a simple, fair, and direct method for workers to 
form unions by signing cards or petitions. This legislation also sets 
firm time limits by which parties must begin and complete their 
negotiation of the tactics often used by employers during contract 
negotiation. first contract after union certification. This would 
eradicate the delaying tactics often used by employers during contract 
negotiation.
  I have always been a strong believer in unions and the benefits they 
provide to working families. My father, who started working at the 
Flint Buick plant, was one of the first members of the United Auto 
Workers. He was very proud of his union, and taught me the value of 
unions to all working families. I have dedicated my legislative career 
to helping people reach their dreams by protecting their right to 
collectively organize in order to ensure better economic opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice 
Act.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chairman, I am extremely troubled by what the 
Democrat leadership has deemed worthy of only one hour of general 
debate.
  The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to snuff out workers' 
long-cherished freedom.
  When the Democrats came to power, they pledged to respect the rights 
of the minority, but few of the peoples' elected representatives will 
have the opportunity to debate--let alone amend--this legislation on 
the floor today.
  Madam Chairman, now that a death of deliberation is taking hold in 
this House, the other side wants to end democracy in the workplace.
  Over 70 years ago, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, 
establishing a system of industrial democracy akin to our nation's 
proud history of political democracy.
  The current system allows employees to determine whether they wish to 
be represented by a particular union through a federally supervised 
secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. 
It protects the interests of unions and employers, but most 
importantly, employees, by ensuring that both sides have an opportunity 
to make their case, and those employees are able to express their 
decision in private--free from coercion and intimidation.
  The legislation under consideration today, the so-called ``Employee 
Free Choice Act,'' would in fact end workers' free choice by replacing 
current law with an easily abused card-check system. Under card check, 
a worker's vote is openly declared, whereas in a secret ballot election 
the vote of an individual is by definition private--not public.
  Tellingly, the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, which 
produced this legislation, along with 15 other Democrats, sent a letter 
to the Mexican government in 2001 denouncing the card-check system.
  They wrote: ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary 
in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a 
union they might not otherwise choose.''
  Freedom from union intimidation is not only good for Mexican workers; 
it is good for American workers. We should not be doing away with 
voting secrecy to give big labor more powers over workers.
  Let's keep union ballots secret. Let's vote down this Worker 
Intimidation Act.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, 
the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. The best opportunity for working 
men and women to get ahead economically is to unite with their co-
workers to bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and 
working conditions. The freedom to form or join a labor union and 
engage in collective bargaining is an internationally-recognized human 
right. Further, it is a longstanding American principle and tradition 
that working people may join together to improve their economic 
circumstances.
  To this end, I believe working people should have the ability to make 
their own decision about whether they want to bargain together without 
the threat or fear of harassment and retribution and fear of losing 
their livelihood. Since the enactment of the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA) in 1935, employers are able to recognize their employees' 
union when a majority of workers sign union authorization cards. 
However, all too often in these situations employer pressure derails 
the effort to unionize. This is a reasonable and fair process which has 
for too long been neglected and disregarded by employers. Under current 
law, workers have the right to form a union when a majority of the 
employees sign-up. H.R. 800 would ensure this right is protected.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 800, I am pleased the House is considering the 
bill on the floor today. The legislation consists of three basic 
provisions to level the playing field for employees and put an end to 
coercion and intimidation. First, the bill provides for certification 
of a union when a majority of workers sign cards designating the union 
as their bargaining representative. Second, H.R. 800 strengthens 
penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees 
in an effort to prevent them from forming a union. Third, it brings in 
a neutral third-party to settle a contract when a company and a newly 
certified union cannot agree on a contract after 3 months.
  Madam Chairman, unions have been instrumental in implementing and 
maintaining nationwide and statewide systems of social insurance and 
worker protections, such as workers' compensation and unemployment 
insurance, occupational safety and health standards, and wage and hour 
laws such as the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, and overtime 
premium pay. Unions, however, do not only benefit unionized workers. 
Strong unions set industry-wide standards that benefit workers across 
an industry, regardless of their union or nonunion status.
  Madam Chairman, I believe strengthening free choice in the workplace 
lays the basis for insuring a more prosperous economy and a healthier 
society. H.R. 800 will restore balance and fairness to the workplace 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I proudly stand today in support of 
H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would enable workers to 
finally reclaim their right to freely form a union and bargain with 
their employers. It is clear that too many American workers today are 
under the threat of discrimination, harassment, or termination for 
simply choosing to bargain collectively for better wages, hours, and 
working conditions. The current system for forming unions and 
bargaining is broken, and it is our responsibility to fix it.
  This bipartisan legislation is an important first step towards 
leveling the playing field for workers and employers, rebuilding our 
middle class, improving our economy, and on a larger scale ensuring 
that more Americans benefit from a growing economy. Today we can set an 
example for the rest of the world. How can our nation continue to 
encourage other nations to protect their workers' rights if we do not 
remedy our own?
  Critics of this bill simply want to preserve the status quo. That is 
not a reasonable solution, and these critics clearly do not have our 
middle class workers' best interests in mind. Research shows that 
nearly 60 million would form a union tomorrow if given the chance, and 
that democratic votes would still take place under the Employee Free 
Choice Act.
  The bill before us has three major components that would help restore 
middle class workers' rights to designate and certify bargaining 
representation, to receive mediation and arbitration concerning a first 
contract, and to enforce stronger penalties for employee violations. I 
believe this is the first step towards treating the problems of income 
inequality, and income immobility that currently confront our nation.
  Today, the House of Representatives has an opportunity to send 
hardworking Americans a message. A message that we recognize the 
fundamental right to organize is essential to maintaining a just 
economy and a society that values work. Let us send that message loud 
and clear, by voting in support of H.R. 800.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). This bill will help give workers 
the leverage they need to negotiate for a better life for themselves 
and for their families.
  Despite several years of economic growth, many of America's middle 
class families still struggle to make ends meet. Every day, workers 
throughout the country face difficult choices about their family's 
basic needs as wages stagnate and the cost of living continues to rise. 
By restoring workers' freedom to join together to bargain for better 
wages, benefits and working conditions, we will help ease the burden 
that too many working Americans face.

[[Page H2075]]

  Collective bargaining is one of the best tools working men and women 
have to restore economic fairness and rebuild America's middle class. 
The benefit of unionizing also helps workers with low-wage jobs such as 
janitors, cashiers, and childcare workers to raise their earnings above 
poverty levels. Union workers tend to have more of the freedoms and 
rights that ultimately lead to greater opportunity. And members of 
unions traditionally enjoy higher earnings and better access to 
healthcare and retirement benefits than their non-union counterparts.
  Under current law, workers often face uphill battles when attempting 
to unionize. All too often pro-union employees are intimidated, 
threatened, and in extreme cases, they may even lose their jobs. The 
Employee Free Choice Act will help restore fairness to the collective 
bargaining process by imposing stronger penalties for employers that 
utilize these tactics. This legislation will also increase the amount 
of back pay employees receive when they unfairly lose their jobs for 
attempting to unionize.
  Furthermore, the Employee Free Choice Act will increase the United 
States' ability to compete in a global economy. The benefits of 
collective bargaining go far beyond helping individual workers. By 
giving workers the tools they need to bargain effectively for the 
benefits that come with unionizing, we strengthen the economic security 
of each worker and their families, which ultimately leads to a more 
secure and prosperous America.
  In passing this legislation today, we will be giving hardworking 
Americans the tools they need to negotiate for better wages and 
benefits in an open, honest, and fair way. Strengthening the security 
of American families strengthens our economy, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I am truly proud to see the Employee Free 
Choice Act on the floor of the House. This represents a tremendous step 
forward for working families in this country. I want to thank Chairman 
Miller for crafting this excellent legislation and for his tireless 
efforts on behalf of workers.
  A little less than a year ago, Chairman Miller and I held a forum on 
this legislation in my hometown of Sacramento. We heard emotional 
testimony from workers about their experiences in the workplace. They 
had been subjected to coercion and intimidation--and some had even been 
fired--simply because of their desire to join a union.
  After sharing encounter after encounter, they asked Congress to pass 
the Employee Free Choice Act. They know that this legislation would 
protect them from these abuses. It would repair the cracks in the 
current system. And it would allow them to make a real choice in 
deciding to join a union.
  It is one thing to talk in the abstract about the policy. It is quite 
another to see first hand the human face, the real life consequences of 
that policy. What we are talking about is helping working Americans--
the middle class--meet the needs of their families.
  Congress must take advantage of this chance to act. A strong middle 
class has been the bedrock of expanded prosperity and opportunity in 
this country.
  And our middle class families are at a critical juncture. They face 
some daunting challenges. Wages are not keeping up with inflation. Yet, 
the costs the typical middle class family faces--such as housing, 
health care, transportation and college--continue to rise dramatically. 
We risk losing the strong middle class that has been the backbone of 
this Nation.
  Throughout our history, protecting the right to organize has played a 
critical role in improving the wages and quality of life for working 
people, and in growing the middle class.
  To preserve the middle class, it is critical that we continue to keep 
the central promise of our Nation's labor laws--that workers be 
empowered to make their own decisions about a collective bargaining 
representative.
  NLRB elections, as they exist today, often do not allow such a 
choice. And that's where the Employee Free Choice Act comes in. As 
Chairman Miller has explained so well, it will take important steps to 
level the playing field for workers who are trying to organize. It will 
allow employees to make a real choice to join a union without 
intimidation. And it will provide for stronger penalties when companies 
engage in illegal practices. Because the right to organize and form a 
union is fundamental to ensuring a fair balance of power in the 
workplace.
  And you know, this is not an anti-business bill, as its being 
portrayed by its opponents. This is a pro-workplace bill. What I mean 
is that when you have a card check system, it makes for a successful 
workplace--for the company and for workers.
  At the forum I held with Chairman Miller in Sacramento, we heard from 
a second panel of workers whose employer had voluntarily agreed to a 
card check system. This employer, and the many others that have agreed 
to a card check system, understand there is a benefit to treating 
employees with dignity and respect. They understand that when a company 
lets workers weigh the pros and cons of joining a union--without 
harassment or intimidation--those workers will be more productive and 
more committed to the success of the company.
  Frankly, if you care about working families, these reforms are simply 
common sense. They will make the organizing process simpler, more fair, 
and most importantly, ensure that the fundamental right of choosing 
whether or not to join a union rests squarely where it belongs: with 
this Nation's workers.
  I promised my constituents that I would do everything I could do get 
this bill passed in the House. So I am proud that it is on the floor 
today. Members have an opportunity--by voting in favor of this 
legislation--to stand with the working families of this country. I urge 
my colleagues to take advantage of that opportunity.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise today as the Chair of the House 
New Democrat Coalition in strong support of the Employee Free Choice 
Act. Passage of today's legislation will give working Americans a basic 
right--the ability to choose, unabated, whether to join with their 
coworkers and bargain for a better life. As Americans strive for fairer 
treatment at work and greater economic prosperity, it is a right which 
we must not deny them. There is powerful evidence that America's middle 
class is stronger when workers join together and bargain for better 
wages, better working conditions and better benefits. In fact, union 
workers' median weekly earnings are thirty percent higher than nonunion 
workers'. Eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided health 
insurance. And sixty-eight percent of union workers have a guaranteed 
pension through a defined benefit pension plan.
  Contrary to what opponents of the legislation will say, the Employee 
Free Choice Act does not mandate that workers join a union. It does not 
abolish the secret ballot election process. And it will not make union 
organization more vulnerable to fraud and coercion. It will, however, 
provide American workers with a choice--a choice and a hand in 
determining their future economic prosperity. This is the least we can 
do for America's workers. I strongly encourage all my Colleagues to 
join with me and support H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Today we are considering legislation to strip away a fundamental 
right for American workers: the secret ballot.
  Secret ballot elections have long protected workers from 
intimidation, coercion, and retribution. The National Labor Relations 
Act of 1947 set in statute a system that gave workers the option of 
voting by secret ballot when deciding the question of union 
organization in their workplace.
  Why, 50 years later, is there a compelling need to do away with the 
secret ballot system? How is it that a worker will only be given a 
``free choice'' by making his or her preference known to all?
  This isn't about protecting workers; this is about flagging union 
membership and declining dues. Unions only represent 12 percent of the 
workforce--only 7 percent in the private sector. Union bosses know they 
don't fare as well in secret ballot elections as they do in card check 
elections, so they want to do away with them.
  Only two months after they regained the majority, the Democrats are 
here to do the bidding of their union backers. There is no other reason 
for this debate today.
  Consider the following letter sent to Mexican officials in 2001. This 
letter states:

     . . . the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to 
     ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a 
     union they might not otherwise choose . . . we feel that the 
     increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition 
     elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican 
     workplace.

  This letter was signed by 16 of my Democratic colleagues, including 
the sponsor of today's bill. Perhaps they have had the benefit of 
reflection.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation isn't about helping the working man 
and woman; it isn't about fairness or discrimination. It is about 
political payback, it is legislative tribute to the union bosses that 
still control the Democratic Party. I therefore urge my colleagues to 
vote against this bill.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to the so-called 
Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800, and ask my fellow colleagues to 
join with me in supporting every worker's right to a secret ballot. I 
am appalled that this House would bring forth legislation that 
eliminates free speech and contradicts our system of democracy. H.R. 
800 goes against the principles hard-working Americans stand for: 
openness, fairness, and freedom.

[[Page H2076]]

The United States Congress is charged with upholding the Constitution, 
not undermining it.
  I have the honor of representing the Fourth District of Kansas, which 
includes Wichita and is the air capital of the world--home to Cessna, 
Hawker-Beech, Bombardier LearJet, the Boeing Company, Spirit 
Aerosystems, and scores of small aviation machine shops and supplies. 
It is a leading center of aviation research, training, manufacturing 
and modification.
  During my time in Congress, I have had the privilege to work closely 
with the machinist and engineer union members on common goals and 
concerns--from the extension of jobless benefits to securing the 
continuation of the E-4B modification program, which will support many 
union jobs in south-central Kansas. I know the value that unions bring 
to workers, their families, and a community. I will continue to fight 
for my district, and support every Wichita worker.
  H.R. 800, which some have aptly termed the ``worker intimidation 
act,'' would limit the choices of employees in Kansas. This legislation 
would replace the fair, time-honored, government-sponsored secret 
ballot elections with an inherently corruptible card signing system. 
Employees should have the right to decide on unionization in a non-
coercive environment. I am shocked and dismayed that the Democrat 
majority would act so recklessly as to remove the fundamental and basic 
labor rights of free choice and free election from our hard-working men 
and women. Every worker has a fundamental right to a secret ballot. 
Congress does not have a right to take that away.
  In the card-check system proposed in this bill, workers would be 
publicly pressured--before friends, co-workers and union organizers--to 
sign a card. Once labor union bosses get a simple majority of employee-
signed cards, the union would be formed. There is no ballot and no 
democratic system. Almost one-half of all employees would never be 
given a chance to say whether they want to join a union. H.R. 800 takes 
away their voice.
  Currently, 28 States do not have ``right-to-work'' laws; meaning that 
once union organizers have a simple majority of check-cards, all 
employees, without a right to vote or express their views, would be 
forced to pay union dues. Then, on top of this insult, newly unionized 
members would not be guaranteed the right to vote on the new union 
contract.
  H.R. 800 also strikes our first amendment right to freedom of speech. 
This legislation would bar employers from telling their employees about 
the true consequences of unionization. It is unconscionable that 
Congress would violate the first amendment and limit the access to 
information by employees. Some Democrats in this House believe that 
workers are not capable of making a decision when presented all the 
facts. Every worker should be insulted by the underlying premise of 
this legislation.
  At this point, if anyone still questions whether H.R. 800 would help 
or hurt workers, let me point out that this legislation would make it 
illegal for employers to give increases of pay or benefits during the 
card-check process. Proponents of the legislation say that increased 
benefits could influence the process. However, let me be on the record 
as saying that I will always support a company's right to increase the 
pay and benefits of its employees. A couple weeks ago, this House voted 
to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years--an 
increase which I support. However, to now vote to ban a company from 
increasing wages on its own accord is hypocritical. I have yet to find 
one worker who did not want a pay raise.
  In addition to restricting pay raises, this legislation will have a 
dramatic and dangerous impact on jobs across this Nation. Small 
business owners create up to 80 percent of all new jobs in this 
country. This legislation will limit the growth of small businesses and 
drive these good paying jobs overseas. Many in the Democrat party pay 
lip-service to wanting to stop the exodus of American jobs overseas, 
but, if enacted, H.R. 800 will actually encourage employers to relocate 
their businesses.
  Giving employees less choice, killing the right to a secret ballot, 
keeping employees from critical information, making it illegal to 
provide increased benefits, driving jobs overseas. Does this sound like 
the United States of America? These are the real results of this ill-
conceived, politically motivated bill.
  This begs the question, why would labor unions and their allies push 
for such an antiworker and undemocratic bill? The official reason is 
that because employers are illegally coercing employees to not join a 
union; that union organizers are illegally fired or punished. 
Regrettably this activity has taken place to some degree. In 2005, 
there were 62 cases in which companies had illegally fired a worker for 
union organizing activities--62. In a country of 140 million workers. 
And, as I said, this is already illegal. Employers should be, and are, 
held responsible for all illegal activities. However, a few bad actors 
should not result in the destruction of a cornerstone of our Nation's 
union laws.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 800. This bill is named the Employee Free Choice Act, but more 
truthfully has become known as the ``employee no choice act'' because 
it limits the choice and privacy of American workers.
  Eastern Washington organizations, businesses and individuals have 
taken the time to contact my office to ask that I vote against this 
bill, which will negatively impact almost every sector in eastern 
Washington: small business, health care, agriculture and many others.
  Let's be clear about what this act does: It side-steps a free and 
fair election process; it subjects workers to coercion, compulsion and 
intimidation.
  Organizations in my community that oppose this bill include the 
Inland Pacific Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Eastern 
Washington Independent Electrical Contractors and Greater Spokane 
Incorporated, which represents 1,600 businesses and economic entities 
that employ over 110,000 individuals.
  In terms of its impact on health care, the ``employee no choice act'' 
could exacerbate the already devastating nursing workforce shortage in 
rural America. The card check process for unionization puts access to 
rural health care at risk. It could discourage potential health care 
professionals from entering into the health care field.
  For example, if a professional nurse is working at a hospital that is 
going through unionization and he or she can count on being pressured 
to publicly declare their vote--which creates considerable stress--they 
may forgo working at that hospital altogether.
  Professional employees like nurses, technologists and lab technicians 
are increasingly difficult to recruit to small, rural hospitals. If 
subject to the public pressure of a card check campaign, they may just 
decide to move on; they are in high demand and can practically choose 
their location.
  Maybe in very urban settings this kind of movement of nurses and 
technicians can be sustained Madam Speaker, but in critical access 
hospitals in Colville, Omak or Davenport, WA, this kind of transition 
puts access to quality health care in jeopardy.
  I have heard from Ferry County Hospital and from Dayton General 
Hospitals that this bill would ``increase cost'' and is a ``slap in the 
face for collaboration between management and employees . . . and that 
the current process needs to be maintained.'' What is the biggest 
concern for these hospitals? The undue pressure on their employees and 
the possibility that their staff would be subject to intimidation, 
fraud or retribution--and the impact this would have on their ability 
to deliver care.

  Richard Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association 
and past-president of the former Providence Services in Spokane, WA, 
has said ``the hardworking women and men of our Nation's hospitals are 
entitled to choice.'' I couldn't agree more. AHA has it right: 
``Hospital employees should have the same rights in choosing their 
labor representative as they do in choosing their elected 
representatives.''
  This bill is a brazen effort to strip American workers of the 
opportunity that our country has ardently defended at home and abroad: 
the right to vote one's conscience in privacy without someone looking 
over your shoulder.
  H.R. 800 is a bold attempt to grab power from employees and an 
obvious payback for big labor whose declining membership continues. It 
won't just affect employees amidst a labor dispute; this act will 
affect us all.
  Though efforts to mask the intent of this bill have been intense, as 
eastern Washington's voice in this House, I must object on behalf of 
the individuals and families that I represent.
  The ballots are in and the results are clear: Americans prefer the 
option of a secret ballot. As the people's representatives, we must 
make it clear today that we will protect the working American's right 
to vote his or her conscience. I will vote against this bill in public, 
so as to preserve my constituents' right to do so in private.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  Despite the recent surge in high corporate profits, middle class 
families have actually lost ground financially due to the rising costs 
of education, healthcare, housing and transportation. Unfortunately, 
under the current system for forming unions, workers are routinely 
denied the right to determine for themselves whether to organize. 
Employees oftentimes face coercion, intimidation, and harassment from 
employers trying to discourage unionization. These tactics discourage 
workers from bargaining collectively for higher pay, more substantial 
benefits, and better treatment in the workplace.
  The benefits of unionization are well known. Workers who belong to a 
union earn an average of 30 percent more than nonunion workers and are 
much more likely to have health care and pension benefits.

[[Page H2077]]

  Under this legislation, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign 
valid cards authorizing a union, then the workers would be able to have 
a union. This process is already possible; however, current law enables 
employers to veto the formation of a union without an election 
administered by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB.
  The Employee Free Choice Act also institutes stronger penalties for 
employers violating the National Labor Relations Act during any period 
when employees are attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first 
contract with the employer. In 2005 alone, more than 31,000 workers 
received backpay because of unlawful employer behavior of this sort. 
H.R. 800 also provides for up to $20,000 in civil penalties for willful 
or repeated violations during an organizing or first contract campaign. 
These penalties provide a serious disincentive for employers engaging 
in anti-union tactics.
  The decision to form a union should be in the hands of employees. 
This legislation provides people with the opportunity to make this 
decision freely and fairly and to bargain for a better life for 
themselves and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the 
Employee Free Choice Act, and I commend Chairman George Miller for his 
herculean efforts to move this bill forward and bring it to the House 
floor today.
  This bill is an important step towards providing Americans with 
fundamental workplace protections that are long overdue. When workers 
have the freedom to join together and bargain collectively, they have 
the opportunity to secure affordable health care, adequate vacation 
time and other benefits as part of good faith negotiations with their 
employers.
  Americans are working harder and more efficiently than ever before. 
But while productivity has increased, many middle class families 
continue to struggle to make ends meet, pay the mortgage, afford 
college for their children, and access affordable health care.
  These hardworking families are everyday heroes, but even heroes need 
help.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will help ensure that workers who seek a 
better future for themselves and their families through union 
representation are not coerced, intimidated or threatened by employers 
trying to prevent them from exercising their legal rights.
  The bill we are considering today would enable employees to choose--
they can choose to go through the current NLRB election process, or 
they can choose a card-check process designed to insulate them from 
intimidation. If a majority of employees choose to sign cards in 
support of union representation, the employer must abide by that 
decision and certify the union if the NLRB validates their majority.
  While the card-check route to union representation is permitted under 
current law, employers have the choice to reject the results.
  In other words, under current law, it's the employer's choice. Under 
the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employee's choice.
  This bill is urgently needed because some employers choose to fight 
unionization by intimidating workers, threatening to fire pro-union 
employees or close the plant. Making union certification mandatory when 
a majority of employees sign union cards would prevent illegal tactics 
intended to crush workers' efforts to bargain collectively.
  James Madison famously wrote that ``If men were angels, no government 
would be necessary.'' Madam Chairman, if all companies were angels, 
this bill would not be necessary.
  Unfortunately, while some enlightened companies currently recognize 
the legitimacy of a union when a majority of their employees sign union 
cards, many do not.
  Now is the time to give Americans the power they need to improve 
conditions in the workplace.
  President Roosevelt told us: ``The test of our progress is not 
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''
  The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with the American ideal 
that everyone--not just the privileged few--deserves the opportunity to 
improve their condition in life and build a bright, optimistic future 
for their children.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote and commend Chairman Miller for his work on 
this important legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Passage of this seminal workers' 
rights legislation is long overdue.
  During the past decade, union busting efforts have reached new 
heights. Greedy corporations hire high-priced lawyers and consultants 
to thwart organization drives and force existing unions out of the 
workplace. Employees are chastised, threatened and in the worst cases 
fired for exercising the freedom to form unions and bargain.
  Business Week called the recent wave of union busting ``one of the 
most successful anti-union wars ever.'' Their statement is borne out by 
the fact that only 7.9 percent of the private workforce is unionized, 
the lowest level since the 1920s.
  Estimates suggest that 75 percent of all union organizing drives 
confront hired anti-union consultants. Here's the guarantee offered on 
one consultant Web site:

       You don't win, you don't pay. Here is bottom-line proof of 
     our confidence in the persuasiveness of the NLRB Election 
     Campaign Program. If your organization purchases an LRI 
     Guaranteed Winner Package and the union becomes certified, 
     Labor Relation Institute will refund the full cost of the 
     package.

  Why is collective bargaining so important? Wages for union employees 
are nearly 30 percent higher than for non-union workers. This wage 
difference often brings employees into the middle class, ending their 
struggle to stay above the poverty line. This is especially the case in 
construction and service jobs where employees in unions have 52 percent 
and 68 percent higher wages than their non-union counterparts. 
Unionized workers also enjoy better health care, pension and disability 
benefits.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field for workers 
who want to organize, but can't overcome corporate anti-union efforts. 
This bill provides a majority sign up process to authorize union 
representation, giving employees the confidence to choose 
representation without fear of reprisal. The bill also strengthens 
penalties against employers who engage in union busting activities.
  While the days of union busting by physical violence may be behind 
us, the corporate greed that drives union avoidance is clearly alive 
and well. Our workers deserve better. I urge all my colleagues to join 
me in voting yes on the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I rise today to affirm my strong 
support for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. I would like to 
thank my colleague, Chairman George Miller, for introducing this 
important legislation to ensure that workers have the light to organize 
a union if they choose, without being subjected to workplace abuses, 
economic coercion or threats by their employers.
  Union busting has become a lucrative industry at the cost of the 
American worker. When surveyed in 2006, a substantial majority, 58 
percent, of eligible workers said that they would join a union if they 
could; however, union membership dropped below 10 percent in the 
private sector, bringing union membership to a record low. This 
discrepancy is directly related to the flawed National Labor Relation 
Board system as it applies to a fair and democratic election process.
  Under the current NLRB system, employers are allowed to pressure 
employees into voting against the union during an organizing drive by 
using economic coercion and continual threats. It is common practice 
for union-busting employers to use direct supervisors to meet one-on-
one with employees to compel them to vote against the union. Also, 
employees are often forced to attend mandatory anti-union lectures, 
while union representatives, under threat of termination, are not 
allowed to present their views to other workers at their employment 
site.
  And the list of abuses goes on and on:
  Twenty-five percent of employers illegally fire at least one worker 
for union activity during an organizing campaign;
  Fifty-two percent of employers threaten deportation or other forms of 
retaliation during organizing drives that include undocumented 
employees;
  And 51 percent of employers threaten to close their plants if the 
union wins the election, although only 1 percent actually will.
  Worksite intimidation and economic threats create a hostile 
environment and eradicate the ability for a worker to make a fair and 
free decision. Workers are pushed out of an impartial election process 
because they fear for their livelihood and the economic stability of 
their families. The current system is far from democratic. It's unfair 
and it's wrong.
  We need to fix this broken system to allow for workers to freely make 
their own choices at the workplace without fear of employer reprisal.
  As a Representative from the great city of Chicago, a stronghold of 
working families and union struggles, I can speak to the benefits 
afforded to workers who choose to wield their collective bargaining 
power. The median weekly earnings of union workers are 30 percent 
higher in comparison to nonunion workers. This increase can pull a 
working class family out of poverty and strongly into the middle class.
  Union workers also receive more benefits than nonunion workers. Only 
2.5 percent of union workers go without health insurance coverage, 
whereas 15 percent of nonunion workers are uninsured. From health to 
disability benefits to pensions, joining a union provides a higher 
standard of living and secure benefits that may otherwise not be within 
reach of some employees.

[[Page H2078]]

  Unions are essential to the fight for worker rights, and we must work 
to ensure that they can be formed without pitting employers against 
employees.
  Workers must be allowed to choose freely whether or not they want to 
form a union--absent employer intimidation and economic coercion--and 
this is exactly what the Employee Free Choice Act will provide. This 
timely legislation will enhance working conditions and ensure a more 
equitable system in the workplace. The welfare of our working families 
and the future of our middle class depend on it.
  I urge a yes vote on this historic and important legislation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 800

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Free Choice Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 9(c) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or 
     group of employees or any individual or labor organization 
     acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees 
     in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective 
     bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor 
     organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate 
     the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the 
     employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed 
     valid authorizations designating the individual or labor 
     organization specified in the petition as their bargaining 
     representative and that no other individual or labor 
     organization is currently certified or recognized as the 
     exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, 
     the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the 
     individual or labor organization as the representative 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for 
     the designation by employees of a bargaining representative 
     in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and 
     procedures shall include--
       ``(A) model collective bargaining authorization language 
     that may be used for purposes of making the designations 
     described in paragraph (6); and
       ``(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the 
     validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining 
     representatives.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) National labor relations board.--Section 3(b) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(b)) is amended, 
     in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``and to'' and inserting ``to''; and
       (B) by striking ``and certify the results thereof,'' and 
     inserting ``, and to issue certifications as provided for in 
     that section,''.
       (2) Unfair labor practices.--Section 8(b) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking ``, or'' and inserting 
     ``or a petition has been filed under section 9(c)(6), or''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (7)(C) by striking ``when such a petition 
     has been filed'' and inserting ``when such a petition other 
     than a petition under section 9(c)(6) has been filed''.

     SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of 
     establishing an initial agreement following certification or 
     recognition, the provisions of subsection (d) shall be 
     modified as follows:
       ``(1) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written 
     request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor 
     organization that has been newly organized or certified as a 
     representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such 
     further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall 
     meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make 
     every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective 
     bargaining agreement.
       ``(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period 
     beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or 
     such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the 
     parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may 
     notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the 
     existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a 
     request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service 
     promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and 
     to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to 
     bring them to agreement.
       ``(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is 
     made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the 
     parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the 
     parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer 
     the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance 
     with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. 
     The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the 
     dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties 
     for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by 
     written consent of the parties.''.

     SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices During 
     Organizing Drives.--
       (1) In general.--Section 10(l) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(l)) is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``If, after such'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) If, after such''; and
       (B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Whenever it is charged--
       ``(A) that any employer--
       ``(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an 
     employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;
       ``(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate 
     against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of 
     section 8; or
       ``(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within 
     the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly 
     interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the 
     exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
     while employees of that employer were seeking representation 
     by a labor organization or during the period after a labor 
     organization was recognized as a representative defined in 
     section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract 
     is entered into between the employer and the representative; 
     or
       ``(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor 
     practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) 
     of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);
     the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made 
     forthwith and given priority over all other cases except 
     cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to 
     which it is referred.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 10(m) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(m)) is amended by 
     inserting ``under circumstances not subject to section 
     10(l)'' after ``section 8''.
       (b) Remedies for Violations.--
       (1) Backpay.--Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by striking ``And provided 
     further,'' and inserting ``Provided further, That if the 
     Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an 
     employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8 while 
     employees of the employer were seeking representation by a 
     labor organization, or during the period after a labor 
     organization was recognized as a representative defined in 
     subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective 
     bargaining contract was entered into between the employer and 
     the representative, the Board in such order shall award the 
     employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as 
     liquidated damages: Provided further,''.
       (2) Civil penalties.--Section 12 of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Any'' and inserting ``(a) Any''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any 
     unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections 
     (a)(1) or (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer 
     are seeking representation by a labor organization or during 
     the period after a labor organization has been recognized as 
     a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until 
     the first collective bargaining contract is entered into 
     between the employer and the representative shall, in 
     addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a 
     civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. In 
     determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the 
     Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice 
     and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging 
     party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed 
     by this Act, or on the public interest.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-26. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not 
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-26.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 5. PRESERVATION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

[[Page H2079]]

       (1) the tactic of using professional union organizers and 
     agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace, a 
     practice commonly referred to as ``salting'', has evolved 
     into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when 
     the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens 
     the balance of rights which is fundamental to our system of 
     collective bargaining;
       (2) increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment 
     with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for 
     such employers but primarily to organize the employees of 
     such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically 
     designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to 
     do both; and
       (3) while no employer may discriminate against employees 
     based upon the views of employees concerning collective 
     bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job 
     applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills 
     of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the 
     employer.
       (b) Preservation of Employer Rights.--Section 8(a) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by 
     adding after and below paragraph (5) the following:
     ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring 
     an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought 
     employment with the employer in furtherance of such person's 
     other employment or agency status.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, my amendment is an amendment that is 
adapted from a piece of legislation that has actually passed this 
Congress in the past and is called the anti-salting legislation. And a 
salt is when a union often has an employee on their payroll, sends them 
to accept employment at a non-union operation, where their purpose 
there is to organize in favor of the union. It is really kind of a spy 
technique to define it.
  My amendment is actually pretty plain and pretty simple. And the 
operative language in it is that: Says nothing shall require an 
employer to hire an employee if that employee is in furtherance of some 
other employment or agency status.
  That is the standard that is in the legislation. And I would point 
out that this puts the employer in a very, very difficult spot. They 
will often be able to identify the salts that get lined up, and some of 
the practices that take place will be there will be companies that will 
have expansion opportunities, and perhaps they want to hire 100 
employees and they have got the demand to do that, but they are afraid 
that they will be targeted by what I will consider to be labor 
organization practices that are designed to take grievances before the 
NLRB for the purposes of organizing within that company, and if they 
can't get organized within the company, then they are willing to take 
the company down, as exemplified by CR Electric's $80,000 costs, 
Construction Electric forced out of business, $32,000 in costs.
  Titus Electrical Contracting spent over one-half million dollars 
defending themselves against baseless charges. These things happen. And 
when an applicant comes forward before a merit shop employer and that 
applicant is clearly a salt from the union, then it puts the employer 
between the devil and the deep blue sea. He has two choices: He can 
either decide not to hire the employee, in which case there will be 
trumped-up charges bought to the NLRB which will cost them money; or, 
he can decide to take his medicine and do the hire, in which case if he 
does the hire, he knows that he has got an organizer there.
  Now, I support labor organizations' ability to do that. They have a 
right to collectively bargain. And that should be in place in this 
country and it is, and I am philosophically in support of it as well. 
But we can't be allowing these kind of tactics.
  This amendment is a simple piece of legislation.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, can the gentleman reserve the balance of 
his time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes. Under the rule, the gentleman may reserve.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I oppose the amendment. First of all, let's make it very clear that 
salting, the practice the gentleman addresses, is legal. What is not 
legal are disruptive practices if one is working for an employer, as 
they should be illegal.
  The gentleman's amendment frankly offers a breathtaking introduction 
of a discriminatory practice in the statutes of the country. If I read 
the amendment correctly, an employer could refuse to hire someone 
simply because someone is in a union. So let's think about the facts 
that would be involved here.
  Let's say a person works part-time for a grocery store, and as a 
part-time worker they become a member of the union at the grocery 
store.

                              {time}  1330

  Then they go to apply for a job at a telecommunications company. As I 
read the amendment, the telecommunications company could refuse to hire 
the individual who worked in the grocery store, who is a member of the 
union, simply because the person was a member of a union.
  This is a remarkable precedent. It basically suggests that by being a 
member of an organization, you subject yourself to discrimination. I 
think if the gentleman would think about someone else's ox being gored, 
he would understand what's wrong with this.
  If an employer said we won't hire someone because you have been in 
the chamber of commerce, you have a pro-business attitude, we would be 
offended by that. If someone said we are not going to hire you because 
you have been in the National Rifle Association, we think there is 
something wrong with that, I think we would be offended by that.
  There is no functional difference between what the gentleman is 
proposing and those discriminatory scenarios. The purpose of our law is 
to prohibit discrimination, not sanctify it. I believe that this would 
be a breathtaking departure from the tradition of American law where we 
discourage discrimination rather than make it a part of our statutes.
  Salting is legal. Disruptive behavior is illegal. It stays 
``illegal'' under the bill before us. But if the gentleman's amendment 
were adopted, discrimination against someone simply because the 
organization he or she is a part of, would become legal. That is a 
very, very unwise policy.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairwoman, as much as I appreciate my friend from 
New Jersey's comments, in the committee we had a different amendment 
which said that nobody hired in the last 30 days before an election 
could vote, and then we wouldn't have had to be discriminatory. But, of 
course, that was defeated unanimously on the Democratic side.
  This amendment tries to address it in another way, because we weren't 
allowed to address it in the other way, and it was defeated. I support 
this because, in fact, people who aren't committed to the company come 
in for the sole purpose of unionizing, and we haven't been allowed to 
address it in any way.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  My friend from Indiana, I would ask if I have in any way misstated 
the amendment, that what I say about the amendment, is it accurate or 
inaccurate?
  Madam Chairwoman, I yield to my friend from Indiana if he cares to 
answer. Is my characterization accurate?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am yielding to the gentleman from Indiana who made the 
point.
  Mr. SOUDER. I will let Mr. King explain the particulars, but my 
understanding is we have tried several ways

[[Page H2080]]

to address this problem, and this is the only one that was allowed to 
be voted on.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I think my characterization is accurate.
  Madam Chairwoman, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairwoman, union salting is used by labor union 
bosses to deliberately insert one of their members into a nonunion 
company, very often to simply destroy the business.
  A ``salt'' typically employs tactics such as sabotaging equipment in 
work sites, deliberately slowing down work, and intentionally creating 
unsafe working conditions and filing frivolous unfair labor practice 
complaints or discrimination charges against the employer.
  The brutal practice of salting is extremely harmful to an employer 
who is acting in good faith and wants to provide a service, make a 
living and create jobs and provide wages for a family in a community. 
This is why we must put an end to the destructive practice of salting, 
which is why I urge my colleagues to support Representative King's 
amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask the gentleman if he has further speakers. We 
will reserve our right to close debate on the amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. My response would be I have no further speakers and 
1 minute remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has the right to 
close.
  Mr. ANDREWS. We would continue to reserve our time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, first in response to the gentleman 
from New Jersey, the language that is operative here that addresses the 
union membership issue that you raise says, ``in furtherance of such 
person's other employment or agency status,'' so they could hold two 
union jobs as long as the purpose of the one was not to undermine the 
organizations of the other.
  I have lived with union salting. I have seen it happening. I have 
seen scraper operators with a load of dirt drive into the mud hole, and 
then when we pushed him, went to push him out, they would put it into 
neutral and step on the fuel and act like they were trying, but they 
weren't. They were slowing down the operation before a union vote. I 
lived through this.
  I understand what union salting is. I support the organization of a 
union's ability, but I do not support the devil's choice that is given 
to the employer that takes down small businesses, breaks companies.
  We can't have that kind of thing in this country. The devil's choice, 
the spot between the devil and the deep blue sea, is where they find 
themselves. This lets an employer make a choice at the hiring as to 
whether that employee represents themselves for the job for the 
employment. Of course, they should have the job if they are otherwise 
qualified.
  This salting bill passed this House of Representatives in March of 
1998 with a significant margin. We will have a vote up today on that. I 
appreciate that.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in 
opposition to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairwoman, I think the 
gentleman from New Jersey has explained this quite correctly. This 
allows you, because of your membership in a union, to be discriminated 
against in the employment.
  The actions that the gentleman says that he wouldn't like to have 
take place are actions that are already illegal under the law. You 
don't get to disrupt the workplace. You don't get to engage in those 
kinds of activities, and that's the way the law is written.
  This is just simply a broad discriminatory practice against the 
employment, or it allows the nonemployment of individuals who are 
members of the union. At very best, under the best interpretation, what 
this employee would buy themselves if they go to seek a job is they 
would get themselves a lawsuit. They would have to sue for the right to 
be employed in a workplace.
  You know, a job today in America is not a luxury; it is a necessity. 
This is just part of the harassment of individuals who believe in the 
organization of the workplace. This is just one more of the harassment, 
and now they want to put this one into the statutes of the United 
States.
  We should vote against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-26.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Foxx:
       Page 4, line 16, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 19, strike the period, closed quotation mark, 
     and second period at the end and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(C) procedures and a model notice by which an individual 
     can request that the labor organization not recruit or 
     solicit for membership, distribute information or material to 
     (whether by mail, facsimile or electronic mail, in person, or 
     by any other means), communicate with, or attempt to 
     communicate with or influence that individual with respect to 
     any question of representation or the exercise of the 
     individual's rights under section 7.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in 
support of this amendment, which we are calling Do Not Contact 
Amendment to H.R. 800, which I agree is the Employee Intimidation Act.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 800 in its current form, and that is why I 
have submitted this amendment. This amendment requires the National 
Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards and a model notice for an 
employee to put him or herself on a Do Not Contact list to avoid union 
solicitation. This will really test whether the opposition believes 
what they have just been saying in the last few minutes.
  By removing workers' rights to a private ballot election, we are 
consequently leaving those workers vulnerable to coercion, pressure, 
outright intimidation and threats. But if we have a Do Not Contact 
list, then they can avoid the intimidation and threats.
  Let me illustrate the need for a Do Not Contact list by quoting from 
the testimony of Tom Riley, employee of Cintas Corporation in 
Pennsylvania, before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, 
House Committee on Education and the Workforce on September 30, 2004:
  ``But I draw the line, Mr. Chairman, when union organizers come to my 
house on a Sunday afternoon telling my wife that they were with the 
company and needed to talk with me. When I came to the door, they 
admitted they were really with the union and started trying to tell me 
all sorts of bad things about Cintas. I told them to leave, and they 
eventually did.
  ``I called a friend of mine from work, and he said they had been to 
his house too. What is disturbing is that I have an unlisted telephone 
number and address on purpose. I don't like the fact that union 
organizers are now coming to my door lying to my wife about who they 
are and what they want.
  ``I have since learned that the union may have gotten my personal 
information illegally by copying down my license plate number and 
getting information from the State's vehicle registration files, which 
we understand is a violation of the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection 
Act. In one case there is a co-worker who doesn't live with his 
parents, but the car he drives was registered at his parents' address, 
and his parents got visits by union organizers.

[[Page H2081]]

  ``That is why several of my fellow employees and me, along with a 
number of our family members, have filed a lawsuit against the unions 
for what we believe they have done in violation of Federal law, and it 
appears that the unions have been doing this to other employees in 
other parts of the country too.''
  Madam Chairman, this is why I think Congress must consider the Do Not 
Contact amendment to further protect American workers.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California 
(Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of her amendment. I thank 
her for her effort in bringing this amendment to the floor.
  This amendment was crafted with a simple principle in mind. If a 
worker wants to be free of union solicitation, he or she should have 
the free choice to ask not to be contacted. During our committee 
debate, it was said by several Members on the other side of the aisle 
that the men and women making union decisions are adults and should be 
left to make up their own minds without outside interference.
  I totally agree, and that is why this amendment is so important. It 
provides the opportunity, real free choice, the choice of whether to 
listen to and engage in union organizers or to tell them to leave you 
alone. Much like the highly popular Do Not Call list, which places the 
power in the consumers' hands, this amendment places the power in the 
workers' hands, where it should be; and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. It is unfair, and I 
believe it is unconstitutional, and it should be opposed.
  If there are practices where union employees are coercing workers to 
sign cards or sign a petition, those practices are illegal and will 
remain illegal after this bill is passed. Under section 6 of this bill, 
if there are circumstances where union organizers are coercing or 
intimidating people to try to get them to sign a card or cards, the 
labor board would presumably find those efforts to be invalid, and the 
card would be invalid, so the amendment is unnecessary.
  It is unfair in this respect. It is rather remarkable, the ranking 
member of the full committee just talked about adults being able to 
protect themselves against certain circumstances. I see no amendment 
from the minority that says that workers could be free from going to 
one-on-one meetings with their supervisors. I see no amendment from the 
minority that says that workers could be free from being forced to 
attend captive meetings where their employer has all the say and the 
union has none of the say.
  I see no amendment that indicates there would be a strengthening of 
protection against firing people during an organizing drive for which 
there is a strong record that this is happening on a regular basis.
  I further believe the amendment is probably unconstitutional. The 
amendment says that it outlaws efforts to ``communicate with 
individuals with respect to questions of representation.'' As I read 
this, if the union took an ad in a newspaper that encouraged people to 
sign a card and join a union, that is an attempt to communicate with an 
individual about the question of union representation.
  We have a principle and constitutional interpretation in this 
country, where overly broad prohibitions against speech are 
presumptively invalid. This is an overly broad, and, I believe, 
presumptively invalid prohibition against free speech.
  The amendment is unnecessary, it is unfair, it is unconstitutional. 
It should be defeated.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairwoman, last week I said in the committee that I 
have never in my life seen language twisted in issues and ideas twisted 
in the way that they have been twisted in response to this bill. I said 
that Congress has often been described as a circus, and if this were a 
circus, then the people on the Education Committee who support this 
bill would surely be in the contortionist area of the circus, because 
contorting the language to say that taking away the right to a secret 
ballot is more democratic than the right to a secret ballot is the most 
unbelievable language that I think I have ever heard on the floor.

                              {time}  1345

  And I think this has to be one of the worst bills that has ever been 
introduced in the Congress. And I want to say that at least, by passing 
my amendment, we could avoid harassment and intimidation by the unions. 
And I know that that occurs. And we could at least allow people the 
freedom to be not bothered by the union people who, the only way of 
getting this done is to harass people to sign a card.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and, once 
again, point out that a group that is opposed to this bill has scoured 
the record and over 60 years of history has found only 42 instances of 
illegal behavior by union organizers.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the 
amendment to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, you look at this 
amendment and you realize this is just another piece of the continued 
effort by which the party on the other side is fully prepared to 
diminish the rights of workers to have access to information about an 
organization that may help them in the workplace. But, you know what?
  If the employer wants to bring that worker in and sit him down on a 
one-to-one meeting with the supervisor, with the owner of the company 
or the Board of Directors, if he wants to take them off of their job 
where they may be getting paid for productivity and explain to them why 
they shouldn't join the union and all that, there is nothing to protect 
that employee there. There he is sitting with the person who can fire 
them. There he is sitting with the person who fired over 35,000 people 
or docked their pay or did some other illegal action against them 
because they said, well, I think I might still want a union.
  But if the union wants to go out, if other employees want to talk to 
their fellow workers about this, you have no opportunity to 
communicate. And then you are supposed to go into an election. But one 
side doesn't get any opportunity to communicate.
  That is an interesting theory, that those with all of the power in 
this arrangement, those with the authority to hire and fire, they get 
unlimited access. But here, you may get, on break time in the break 
room you may still have a little tiny bit of access for the union, but 
they can't talk to a person out there because they could take them off 
the list.
  What do you think the first thing is the employer might suggest to 
the employees when they hear that there is a union effort in the 
company? Put yourself on the Do Not Call List. Joe, did you put 
yourself on the Do Not Call List yesterday? Because then the employer 
knows immediately that the union no longer has access. Just another 
form of intimidation, just another form of a kind of arbitrary power 
over the employees, just one of those little things that the anti-union 
consultants will tell the employer to check off.
  Make sure you told your employees to sign up for the Do Not Call 
List. Make sure you run down that list, find out who signed up and who 
didn't, get that list clean, because if we ever get that list, if we 
can get 100 percent, then the union has no access to them. It is a 
wonderful tool in the name of democracy you want to put into the hands 
of the anti-union campaigns.
  No, it is very unfortunate that they simply won't allow workers to 
make this decision, the decision that is accommodated and allowed and 
provided for in the law of whether or not they want an NLRB election, 
or they want a majority sign up. They are not going to do that. And so 
fearful of the decision that the employee might make, they have decided 
to insulate the employee from the campaign and put them off limits to 
anybody except the employer.

[[Page H2082]]

  No, this amendment should not be supported at all, and I urge its 
defeat.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKeon

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-26.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. McKeon:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Secret Ballot Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the right of employees under the National Labor 
     Relations Act to choose whether to be represented by a labor 
     organization by way of secret ballot election conducted by 
     the National Labor Relations Board is among the most 
     important protections afforded under Federal labor law;
       (2) the right of employees to choose by secret ballot is 
     the only method that ensures a choice free of coercion, 
     intimidation, irregularity, or illegality; and
       (3) the recognition of a labor organization by using a 
     private agreement, rather than a secret ballot election 
     overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, threatens the 
     freedom of employees to choose whether to be represented by a 
     labor organization, and severely limits the ability of the 
     National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of 
     workers.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

       (a) Recognition of Representative.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(a) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (4) through (6), 
     respectively and inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) to recognize or bargain collectively with a labor 
     organization that has not been selected by a majority of such 
     employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the Board 
     in accordance with section 9;''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to collective bargaining relationships in 
     which a labor organization with majority support was lawfully 
     recognized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Election Required.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(b) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)), as amended by subsection 
     (c) of this section, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize 
     or bargain collectively with a representative of a labor 
     organization that has not been selected by a majority of such 
     employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the Board 
     in accordance with section 9.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to collective bargaining relationships that were 
     recognized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Secret Ballot Election.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9(a) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)), is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``designated or selected'' the 
     following: ``by a secret ballot election conducted by the 
     Board in accordance with this section''; and
       (2) Application.--The secret ballot election requirement of 
     the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     collective bargaining relationships that were recognized 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the National Labor Relations Board shall review and 
     revise all regulations promulgated before such date to 
     implement the amendments made by this Act to the National 
     Labor Relations Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  While serving in the House, our former colleague, Congressman Charlie 
Norwood, was a tireless advocate for the right to vote through a 
private ballot, and he introduced this legislative language last month 
as the Secret Ballot Protection Act. I offer this amendment with 
Charlie in mind.
  The Secret Ballot Protection Act would insure that an employee has 
the right to a private ballot, free from intimidation and coercion. By 
contrast, the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' would take away 
that right and make every employee's vote completely and utterly public 
to everyone.
  A private ballot insures that no one knows who you voted, not your 
colleagues, not your employer, and not the union organizer. This is a 
fundamental democratic right our constituents enjoyed last November, 
and it is a fundamental democratic right that Americans have come to 
expect. That right should never be taken away from them, whether at a 
polling place, in a congressional election, or in the workplace.
  Polls of union members confirm that they agree that the fairest way 
to decide to unionize is through a secret ballot election. For example, 
according to a poll conducted a few years ago, 71 percent of union 
members agreed that the current secret ballot process is fair. And 78 
percent of union members said that Congress should keep the existing 
secret ballot election process in place and not replace it with another 
process.
  And earlier this year, another poll was released demonstrating the 
same type of strong support for secret ballot elections among all 
Americans. 87 percent of those polled agree that ``every worker should 
continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot 
election when deciding whether to organize a union.'' And as a result, 
79 percent oppose the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act.''
  The Supreme Court also agrees that a secret ballot is the best way to 
determine support for a union in the workplace. The 1969 Gissel Packing 
decision states a secret ballot election is the ``most satisfactory, 
indeed, preferred method of ascertaining whether a union has majority 
support.''
  Unions agree too. In fact, they have passionately insisted on a 
secret ballot election in decertification elections. In those 
instances, they called the secret ballot a ``solemn'' occasion, 
imperative to preserving ``privacy and independence.''
  And yes, even some sponsors of the underlying bill agree, according 
to their now infamous 2001 letter to Mexican labor officials. In that 
letter, they stated very plainly that the ``secret ballot is absolutely 
necessary in order to ensure workers are not intimidated.'' And I 
couldn't agree more.
  Madam Chairwoman, this amendment is offered in exactly that spirit, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect a couple of 
points.
  First of all, with respect to this continued phrase about a public 
ballot. The card is not a public document. When the card is collected 
by the organizers it is turned in at some point to the Labor Board for 
certification.
  Second, this public opinion poll that keeps being referenced, or 
these polls that keep being referenced, none of the respondents to 
these polls were party to the information about the systemic pattern of 
coercion that has taken place in the workplace and asked questions, I 
believe, that were rather loaded.
  And finally, on the issue of decertification, the fact of the matter 
is that the law today gives an employer the right to refuse to bargain 
with and recognize a union if there is a manifestation by a majority of 
the workers that they no longer wish to be recognized. There doesn't 
need to be a vote before an employer can choose not to recognize the 
union.
  Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the

[[Page H2083]]

gentlelady from New York City, Brooklyn, more specifically, Ms. Clarke.
  Ms. CLARKE. Madam Chairman, the Employee Free Choice Act serves as a 
remedy to the squeeze on the middle class, due, in part, to the large 
scale erosion of workers fundamental freedom to bargain for better 
wages and benefits. Over the last several decades, workers' rights have 
come under increasing attacks. Even though workers in the United States 
under the National Labor Relations Act have the right to organize and 
collectively bargain, violations of these rights include the firing of 
employees for union activity.
  In committee, Madam Chairman, we heard testimony of witnesses who 
spoke either in support for or against the bill on the House floor 
today. I find it difficult to understand how, in good conscience, 
Americans who, a generation before benefited from union activity, would 
be this opposition to this bill.
  During organizing campaigns, 25 percent of employers illegally fire 
at least one worker for union activity.
  The chance that a pro union worker activist is fired for his or her 
union activity today is now 1 in 5.
  78 percent of employers in organizing drives forced employees to 
attend one-on-one meetings against a union with their own supervisors, 
and 92 percent of the employers forced employees to attend mandatory 
captive audience meetings against the union.
  75 percent of the employers in organizing drives hire consultants or 
other union busting firms to fight the organizing drive.
  The middle class squeeze has created a human rights crisis in this 
country. The Nation, the economy, and the employees benefit from the 
workers having the freedom to join together to bargain for better wages 
and benefits.
  I wanted to just take a moment today because this piece of 
legislation will now bring justice to what has been a real injustice to 
the American people. I had the occasion to sit in on our committee 
hearings. Today I just wanted to bring to everyone's memory a gentleman 
named Mr. Ivo Camilo. He worked for the Blue Diamond Company for 35 
years. He signed a letter with 58 coworkers saying that they wanted the 
right to organize and wanted that to be respected. A week later, Mr. 
Camilo was fired.
  Today I cast my vote on behalf of Mr. Ivo Camilo, who sacrificed for 
each and every American the right to organize. He sacrificed his 
livelihood for all of us and for future generations. Thank you very 
much, Mr. Camilo.
  And I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield at this time 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our minority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I appreciate having the time. I appreciate 
the leadership that my good friend from California has shown on this 
issue.
  Madam Chairman, Members, many of us in this Chamber have been 
reminded over the years, some of us more frequently than others, that 
elections don't always yield the most convenient results. But as 
unpredictable and, at times, disappointing as their outcomes can be, 
for some reason we keep holding them, and we go to extraordinary 
lengths to ensure that basic conditions of privacy and integrity are 
properly observed and protected. The reason we do that is not that we 
are gluttons for punishment, that we want to go back facing the 
disappointment of not being successful on election day. It is that, in 
our democracy, secret ballot elections represent an essential mechanism 
for establishing legitimacy. We recognize elections as the fabric that 
holds our democracy together.

                              {time}  1400

  Lose an election, and you tend to ask yourselves plenty of questions. 
Most of us, though, after all the soul searching we do, don't decide 
that one of those questions is answered by the idea that next time we 
just simply fail to hold the election. We understand that that is not 
one of the options we have.
  The advocates of the underlying bill say we should suspend a worker's 
right to register his or her choice by a secret ballot and replace it 
with a system in which workers would be forced to publicly declare 
their preference to friends and to co-workers through a series of cards 
that would be collected. Mr. McKeon's amendment, before that, the bill 
introduced in previous Congresses by our friend, Mr. Norwood, says that 
we must have, in all instances, a secret ballot election.
  Which system is more vulnerable to peer pressure and intimidation? An 
anonymous secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor 
Relations Board, or a public declaration of whether you want a union or 
not.
  There was a time in this country when you had to publicly go to every 
polling place in America and cast your ballot publicly, audibly or 
visually, so that everybody in the polling place knew how you voted. 
But over a century ago, one of the great reforms in this country was 
that that system would never be allowed to happen again. And one by one 
the States adopted secret ballot elections as one of the great reforms 
that has protected our democracy.
  We have already heard, probably more times in this debate than 
anybody would want, the lead sponsor and his comments about secret 
ballot elections in Mexico just a few years ago.
  There was a day when labor advocates like Senator Robert LaFollette 
and the AFL founder, Samuel Gompers, toured the country in a push for 
more open, more voluntary standards for joining a union. And in every 
case, they fought for the right of a secret ballot, the very privileges 
the sponsors of this bill say today are no longer needed.
  The former chairman, the ranking member's amendment, says let's 
defend the secret ballot, let's protect the workers' right to cast 
their vote in privacy. Support this amendment. Oppose the bill. Stand 
up for democracy as we vote today.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a new Member making quite an impact, the gentlelady from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Chair, it is my honor to be on the committee 
that has brought this bill forward, and I urge my fellow Congressmen 
and -women to say ``yes'' to this bill.
  What this bill is doing is finally representing the working men and 
women of America. It is finally giving them an opportunity to once 
again regain a decent wage and to regain benefits.
  It is critical for our country and for our middle class to have this 
bill passed, but there is reason for this also. Because when people 
have worked in factories before without union representation, they 
worked under extremely difficult circumstances.
  In the early 1970s, I worked in a factory during the summers when I 
was in college. And I saw people come in and try to form a union, and I 
saw them get fired as soon as they heard about it. And so the people 
who had to work there day after day, year after year had to suffer 
under some pretty terrible conditions that most people would not 
accept.
  So the union is critical and the support for it is critical. But I 
also support the idea that people can vote out in public. And I 
vehemently disagree that this will in some way harm individuals. I live 
in New Hampshire; and in New Hampshire, many of the towns still have 
town hall meetings. You stand there publicly and you vote. And nobody 
experiences any great tragedy for speaking as a body and as an 
individual in that body to say what direction they want their town to 
go in. This has been part of our history from the very beginning, and I 
am proud to endorse this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 
minutes to the former Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. I thank the Chairman.
  Madam Chairman, just months ago, after voters went to the polls and 
elected myself and my colleagues through private ballot elections, 
Democrats today are attempting to strip that basic right to cast a 
private ballot from the American worker.
  The right to vote in America, regardless of race, regardless of 
religion, regardless of gender, is a right that has been fiercely 
fought for and protected. The right to keep that vote private is 
fundamental to the success of any democracy.

[[Page H2084]]

  The current system in place for union elections is fair. The NLRB has 
detailed procedures in place to ensure a fair election, free of fraud, 
where workers can cast their votes in private, without fear of coercion 
from business or labor.
  A recent poll shows that almost nine in 10 voters agree that every 
worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised 
secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to organize a 
union.
  In 2000, we had the closest national election in our Nation's 
history. Many of my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of 
the aisle, demanded reforms to ensure to the greatest extent possible 
that every vote will be counted, and that to the greatest extent 
possible that every vote has the integrity of the ballot box. That 
election highlighted the needs for election reform, and we acted.
  This House passed the Help America Vote Act to help ensure free and 
fair elections for years to come. We wanted to protect the confidence 
so that when every American goes to the ballot box, it will be secret, 
they won't be intimidated, and their ballot will be rightfully counted. 
However, today on this floor, the same people who pushed for voters' 
rights back then are now trying to abolish them. This bill will only 
erode the American public's confidence in the democratic process.
  So why do labor unions want to fix a system that isn't broken? 
Because it tips the scales to their advantage and to disadvantage 
workers. How much did labor unions have to pay to pass this 
irresponsible bill through Congress? $60 million. For this, their 
reward is to silence the voice of American workers.
  If Democrats were really concerned about the well-being of our labor 
force, they would instead work to protect workers against the violence 
that often erupts as a result of labor elections. Federal courts have 
held that some union activities are exempt from the Hobbs Act, 
including violence. As a result, incidents of violence, assaults have 
gone unpunished.
  The so-called Employees Free Choice Act could increase violent, 
nonunion intimidating tactics. The bill would publicize workers' votes, 
and even further expose them to possibility of retaliation.
  Democrats are trying to eliminate democracy in the workplace. This 
bill strips away a worker's voice and increases the likelihood that 
workers will be threatened and harassed.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect and defend our 
workers. Support the McKeon substitute and vote ``no'' on H.R. 800.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague. And as 
an alumni of the Education and Labor Committee, I appreciate the time 
today.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and 
oppose the substitute. I applaud the chairman and members of the 
Education and Labor Committee for their work on this bill.
  We have a problem in our country. When I was growing up, we always 
heard the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but we know now that 
we have a disparity between the richest and the poorest in our country 
that is getting bigger every day.
  The Employee Free Choice Act gives employees the protections they 
need to form unions and provide mediation and arbitration for first 
contract disputes. This is the first step to try and lower that 
disparity, where people can organize together and actually improve 
their living standard.
  I am pleased, also, that section 3 of this bill includes language 
that I have worked on for many years by incorporating language from our 
bill, H.R. 142, the Labor Relations First Contract Negotiation Act. The 
bill requires an employer and a union to go to Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service, FMCS, for mediation for agreements not reached 
within 90 days or either party wishes to do so.
  So we don't have these year-long discussions about trying to get a 
contract. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 
30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration, and 
the results of the arbitration will be binding on both parties for 2 
years.
  So we will see contracts, after we have the elections, where there 
are elections or card checks. We have seen numerous examples in the 
Houston area of elections taking place, and then there is a long delay 
in the negotiation process.
  As a whole, this legislation is a huge victory for workers and 
employees across the country and can help us with the wage gap between 
the highest paid and the lowest paid in our country. Joining together 
in a union to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working 
conditions is the best opportunity for working people to get ahead and 
is a part of the true free enterprise system that we say we are for.
  Today, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and 
retirement security are slipping out of reach. Employees who belong to 
unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. They are 60 percent 
more likely to have employer-based insurance and four times more likely 
to have pensions.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and 
oppose the substitute. I applaud the Chairman of the Education and 
Labor Committee for his work on this bill. We have a problem in our 
country--as a child I heard the rich get richer and poor get poorer. 
This bill helps correct that problem. The Employees Free Choice Act 
gives employees the protections they need to form unions and provides 
mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
  I am pleased Section 3 of this bill includes language I have worked 
on for many years.
  By incorporating language from H.R. 142, the Labor Relations First 
Contract Negotiations Act, the bill requires an employer and a union to 
go to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for 
mediation if an agreement is not reached in 90 days and either party 
wishes to do so.
  If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days 
of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration, and the 
results of the arbitration will be binding on the parties for two 
years.
  We have seen numerous examples in the Houston area of elections 
taking place and then there is a long delay in the negotiation process.
  As a whole this legislation is a huge victory for workers across the 
country and can help with the wage gap between the highest paid and the 
lowest paid in our country.
  Joining together in a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and 
working conditions is the best opportunity working people have to get 
ahead and is a part of true free enterprise.
  Today, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and 
retirement security are slipping out of reach.
  Employees who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion 
workers.
  They are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided health 
coverage and four times more likely to have pensions.
  We need to ensure protections are in place to allow employees to form 
unions without harassment so that they can negotiate for the well being 
of themselves and their families.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation will provide workers with these 
protections and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Employee Free Choice Act.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, might I inquire as to the time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ANDREWS. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hare.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, there has been a lot of talk here about the last 
election. And my friends on the other side of the aisle were talking 
about the secret ballot. The reason that they lost the election wasn't 
because they had the secret ballot. They lost the election because they 
lost sight of what they were here to do, stand up for ordinary people, 
fight for them.
  It took the Democrats a little less than 2 weeks to raise the minimum 
wage. My friends on the other side of the aisle had this Chamber for 12 
years and couldn't get it done.
  We are standing here today, and I mentioned earlier that I organized 
a plan. I have been there and I have done that. I worked on the J.P. 
Stevens boycott, where the foreman would literally follow the employee 
to the restroom to make sure she or he was not taking an unauthorized 
break. Someone would show up at the hospital, if they were injured, at 
the emergency room to tell the employee, if you don't show up for work 
tomorrow, you are fired.
  My friends, we have heard a lot of talk today, but actions speak much

[[Page H2085]]

louder than words. For 12 years, my friends on this side of the aisle 
have had a chance to improve workplace safety and they haven't done it, 
a chance to strengthen workers' rights. And you would swear today that 
they are the champion of ordinary people giving them the breaks. Well, 
for 12 years we have watched. Today, we act.
  I will put my card in. I will vote ``yes'' for all of the people who 
want a fair shake, an opportunity to join a trade union, to have health 
insurance and better benefits.
  It didn't take us 12 years, my friends, to understand. And trust me 
when I tell you, we will pass this legislation. And as the end of the 
movie ``The Inheritance,'' the movie that formed my stance on unions, 
an older man looks into the camera, and he says, you think this is the 
end? My friends, this is only the beginning.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy now to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Price.
  (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, the previous speaker said this 
is only the beginning. That is our concern, and that is the concern of 
the American worker.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that people can 
get fired when they show an interest in either signing up or supporting 
a union. Well, it is curious. In our committee we heard from Ernest 
Bennett, who is the director of organizing For UNITE, a union, who told 
a room full of organizers, while he was organizing this union, during a 
training meeting for the Cintas union, that if three workers weren't 
fired by the end of the first week of organizing, that UNITE wouldn't 
win the campaign. Madam Chairman, facts are tricky things.
  So when did the rights of American workers become so dispensable? 
When did allowing Americans to decide in private how they would make 
decisions that affect their life become expendable? A party that claims 
to be a voice for American workers is going to silence them in one 
quick vote. It is shameful and it is saddening. And it is even more 
disturbing that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle feel 
that Mexican workers deserve more rights than workers here in America.
  Madam Chairman, I support Charlie Norwood's bill. A secret ballot 
protects all and preserves democracy and defends the American worker.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, we have no other speakers on our side. We 
reserve the right to close. And if my colleagues would like to do so, 
we would yield to them. We will reserve our time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Chairman, we have heard people on the floor today 
say basically that eliminating the secret ballot will not affect the 
ordinary worker's rights.
  Madam Chairman, some of us grew up in schools that were public 
schools, being taught by teachers who were members of the Democratic 
Party. I loved those teachers and they were very honest people, and 
they said and they taught and they drilled into us the secret ballot 
was one of the most important developments in democracy. It separated 
the United States from other totalitarian and dictatorial governments.
  Now I have people coming here on the floor that I don't know as well 
as my beloved teachers saying those teachers were mistaken or lying, 
they don't know what they are talking about. And what I am getting to 
believe is, this isn't up for the ordinary workers, this is playing to 
the officers of hard-working American union members.
  I would submit when we have people say in letters and on the record 
that the secret ballot is important to avoid intimidation, when they 
would come to my courtroom they used to ask, are you lying then or are 
you lying now. I won't ask.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, in this body, everyone is allowed an 
opinion. My opinion is I am going to vote to preserve the secret ballot 
and I will vote for Ranking Member McKeon's amendment.
  But I think we also have to recognize that truth has to be told. Just 
a moment ago, I heard one of my colleagues say that Republicans hadn't 
raised the minimum wage in the 12 years they were in the majority. Of 
course, 1997 was in those 12 years. That was the last time it was 
raised, and 2006, this body, Republicans led to raise the minimum wage. 
It didn't get out of the Senate. That happens.
  Interestingly, Members taking credit for raising the minimum wage, it 
has only left the House. It hasn't gone one inch further than it did in 
the last Congress, when Republicans led the way to raise the minimum 
wage. So, please, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.
  I am concerned today that on a partisan basis, the Democratic Party, 
here and on other initiatives, including looking into putting a 
disclosure requirement when a preacher in a church says, ``I think you 
ought to vote your conscience,'' that is going to become public if they 
have the disclosure.
  I think there is a pattern of trying to make public for purposes of 
intimidation, and all I can say is shame on the Democratic Party.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I think it is important to sort out what this debate 
really is about. It is not about union workers and it is not about 
unions. I understand people who support unions and union workers. What 
this debate is about is too much power for unions. Don't take my word 
for it. Listen to The Los Angeles Times.
  ``Unions once supported the secret ballot for the organization 
elections . . . Whether to unionize is up to workers. A secret ballot 
ensures them that their choice will be a free one.''
  You simply cannot come to this floor and say this bill is balanced or 
fair, because it does not treat both sides right. If you want to 
decertify a union, that is a secret ballot under this bill. If you want 
to create a union, it has to be by card check. Why isn't it extended to 
both issues?
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the debate that we have had here today. 
I think everybody at this point understands, as Mr. Gohmert just 
reminded us, I remember learning as a young student in school, when 
they had us put our heads down on the desk and vote for class 
president, it was secret ballot.
  As Mr. Blunt reminded us, we used to have open ballots, and about 100 
years ago it was changed to secret ballot. Now the Democratic Party is 
trying to reverse that and take away from workers rights their 
opportunity for a secret ballot.
  We need to vote against this bill. Vote for this amendment and 
against the underlying bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague from 
California for yielding, and thank him and the members of the Education 
and Labor Committee for their work on this bill.
  Let me also say it is nice to see the chairman of the Education and 
Labor Committee here, formerly the ranking member during the 5 years 
that he and I worked together. During those 5 years, this bill went 
nowhere. It went nowhere for a very good reason.
  Over the last 75 years, the Federal Government, State governments and 
the National Labor Relations Board have provided law and case history 
to try to bring balance between the interests of employers and the 
interests of the unions. If you go down through this long history, 
there is a very tumultuous history. But throughout this history, the 
challenge was to bring balance, for workers and their employers.
  Over the last 25 years, there is no issue I have spent more time on 
during my political career than working with the employer community and 
the employee community, mostly represented by the labor movement.
  My goal throughout this last 25 years has been to maintain this 
balance that

[[Page H2086]]

I think works for employers and their employees, and what we have here 
today is trying to upset that balance, taking away the secret ballot 
election from workers in order to make their choice whether they want 
to be represented or not.
  It is almost beyond my imagination that this bill is on the floor of 
the United States House of Representatives taking away the secret 
ballot election. Think about this for a moment. Think about the 2008 
election day, and here we are. You don't get to go into a voting booth 
and vote for who you want to be President in the 2008 election. You 
don't get to go and decide in a secret ballot who you want your Member 
of Congress to be. You have to show up at a town hall meeting, raise 
your hand as to who you are going to vote for; let your neighbors know, 
let your opponents know, let your employers know how you are going to 
cast your vote for President or for your Member of Congress.
  I don't think that is what the American people expect of us. Instead 
of I am looking up at the voting booth, you are going to be standing up 
in front of God and everyone and telling everyone publicly how you 
voted. That is not what we want of workers.
  Think about this for a moment. This is what a 1990 Federal Court 
decision found, and I will quote: ``On average, 18 percent of those who 
sign authorization cards do not want to join the union. They sign 
because they want to mollify their friends who are soliciting, because 
they think the cards will get them their dues waived in the event that 
the union shop prevailed.''
  There was an earlier study by the National Labor Relations Board. It 
found that in cases where unions had cards signed by 30 to 50 percent 
of the employees, unions only won 19 percent of those elections. Or 
even when unions had cards signed by 50 to 70 percent of the workers, 
they won less than half of those elections.
  Let's talk about what this really is all about. This bill today is 
not about protecting American workers. It is about upsetting the 
balance between labor and management.
  But the real issue here is not taking care of workers, it is taking 
care of union bosses. We all know what is happening to the union 
movement in America. They represent about 8 percent of the private 
sector employees in the country, and that number has been dropping 
precipitously. This is an effort to help them get more members, to make 
it easier for them to sign them up and to intimidate them to sign 
cards. So there are no secret ballot elections. And whether they want 
to join a union or not, they are going to be forced to do it. That is 
not the American way.
  My colleague from California, the sponsor of this bill, knows full 
well what this bill does and who it is meant to take care of and who it 
is meant to pay back to. It is not the American way, and that is not 
what should be happening in the People's House.
  We, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to do what we think 
is right on behalf of the American people, and I am going to tell you 
what I am going to do today. I am going to stand up and stand tall, and 
I am going to vote for every American worker and protect their right to 
have a secret ballot.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, in closing, I yield the balance of my 
time to the chairman of the committee, the author of the bill, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
6 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding, and I thank him so much for his role in 
bringing this bill to the floor and the subcommittee where he chairs 
the subcommittee and in the full committee during the debate and here 
on the floor today, and I thank all of my colleagues who voted for this 
bill.
  I don't know, maybe you have been doing business so long where you 
have been paying back your supporters, you think that is the way 
everybody does business. And that is why you have people heading down 
toward the courthouse and that is why you lost your leadership, because 
they were paying back their supporters.
  Now, I know it is hard for you to change your stripes, and some of 
you will be wearing stripes, but the fact of the matter is, that is not 
the way we are doing business. But that is your language and that is 
your habit and the way you ran the Congress. It is pay to play. Pay to 
play.
  Well, a new day is in town, and we are here today about whether or 
not workers will simply have the choice to exercise a right that has 
been in the law for 70 years, a right that can be taken away from them 
like that from an employer who simply says no to a majority of people 
who want representation in a workplace, a right that is part of the 
National Labor Relations Act. But it is revoked by employers, 
arbitrarily, without reason, without purpose. Then they can insert 
those employees into a process that is well documented now of hundreds 
of thousands of employees over the last decade that have been punished 
and had retribution, been harassed, lost pay, lost their homes, lost 
their jobs, lost their good shift, lost their premium time. That is the 
record. That is the record.
  So the question is simply this: Will we give these employees the 
choice to decide, do I get to have an NLRB election, or do I want to 
choose this. Thirty percent can have an election. It takes 50 percent 
to have a card check.
  And your secret ballot, Mr. McKeon, you forgot to have the secret 
ballot for the decertification election. Apparently you don't need a 
secret ballot for that. You just have a card check. Okay. Now we 
understand what is going on here.
  Let's remember today that families find themselves in the most 
difficult of economic situations. Today, your employer, who has reduced 
your pension, they have terminated your pension, they have reduced the 
payments into your pension, they extend the time in years that you have 
to participate in the pension before you can vest. Your health care, 
they ask you to pay more for it and reduce the benefits that you are 
paying more for. They change your hours. They change your pay. They 
change your premium pay. They change your shift.
  So finally people say, I have got to have some say. I want the right 
to organize at work. I need representation. As the new Senator from 
Virginia said, everybody needs an agent. ``I need somebody to negotiate 
with this employer because I am not able to support my family. My wages 
aren't going up.''
  The productivity is going up, the highest productivity in the history 
of the country, and employees are taking home the smallest share. Who 
is taking the most home? The CEO's, with their arbitrary golden 
parachutes and golden handshakes. What about the person trying to 
support a middle-class family? What about the person trying to decide 
whether they can hold on to their house or if they can buy their first 
house? Where do they get to negotiate?
  The law says go to the National Labor Relations Act, and there you 
find a provision that says an employee has the choice of how to do 
this. But if they choose a card check, the employer can take it away 
from them. That is not democracy. That is arbitrary. That is 
capricious. That is an outrage. These are real people. These are real 
people that have been hurt this way.
  I conducted a hearing. Ivo Camilo worked for Blue Diamond Growers for 
35 years. He was awarded all kinds of awards for being an outstanding 
employee. Thirty-five years he gave them his life. And then Ivo said he 
wanted a union and they fired him. And when he said that to our 
hearing, he started to cry. Thirty-five years he had worked, and he 
started to cry.
  My granddaughter was sitting next to me in the hearing. She had to 
leave early, but she had her father call me from the car. She got on 
the phone and she said, ``Papa,'' she said, ``Papa, why did that man 
have to cry in front of all those people?''
  I said, ``Montana, he cried because he was embarrassed to admit to 
other people that he couldn't provide for his family; that he had lost 
a job that he was proud of. He lost a job because he simply spoke up.''

                              {time}  1430

  Another constitutional right you forget sometimes, he simply spoke up 
and said, ``I would like to have representation at work.'' And so Ivo 
Camilo was fired, along with tens of thousands of

[[Page H2087]]

other workers who simply made that statement to their employer.
  You believe that is a fair system? That is a fair system that people 
can be fired? And when he gets his job back, he gets his back pay, no 
penalty for doing this, and that is why 30,000 people have taken action 
against them, because there is no penalty for the employer to fire 
these people, because what do they want, they are trying to increase 
the security in the workplace, they are trying to increase the 
financial security of their families.
  You can pick up the paper every day and understand what is happening 
to people with health care, with their pensions. You can see what 
happens every day. The wages of working people are flat. They have been 
decreasing over the years, even as they have been the best workforce in 
America, and now they understand the risks that they run.
  They want more say. They want their employers to stop fooling around 
with pension plans and dipping into their retirement funds and putting 
those things at risk. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act does: 
it gives these employees a chance to have representation and protect 
the health and welfare and support of their families. I urge a vote 
against the McKeon amendment and in support of the legislation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McKeon from California.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 264, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 114]

                               AYES--164

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Flake
     Fossella
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Poe
     Serrano

                              {time}  1458

  Messrs. SPRATT, CLYBURN, KIRK and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BUYER, Mrs. MYRICK, and Messrs. LEWIS of California, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania, DUNCAN and PLATTS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 110-26 offered 
by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H2088]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 256, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               AYES--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Buyer
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     Obey
     Poe


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1507

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKeon

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 256, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               AYES--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez

[[Page H2089]]


     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Maloney (NY)
     Poe
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1516

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Welch of Vermont). There being no further 
amendments, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an 
efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor 
organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor 
practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 203, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McKeon

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McKEON. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. McKeon of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     800, to the Committee on Education and Labor with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Page 4, line 4, insert after ``representative'' the 
     following: ``, that such authorizations bear, in addition to 
     the signature of the employee, an attestation that the 
     employee is a lawful citizen or legal resident alien of the 
     United States, and are accompanied by documentary evidence of 
     the same, and''.

  Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, it defies logic that anyone who lives in 
this Nation illegally and works here illegally is able to decide 
whether legal workers must join a union.
  But under current law, unions can obtain signatures during card check 
campaigns without differentiating between whether they were signed by 
legal or illegal workers. This motion to recommit simply requires that 
the union conducting a card check demonstrates that any card presented 
for recognition be signed by a U.S. citizen or legal alien.
  This is especially important because under the so-called Employee 
Free Choice Act, the card check would become the law of the land, and 
literally it would allow union bosses to pick and choose which workers 
they believe can be most easily pressured into joining the union.
  The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is those illegally working in this 
country should not be pressured into making major decisions such as 
those involving unionization that will only serve to further erode the 
free choice of workers who are lawfully here.
  I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for offering this 
amendment before the Rules Committee yesterday.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue and in this House. Illegal immigration is as 
important an issue as any other major policy concern to my 
constituents, and I know to all Americans.
  Across the country, there is overwhelming support for immigration 
reform, and this is due to the general sense that Federal policies have 
not succeeded and illegal immigration has become a crisis. With an 
estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens living here, Americans 
realize that the presence of so many is undermining the rule of law and 
undercutting the economic security of hardworking Americans.
  No one wants to be denied economic opportunity for freedom, 
especially if it is being determined by those who are not lawfully in 
the United States. This motion to recommit is an opportunity to address 
the concerns of legal American workers which have not been raised from 
across the aisle.
  This recommittal would simply require a union to demonstrate that any 
authorization card presented for recognition be signed by a United 
States citizen or a legal alien. Under current law, any worker, whether 
in the United States legally or not, can sign an authorization card. I 
repeat, under current law, whether in the United States legally or not, 
any worker can sign an authorization card and have it counted toward 
the threshold for union recognition.
  So far, Republicans have proven that this Employee Intimidation Act 
is incompatible with the interests of workers, individual liberty, and 
the principles of democracy. Moreover, the card check process has 
proven not only to be biased and inferior, but also ripe for coercion 
and abuse.
  Even more incompatible with democracy and ripe for abuse would be to 
allow illegal aliens the right to approve workplace representation for 
all legal workers at a site. I can't imagine that anyone truly believes 
that illegal aliens should be able to weigh in and determine union 
recognition, compensation, and benefits for legal American workers.
  This Nation is at a point where illegal immigration has become such a 
crisis that it is threatening national security. To get this crisis 
under control and reaffirm our security, it is not too much to ask that 
all parties, employers, unions and employees, do their part. Employers 
are already on the front lines of deterring illegal immigration and 
verifying employee status.
  Asking that authorization cards be determined as ``valid'' and 
accompanied by documentation is just another step to get the matter 
under control and ensure only legal workers are

[[Page H2090]]

deciding on union recognition and workplace rules.
  It is such a small step. Unions can fulfill the requirements by 
following the same process that employers follow and use the same 
universe of documents that employers use, and to do this would not only 
guarantee that illegal aliens are not determining the rules for legal 
American workers, but it would add another check to strengthen national 
security.
  I urge passage of this motion to recommit.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the 
House, this is one of the more cynical amendments that could be offered 
at this time. You are going out to organize a workplace, and the people 
you are going out to organize are the employees of a company.
  Now, either that company has a large number or maybe a total 
workforce that is illegal, and they don't want you near them; or they 
are legal because they are employed there, because that employer is 
supposed to check to see whether or not they are legal and to certify 
that they are. That is the pool of people that you are seeking to 
employ.
  Now, this administration, you know, I think in 2004, maybe fined five 
companies, or you can put them on one hand. They now want to shift 
their failure to enforce in the workplace to the union organizers that 
they somehow have to do immigration checks because neither the employer 
apparently did them, nor the administration did them.
  This is simply outrageous that we would ask people to do this. The 
people who are working in the facility, whether it is a plant or a job 
site, the employer has certified that they are legal, and they are 
legal workers. Why is it we would shift this to the unions?
  If this company is not properly certified, that is why the Federal 
Government is supposed to be inspecting them. But they don't inspect 
them, because you haven't done this in the past, because you haven't 
taken this problem as seriously as you should. But all of a sudden you 
decided on this bill you are going to take it seriously, and you are 
going to shift it on to the union organizing effort to check this. It 
is an outrageous and cynical approach.
  If you take it seriously, if you take it seriously, then enforce the 
law. Enforce the law. You have been in power for 12 years. And 
apparently this is a problem that is so important that it only comes to 
light this evening. Enforce the law, 2004, three companies.
  Madam Speaker, I yield time to Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, enforce the law. The erstwhile majority wants 
organized labor to do what its own administration has failed miserably 
to do. In the last 6 years before this administration took office, 
there were an average of 587 convictions of employers for hiring 
illegal workers.
  Since then, this administration has averaged 73 convictions for a 
year for hiring illegal workers. In 2004, this administration got zero 
convictions for hiring illegal workers. Do not force organized labor to 
do what this administration has failed so miserably to do.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You will have your opportunity to 
address immigration law. You will have that opportunity. You have tried 
to deny it over the last several years, but you're going to have it.
  All this amendment says is you really dislike the unions even more 
than you dislike the illegal workers. That is what this says.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is violating the rules by not speaking to 
the Speaker. We would ask that the rules be enforced.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will not deliver remarks in the 
second person.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, all I can tell you is 
these people over here, when it was a question of the company, illegal 
immigration didn't bother them. All of a sudden, nonunion, these folks 
over here want to put it on the back of the unions in a most unfair 
fashion.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the House, let's not vote for 
this cynical amendment. Let's vote ``no'' against this and not punish 
people who are out trying to organize for the benefits of their 
families and their communities and for their health care and for their 
wages and put this burden on them that this administration hasn't 
accepted and the employers haven't accepted or the employers are doing 
it illegally. Let's enforce this law and not make this a substitute for 
that.
  I ask you to vote against this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               AYES--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio

[[Page H2091]]


     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     Poe


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1548

  Messrs. KIRK, MITCHELL, and LAMPSON, and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 185, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               AYES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hastings (WA)
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     Pickering
     Poe

                              {time}  1556

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 118 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________