[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7859-H7866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 980) to provide collective bargaining rights for public
safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 980
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 ``Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are
based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral
consensual problem solving, and shared accountability. In
many public safety agencies it is the union that provides the
institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees
come and go.
(2) State and local public safety officers play an
essential role in the efforts of the United States to detect,
prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to
natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass
casualty incidents. As the first to arrive on scene, State
and local public safety officers must be prepared to protect
life and property and to preserve scarce and vital Federal
resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference
with
[[Page H7860]]
interstate and foreign commerce, and to protect the national
security of the United States. Public safety employer-
employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and
is, therefore, in the National interest.
(3) The health and safety of the Nation and the best
interests of public safety employers and employees may be
furthered by the settlement of issues through the processes
of collective bargaining.
(4) The Federal Government is in the position to encourage
conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and
encourage employers and the representatives of their
employees to reach and maintain agreements concerning rates
of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all
reasonable efforts through negotiations to settle their
differences by mutual agreement reached through collective
bargaining or by such methods as may be provided for in any
applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes.
(5) The potential absence of adequate cooperation between
public safety employers and employees has implications for
the security of employees, impacts the upgrading of police
and fire services of local communities, the health and well-
being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire
and police departments, and can affect interstate and
intrastate commerce.
(6) Many States and localities already provide public
safety officers with collective bargaining rights comparable
to or greater than the rights and responsibilities set forth
in this Act, and such State laws should be respected.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term ``Authority'' means the Federal Labor
Relations Authority.
(2) The term ``public safety officer''--
(A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a
law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or emergency medical
services personnel;
(B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred
to a supervisory or management position; and
(C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management
employee.
(3) The term ``firefighter'' has the same meaning given the
term ``employee in fire protection activities'' defined in
section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 203(y)).
(4) The term ``emergency medical services personnel'' means
an individual who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical
care, including an emergency medical technician, paramedic,
or first responder.
(5) The term ``law enforcement officer'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 1204(5) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796b(5)).
(6) The term ``supervisory employee'' has the meaning given
such term, or a substantially equivalent term, under
applicable State law on the date of enactment of this Act. In
the absence of such State law on the date of enactment of
this Act, the term means an individual, employed by a public
safety employer, who--
(A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to
hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough,
lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety
officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively
recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is
not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the
consistent exercise of independent judgment; and
(B) devotes a preponderance of employment time exercising
such authority.
(7) The term ``management employee'' has the meaning given
such term, or a substantially equivalent term, under
applicable State law in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act. If no such State law is in effect, the term means
an individual employed by a public safety employer in a
position that requires or authorizes the individual to
formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the
employer.
(8) The terms ``employer'' and ``public safety agency''
mean any State, political subdivision of a State, the
District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States that employs public safety officers.
(9) The term ``labor organization'' means an organization
composed in whole or in part of employees, in which employees
participate, and the purpose of which is to represent such
employees before public safety agencies concerning
grievances, conditions of employment and related matters.
(10) The term ``substantially provides'' means substantial
compliance with the rights and responsibilities described in
section 4(b).
SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Authority shall make a
determination as to whether a State substantially provides
for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection
(b). In making such determinations, the Authority shall
consider the opinion of affected employers and labor
organizations. Where the Authority is notified by an employer
and an affected labor organization that both parties agree
that the law applicable to such employer and labor
organization substantially provides for the rights and
responsibilities described in subsection (b), the Authority
shall give such agreement weight to the maximum extent
practicable in making its determination under this
subsection.
(2) Subsequent determinations.--(A) A determination made
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain in effect unless and
until the Authority issues a subsequent determination, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in subparagraph (B).
(B) An employer or a labor organization may submit a
written request for a subsequent determination, on the basis
of a material change in State law or its interpretation. If
the Authority determines that a material change in State law
or its interpretation has occurred, the Authority shall issue
a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after
receipt of such request.
(3) Judicial review.--Any person aggrieved by a
determination of the Authority under this section may, during
the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the
determination was made, petition any United States Court of
Appeals in the circuit in which the person resides or
transacts business or in District of Columbia circuit, for
judicial review. In any judicial review of a determination by
the Authority, the procedures contained in section 7123(c) of
title 5, United States Code, shall be followed.
(b) Rights and Responsibilities.--In making a determination
described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider a
State's law to provide adequate rights and responsibilities
unless such law fails to substantially provide rights and
responsibilities comparable to or greater than each of the
following:
(1) Granting public safety officers the right to form and
join a labor organization, which may exclude management and
supervisory employees, that is, or seeks to be, recognized as
the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees.
(2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the
employees' labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of
the employees), to agree to bargain with the labor
organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a
contract or memorandum of understanding.
(3) Providing for bargaining over hours, wages, and terms
and conditions of employment.
(4) Making available an interest impasse resolution
mechanism, such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration, or
comparable procedures.
(5) Requiring enforcement through State courts of--
(A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided
by State law and enumerated in this subsection; and
(B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding.
(c) Failure To Meet Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If the Authority determines, acting
pursuant to its authority under subsection (a), that a State
does not substantially provide for the rights and
responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State
shall be subject to the regulations and procedures described
in section 5.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply in each
State on the later of--
(A) 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) the date of the end of the first regular session of the
legislature of that State that begins after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. ROLE OF THE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Authority shall issue
regulations establishing procedures which provide the rights
and responsibilities described in section 4(b) for public
safety employers and officers in States which the Authority
has determined, acting pursuant to its authority under
section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such rights
and responsibilities.
(b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.--The
Authority, to the extent provided in this Act and in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority,
shall--
(1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor
organization representation;
(2) supervise and conduct elections to determine whether a
labor organization has been selected as an exclusive
representative by a voting majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit;
(3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good
faith;
(4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor
practices;
(5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators;
(6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such
activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and
protect each employee in the exercise of such right;
(7) if the Authority finds that any State is not in
compliance with the regulations prescribed under subsection
(a), direct compliance by such State by order; and
(8) take such other actions as are necessary and
appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including
issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence
from any place in the United States, and administering oaths,
taking or ordering the taking of depositions, ordering
responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and
examining witnesses.
(c) Enforcement.--
(1) Petition by authority.--If a State fails to comply with
a final order issued by the Authority, the Authority shall
petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction
over the parties or the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit to enforce any final orders
under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a
restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be
conducted in accordance with section 7123(c) and (d) of title
5, United States Code, except that any final order of the
Authority with respect to questions of fact shall be found to
be conclusive unless the court determines that the
Authority's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
(2) Right of action.--Unless the Authority has filed a
petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph (1), any
interested party shall have the right to file suit against
any political subdivision of a State, or, if the State has
waived its sovereign immunity, against the State
[[Page H7861]]
itself, in any district court of the United States of
competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the
regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection
(b), to enforce compliance with any order issued by the
Authority pursuant to this section, or to enforce section 6
of this Act. The right provided by this paragraph to bring a
suit to enforce compliance with any order issued by the
Authority pursuant to this section shall terminate upon the
filing of a petition seeking the same relief by the Authority
under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.
Notwithstanding any rights or responsibilities provided
under State law or under regulations issued by the Authority
under section 5--
(1) a public safety employer may not engage in a lockout of
public safety officers;
(2) public safety officers may not engage in a strike
against such public safety employer; and
(3) a labor organization may not call for a strike by
public safety officers against their public safety employer.
SEC. 7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND AGREEMENTS.
This Act and the regulations issued under this Act shall
not be construed to invalidate a certification, recognition,
collective bargaining agreement, or memorandum of
understanding which has been issued, approved, or ratified by
any public employee relations board or commission or by any
State or political subdivision or its agents (management
officials) in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act, or the results of any election held before the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the regulations
issued under this Act shall be construed--
(1) to preempt or limit the remedies, rights, and
procedures of any law of any State or political subdivision
of any State or jurisdiction that substantially provides
greater or comparable rights and responsibilities described
in section 4(b);
(2) to prevent a State from enforcing a State law which
prohibits employers and labor organizations from negotiating
provisions in a labor agreement that require union membership
or payment of union fees as a condition of employment;
(3) to preempt any State law in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act that substantially provides for the
rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely
because--
(A) such State law permits an employee to appear in his or
her own behalf with respect to his or her employment
relations with the public safety agency involved;
(B) such State law excludes from its coverage employees of
a state militia or national guard;
(C) such rights and responsibilities have not been extended
to other categories of employees covered by this Act, in
which case the Authority shall only exercise the powers
provided in section 5 of this Act with respect to those
categories of employees who have not been afforded the rights
and responsibilities described in section 4(b); or
(D) such laws or ordinances provide that a contract or
memorandum of understanding between a public safety employer
and a labor organization must be presented to a legislative
body as part of the process for approving such contract or
memorandum of understanding;
(4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations
under such Act to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an
employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer
activities during off-duty hours;
(5) to require a State to rescind or preempt laws or
ordinances of any of its political subdivisions if such laws
substantially provide rights and responsibilities for public
safety officers that are comparable to or greater than the
rights and responsibilities enumerated in section 4(b) of
this Act; or
(6) preempt any State law that substantially provides for
the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b)
solely because such law does not require bargaining with
respect to pension and retirement benefits.
(b) Partial Exemption.--A State may exempt from its State
law, or from the requirements established under this Act, a
political subdivision of the State that has a population of
less than 5,000 or that employs fewer than 25 full time
employees. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``employees'' includes each individual employed by the
political subdivision except any individual elected by
popular vote or appointed to serve on a board or commission.
(c) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
the Act, and in the absence of a waiver of a State's
sovereign immunity, the Authority shall have the exclusive
power to enforce the provisions of this Act with respect to
public safety officers employed by a State.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous
material relevant to H.R. 980 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sponsor of H.R. 980, along with my good
friend from Tennessee, Mr. John Duncan.
H.R. 980 extends to firefighters, police officers, corrections
officers and other public safety officers the basic right to discuss
workplace issues with their employers. Public safety officers, who risk
their lives to protect us, deserve a say in decisions that affect their
lives and their livelihood.
We have addressed concerns raised during the hearing held on the
legislation in the Education and Labor Committee and strengthened this
strongly bipartisan bill. This bipartisanship of this legislation is
demonstrated by the 280 cosponsors of this bill and a 42-1 bipartisan
vote in favor of this bill during the markup in the Education and Labor
Committee.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Chairman Andrews and the
committee staff for all their support on this important legislation. I
wish to also thank Ranking Member McKeon and Ranking Member Kline and
their staff for their work with us on this legislation.
I first introduced this legislation more than a decade ago back in
1995. It has been a long journey to today, and this legislation is long
overdue for our Nation's public safety employees.
I would also like to thank the groups that we have worked with on
this legislation, including, among others, the International
Association of Firefighters, the Fraternal Order of Police, the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the
International Union of Police Associations and the National Association
of Police Organizations.
The absence of the right to collectively bargain denies these public
servants the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their work
and their family. Our firefighters and police officers risk their lives
to keep us safe, yet there are some States in this country that deny
them the right to discuss workplace issues with their employers, a
right most Americans have. At the very least, they should be allowed to
negotiate for wages, hours and safe working conditions.
When I was in the State legislature in Michigan, I helped pass
legislation that granted all public employees the right to collectively
bargain. In Michigan, this has led to a working environment that
effectively protects the public and that both employers and employees
are proud of.
H.R. 980 would merely create a minimum standard that States have the
flexibility to implement, regulate and enforce as they see fit. Many
States, such as my own State of Michigan, have laws in place that go
well beyond H.R. 980, and these States would not be affected by this
legislation. Additionally, this legislation does not allow strikes or
lockouts, and it preserves management rights.
Firefighters and police officers are very serious about their
commitment to public safety. They deserve the basic right to sit down
with their employers and discuss their work conditions.
The reasonableness of this legislation again is demonstrated by the
wide bipartisan support it has from its 280 cosponsors. I urge my
colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I'm proud to be a
cosponsor of H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation
Act of 2007.
Firefighters and police officers put their lives on the line to
protect us, and they deserve the right to collectively bargain for safe
working conditions and fair wages.
Recent events remind us of their heroism. It was a week ago today
that a plane crashed into two homes in Sanford, Florida, just outside
my hometown of Orlando, Florida. An off-duty firefighter named Ryan
Cooper was nearby when he heard the plane roaring toward the houses. As
the airplane smashed the two homes and exploded
[[Page H7862]]
them into flames, Ryan Cooper went into action. He rushed into the
smoldering homes and brought out a 10-year year-old boy and his father.
Firefighter Ryan Cooper is a true hero. From his hospital bed, where
he was being treated for smoke inhalation, Mr. Cooper humbly said that
any firefighter would have done the same thing.
Sometimes firefighters pay the ultimate sacrifice. Just last month,
nine firefighters in Charleston, South Carolina lost their lives
fighting a blaze at a furniture store. These acts of heroism highlight
the dangerous nature of public safety officers' jobs.
This legislation gets the ball in the strike zone. On the one hand,
it allows firefighters and police officers to collectively bargain for
better working conditions and fair wages. On the other hand, it
expressly outlaws strikes, and it does not overturn State right-to-work
laws. In short, this bill is fair and reasonable and deserves our
bipartisan support.
Finally, let me address the main concern raised by some folks about
this legislation. They say that this legislation would mandate
compulsory unionism in right-to-work States. That simply isn't the
case. Section 8, subsections 2 and 3, specifically state that this
legislation would not preempt State right-to-work laws. In other words,
this legislation allows States to enforce laws that prevent employers
and unions from requiring union fees as a condition of employment.
Many people confuse collective bargaining with right to work. The two
can coexist. For example, firefighters currently enjoy collective
bargaining rights in my home State of Florida, yet Florida is a right-
to-work State.
In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) for all his hard work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a
tireless advocate for this legislation.
I would also like to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor
Committee, Mr. Miller, and the majority staff for working with the
minority to make some changes and improvements in this bill,
particularly those that address issues which were raised during
consideration of this bill in committee. I would also like to thank the
lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. Jimmy Duncan from
Tennessee, for his work.
I will be voting for H.R. 980 today, and I urge my colleagues to do
likewise.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Keller for
his hard work on this bill. He has made it a joy working on the bill,
and I thank him for that.
I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the
Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee that had
jurisdiction over this bill, such time as he may consume.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Keller for his strong statement
of support of the legislation, Mr. Duncan for his very vigorous
advocacy of this bill, Mr. McKeon for his cooperation in getting it
here today, obviously Chairman Miller for his leadership, and
especially my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
For Mr. Kildee, this has been a 12-year effort, an endurance test,
where he has built a coalition of all different kinds of groups across
party lines and around the country for a very worthy piece of
legislation. So Mr. Speaker, I would commend my good friend for his
persistence and congratulate him on a job beautifully done on this
legislation.
There is a strong bipartisan consensus for this legislation because
it's all about common sense.
Mr. Speaker, most Americans would agree that, almost without
exception, every American should have the right to bargain collectively
and organize and join or not join a union. This legislation gives that
right to our career firefighters, police officers, emergency service
personnel, corrections officers, and other public safety officials.
{time} 1045
There is a commonsense consensus that because of the significant work
that these individuals do, they should not have the right to strike if
there is a difficult contract negotiation. Under this bill they do not.
There is not a right to strike created by this bill because we
recognize the difficulty that strikes would create in the public safety
field.
There is a commonsense consensus that there should not be a one-size-
fits-all national rule to govern police officers, firefighters and
public safety personnel in each of the 50 States and other
jurisdictions. That is not what this bill does.
It creates a set of standards. It says that if a State and local
jurisdiction meet those standards, then public sector collective
bargaining laws stay in place without exception or change. But it says,
in those States with the right to bargain collectively, the right to
organize, the right to grieve are not fully recognized, where those
States do not come up to standard, then there is a new Federal
procedure that would guarantee men and women these rights.
The critics of this legislation say it is a threat to public safety.
There is not a shred of evidence that that is the case. Not a shred.
There is not a difference in crime rates where there is collective
bargaining among public safety professionals. There is not a negative
difference in absenteeism or other chain-of-command type of issues.
Frankly, we saw a dramatic example of just how wrong that point of
view is. On September the 11th, the police officers and firefighters
and other public safety personnel in and around New York City, the Port
Authority, the New York City Fire Department, the New York City Police
Department, those public safety professionals who responded to this
great crisis were all unionized. Many of them were in the middle of a
difficult contract process where there was strong disagreement between
the City of New York and the union as to what to do next.
Not one of those men or women failed to respond nobly and heroically
to the crisis this country faced. Not one. When they went up the stairs
in the towers as they were about to crumble, no one talked about
whether they were in a union or not. When the New York City Fire
Department lost more people in 1 day than it previously had done in
months and years before that, no one talked about a contract dispute.
These individuals responded nobly and heroically. So the suggestion
that there is some corrosion of public safety because of unionization
is unsupported by the evidence and just flat-out wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Kildee for the strong bipartisan
coalition he has built. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in
favor of this bill.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my fellow
east Tennessean, Jimmy Duncan, who is the lead Republican and original
cosponsor of this legislation and has been a true champion of this
issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), who very rightly claims east
Tennessee as a home also. I am pleased to join with him. I want to
commend him for his work on this legislation. I also want to especially
commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their comments about this legislation.
I originally agreed to cosponsor H.R. 980 several years ago, several
Congresses ago, at the request of firefighters and police officers from
my district. I certainly am not anti-union, nor am I controlled by any
union. I strongly believe, though, that no one should be forced to join
a union. But I also feel that anyone who chooses to organize or join a
labor union should have that right. Employees should be able to make
this decision for themselves. In fact, I am a cosponsor, and have been
in several Congresses, of H.R. 697, the National Right-to-Work Act.
This legislation would prohibit compulsory union membership by applying
the right-to-work laws that we have in Tennessee to the entire Nation.
In regard to H.R. 980, I want to emphasize four of the act's main
points and then provide some additional details. First, this bill
specifically prohibits strikes and lockouts by public safety employees
and employers, as has been pointed out by previous speakers.
[[Page H7863]]
Second, the bill is not mandatory. It is totally voluntary and,
therefore, is a right-to-work bill. Third, it does not federalize or
nationalize this aspect of labor relations. The important details would
still be governed by State law.
As has been pointed out by some other speakers, several States give
their public safety employees more collective bargaining rights than
this bill, and it certainly hasn't caused any problems that anyone
knows of in those States.
Finally, this bill would simply give firefighters and police officers
some, but not all, of the rights enjoyed by other workers. The
legislation provides very limited collective bargaining rights and does
not give State and local public safety employees the right to strike or
numerous other rights that almost all other employees have.
Over the years, Congress has enacted a number of laws granting such
rights to other workers and has expanded the scope of collective
bargaining laws to govern private sector, nonprofit association,
transportation and Federal Government employees.
Since the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State
and local public safety employees are the only workers left in America
who do not have the right to enter into collective bargaining
agreements with their employers. While most States provide collective
bargaining rights for these employees, others do not.
When this legislation was being considered originally during the
105th Congress, local firefighters and police officers contacted me
directly regarding the bill. Unfortunately, as local elected officials
changed, these public safety workers have found that their benefits and
wages have sometimes been subject to change, too. These firefighters
and police officers feel that this legislation will help them establish
consistency in their benefits between the administrations.
Firefighters and police officers have taken an oath to protect public
safety. I believe that these individuals should have the opportunity to
voice their concerns about issues affecting their livelihood. These
brave people risk their lives for public safety every day and should
have the same rights as workers in other fields.
Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, as others have, that the Fraternal
Order of Police and other police of the National Association of Police
Organizations are supporting this bill, and the International
Association of Firefighters.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I will close just by emphasizing once again
that this legislation would give firefighters and police officers an
option to participate in collective bargaining discussions but would
not require such action.
I think the good labor unions do not need compulsory unionism
agreements. I believe that this is a bill that is encouraging and
voluntary, and I urge its support.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank Mr. Duncan for his hard
work on this bill. He is, as we all know, a study in civility, and
civility certainly helps in this House. He also illustrates that we can
sit down in a bipartisan way and seek solutions. I thank him for his
work on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee, both for the time and for his leadership in this bipartisan
effort. I am so happy as a new Member of Congress to be here to join
him and support this legislation today, because it is about fairness
for those on the front lines protecting our neighborhoods and
communities, our firefighters and law enforcement officers.
This bill is about ensuring these public safety employees, these
heroes, have the right to ensure their voices are heard in the
workplace. Not only do they deserve this right, we owe it to these
public servants who risk their lives and put their safety on the line
every day to protect our families and our communities.
Our legislation simply gives them the same rights that so many other
workers around this Nation retain. These people who put the public
first deserve to be heard on the matters that affect their livelihood.
For our firefighters, police officers, EMTs and other public safety
officers, let's rise beyond the words of support, pass this bill, and
make it clear that we respect and admire the work and sacrifice of
these brave men and women.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. I urge opposition of H.R. 980
because it will force unions' so-called representation on public safety
employees.
Labor relations between States and their public employees have
historically remained at the State level. H.R. 980 would impose Federal
law on States that do not meet forced unionism standards defined in
this piece of legislation. Furthermore, the bill fails to ensure a
secret ballot election for public employees who would be given the
right to unionize under this legislation.
H.R. 980 would deny thousands of police and firemen the freedom to
negotiate directly with their employers. Those who attempt to negotiate
on their own behalf could face fines and even firings. Unionizing a
public sector workforce also requires hiring and training staff to
negotiate with unions and administer union contracts which would impose
unnecessary financial burdens on taxpayers.
Don't allow the Federal Government to impose costly and inappropriate
requirements on State and local governments. State and local
governments are capable of managing their own public employees. I urge
opposition to H.R. 980, to ensure each State's right to define labor
laws for their own public employees.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my chairman and the
chairman of the full Education and Labor Committee.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
very much for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Kildee for his authorship
of this legislation for over, I believe, 12 years now in support of
this legislation, and Mr. Duncan, his cosponsor, for the same years, to
try and provide for the organization of our public safety officers
around the country.
I want to thank Mr. Keller for his work on the subcommittee and Mr.
Andrews for shepherding this bill through the committee. With the 280
cosponsors of this legislation, which obviously represents very strong
bipartisan support, this legislation clearly demonstrates that this
Congress is committed to protecting the rights and the livelihoods of
our first responders, and this legislation stands in tribute to these
dedicated men and women. I am proud that the Education and Labor
Committee was able to pass H.R. 980 out of the committee almost
unanimously by a vote of 42-1.
Firefighters, police officers, correction officers and emergency
medical technicians risk their lives each and every day to protect our
lives and this country. H.R. 980 will ensure that all public safety
officers have a right to sit down with their employers and bargain over
wages and working conditions.
While States and cities and towns have historically managed their own
labor relations, approximately 28 States do not fully protect the
collective bargaining rights of public safety employees. That is why
this legislation is so necessary. This legislation would respect those
States that already provide for collective bargaining rights for public
safety employees, but it would extend those rights in all other States.
The bill would provide basic labor protections for State and local
public safety workers, including the right to join a union, the right
to have their union recognized by their employer, the right to bargain
collectively over hours, wages, terms and conditions of employment, a
mediation or arbitration process for resolving the impasse in
negotiations, and enforcement through the courts.
H.R. 980 will give public safety officers a voice in issues like
safety on the job and effective delivery of services. It will improve
communications and cooperation between rank-and-file public safety
employees and their employers, ensuring a more cohesive and coordinated
operation.
[[Page H7864]]
{time} 1100
That's the crux of this legislation. This gives the rights of these
negotiations, the rights of these discussions, the rights to have a
union, to the very same people that we trust every day to protect our
lives, to protect our communities, to protect our country, both before
and after a terrorist attack, before and after a criminal act. These
are the people that we trust to do this.
This legislation, under the authorship of Mr. Kildee and Mr. Duncan,
also suggests that we trust them to have a responsible say in their
workplace conditions, in how they carry out their job, to make
suggestions, to negotiate with their employers, to more effectively
carry out their duties. I think it is a long time coming. I think this
legislation and its very broad cosponsorship indicate this could have
been done much sooner, but it is going to be done today. It is going to
pass the House today. I believe it will pass with large bipartisan
support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
I also want to say that the fact that this legislation is here today,
although 12 years late, is maybe a hallmark of Mr. Kildee's career, and
that is persistence. He doesn't give up on an idea because others
disagree. He has pushed for this legislation year in and year out. He
was not allowed to have it heard for passage, and this year we were
able to accommodate him and Mr. Duncan. When we do that, we are also
accommodating and supporting our first responders all across the
country who need these rights to better do the job that we have handed
to them, a very difficult, a very dangerous job. I would hope that the
House would pass this legislation overwhelmingly.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next
speaker, what is the time remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has
11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for
yielding me this time.
There is no one who appreciates firefighters, police and other public
safety personnel more than I do. However, I rise in opposition to H.R.
980 because public sector labor relations has never been and should not
be an issue with which Congress meddles. Historically, the terms and
conditions of employment for all State and local employees has been an
issue decided on the State and local level. This is the way it should
be.
Some States, such as my home State of North Carolina, have laws
banning monopoly bargaining schemes, while others give unions total
control over public sector labor relations. Most States fall somewhere
in the middle.
But in a move that chips away at States rights, this bill requires
all States to set up systems to impose monopoly bargaining on all
public safety workers, in effect nullifying the pre-existing laws of 27
States. A move like this is a virtually unprecedented infringement on
States rights.
I want to be perfectly clear. Every worker in America, whether public
or private, already has the right to form and join a union. That is not
the question here. What the unions are asking for is the power to force
their so-called ``representation'' on police and firefighters who do
not want it. While some States have made what I view as the mistaken
decision of giving unions that kind of power, that is their right under
our Federal system.
This bill is flawed in that it takes away the right of States to make
the decision on their own. At the end of the day, this issue does not
belong in our hands. It should be left to the States. And, frankly, it
is not Congress's business.
More than half the States in the country have refused to grant union
bosses the complete monopoly control over public safety employment
mandated by H.R. 980. They have done this not only as a rightful
exercise of their States rights, but in the interest of keeping costs
low for their taxpayers.
Studies have shown that monopoly bargaining increases costs for
taxpayers. Multiplied across dozens of States, this would impose
millions of new costs on taxpayers. State and local governments should
have jurisdiction over their own employees, not the Federal Government.
The fact that this bill inserts the Federal Government into an issue
that has always been one left to the States should give us pause, and
it ought to make us wonder why it is being passed under suspension
today. Any bill that makes this sort of dramatic change to public
policy should be subject to the regular order of full debate and
amendments.
Please, I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of
States and vote against H.R. 980 today.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I support the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act providing our first responders with a
right that they deserve which has long been withheld, the right of
collective bargaining. Many Americans have this right, and our first
responders should not be left out.
In professions where working together can mean and does mean the
difference between life and death for workers and citizens in our
communities, cooperation in a healthy working environment is critical.
In my home State of Vermont, first responders have the right of
collective bargaining. We are very proud of them. That right should be
extended to their colleagues across the Nation.
Last fall I had an opportunity to participate in firefighting
training at the Vermont Fire Academy in Pittsford, Vermont. I suited up
in jackets, pants, and oxygen mask. And you know what I learned, the
work they do is hard. The work they do is dangerous.
We must make certain that they feel fully entitled to represent
themselves at the bargaining table for safe and decent conditions.
Representative Kildee and Representative Duncan, thank you for your
leadership in this overdue legislation.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida
for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to
speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City
of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for
these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack
while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that
December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters. But,
you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is
what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions.
But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th
amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the
chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my
heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that
side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment,
but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States
rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will
do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for
amendments or this thing to be looked at.
I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is
going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to our friend from
Georgia's comment about compulsory unionism and affirm something my
friend from Florida said earlier about compulsory unionism.
Section 8(a)(2) of this bill says that nothing in this act or the
regulations issued under this act shall be construed to prevent a State
from enforcing a State law which prohibits employers and labor
organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that
require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of
employment.
[[Page H7865]]
This bill expressly preserves the rights of States to maintain so-
called right-to-work laws in their State. I want the record to reflect
that point, that the gentleman's concerns about the Georgia
Constitution are met in this bill.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, but
I will say this. First of all, this has been a great example of
bipartisanship on an issue that very often has divided us. This has
brought us together. I think this is a great historical moment.
Democrats and Republicans. It was 42-1 in committee, and I think that
is something to be said in this body. I think this illustrates that on
an issue that very often divides us, labor issues, when it comes to a
specific group of these first responders, we can find a way to resolve
that division.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I don't
believe we have any other speakers.
Let me just begin by saying what this bill does not do to provide
some reassurance to some of my Republican colleagues who may be
concerned.
This bill expressly does not allow public safety officers to go on
strike. This bill does not preempt State right-to-work laws. This bill
does not require compulsory unionism. This bill does not require
binding arbitration.
I think we all agree that firefighters and police officers risk their
lives every single day and they are entitled to make fair wages and
have working conditions that are as safe as possible. This legislation
is fair and balanced, and that is why it has received such broad
bipartisan support.
On the one hand it does allow firefighters and police officers to
collectively bargain for better working conditions and fair wages. On
the other hand, it expressly outlaws strikes and does not overturn
State right-to-work laws. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to do
what I am about to do and vote ``yes'' on this important bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 980,
the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I commend my
friend, Congressman Kildee for bringing this legislation forward and I
am honored to be a cosponsor.
As a former labor organizer, I know first-hand the importance of
collective bargaining. I would not be here today as a Member of
Congress if it were not for my union. Yet, 21 States do not fully
protect the collective bargaining rights of public safety employees.
Firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel play a
critical role in our Nation's homeland security. They are the first to
respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other mass casualty
events. These workers deserve the same right to discuss workplace
issues with their employer that the Federal Government already grants
to most employees. Additionally, rank-and-file input improves
communication and cooperation between employees and management for more
efficient and coordinated operations that are necessary in our post 9/
11 world.
This bill would establish minimum standards that States must meet
regarding the process of collective bargaining with public safety
employees.
Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important to our national security, public
safety, and the rights of our first responders to pass H.R. 980. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, I rise in strong support of the
bill.
While most government employees enjoy the right to collectively
bargain with their employer, many fire fighters, police officers and
emergency medical personnel across the country are denied this right.
We must take action to end this injustice.
The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would affirm the
right of our Nation's State and local public safety officers to bargain
collectively and work cooperatively with their employers. This critical
legislation would do so by establishing minimum collective bargaining
standards for all States. Such standards include: the right to
collectively bargain over wages, hours and working conditions,
establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism, and the enforcement of
contracts through State courts.
Our public safety officers put their lives on the line every day to
protect us. Yet, they are denied their right to collectively bargain to
better protect themselves and their families. Collective bargaining
leads to higher wages, greater access to health care and better
retirement benefits. Furthermore, cooperation between public safety
employees and employers reduces injuries and fatalities because first
responders are more likely to have the safety equipment and resources
they need. Studies also show that communities promoting communication
between public safety officers and their employers enjoy more efficient
and effective delivery of emergency services.
Over the years, we have expanded collective bargaining laws to
protect private sector employees, non-profit association employees,
transportation workers, and Federal Government employees. One of the
few groups of workers not covered by these Federal laws is state and
local public safety officers. They work tirelessly to protect us. We
must take this opportunity to help protect them.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Public Employee-Employer
Cooperation Act.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor and longtime supporter of H.R.
980, I am pleased this legislation is on the House floor today. This
bill will take the important step of guaranteeing firefighters and
police officers the right to discuss workplace issues with their
employers.
It troubles me to know in many states, public safety employees lack
basic collective bargaining rights.
Firefighters and police officers take seriously their oath to protect
public safety and, as a result, they do not engage in work stoppages or
slowdowns. The absence of collective bargaining denies these workers
any opportunity to influence the decisions that affect their
livelihoods.
H.R. 980 recognizes public safety officers' unique situation by
creating a special collective bargaining right outside the scope of
other federal labor law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 980, the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I have been a
cosponsor of this legislation in every Congress since I was first
elected, and I am glad that under Democratic leadership, it has finally
come to the floor of the House for a vote.
It is imperative that we do all that we can to assist the police and
firefighters that sacrifice so much in order to protect us. This bill
requires States to establish a collective bargaining floor to allow
police and firefighters the chance to negotiate their labor agreements.
Many States already have similar laws on the books, but for those that
don't, this is a good starting point. Public safety officers should
have just as much of a right as other workers to organize. When they do
so, they not only benefit themselves, but also society as a whole.
We are not forcing unionization on States, nor are we doing anything
here today that could in any way jeopardize public safety. We are
simply allowing those brave men and women who provide for our safety
the chance to negotiate a more livable wage, a better pension plan, and
expanded health insurance coverage. We owe it to them, and I am glad
that this body will finally take up this important bill. I urge passage
of H.R. 980.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 980, which is designed to provide police officers, firefighters
and other public safety I officers with basic collective bargaining
rights, without undermining State authority or existing State laws. I
would first like to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Kildee of
Michigan, for introducing this important resolution. In light of the
post-9/11 era of protecting America from terrorism, in which we are
asking our police officers, firefighters, and other public safety
officers, to take on more--and more dangerous--responsibilities than
they had before, the least we can do is ensure they enjoy the basic
right to bargain for better wages and benefits.
State and local public safety officers play an essential role in the
efforts of the United States to detect, prevent, and respond to
terrorist attacks, and to respond to natural disasters, hazardous
materials, and other mass casualty incidents. As the first to arrive on
scene, State and local public safety officers must be prepared to
protect life and property and to preserve scarce and vital Federal
resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference with
interstate and foreign commerce, and to protect the national security
of the United States. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is
essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the Nation's
best interest.
Public safety agencies benefit from constructive relationships with
their public safety officers. In fact, local communities also benefit
by a more efficient delivery of safety and emergency services. This
type of cooperation is promoted by providing public safety employees
with the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. Public
safety officers deserve the same right to discuss workplace issues with
their employer that the Federal Government already grants to most other
employees.
[[Page H7866]]
The Federal Government needs to encourage conciliation, mediation,
and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage employers and the
representatives of their employees to reach and maintain agreements
concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions; and to make all
reasonable efforts through negotiation to settle differences by mutual
agreement reached through collective bargaining or by such methods as
may be provided for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of
disputes.
Mr. Speaker, public sector membership gains are important because
they demonstrate workers' willingness and ability to organize under
conditions of relative management neutrality and non-interference. If
the National Labor Relations Act had covered public safety officers 30
years ago--when health care and nonprofit entities were finally
covered--it is likely that public sector unionization in the U.S. today
would be at least 80 percent, strikingly similar to Canada, Europe,
South Africa, Korea, Japan and every other democracy. Instead, the
existence or scope of collective bargaining in half the States is still
being determined by State legislators or Governors, who favor either no
bargaining at all or limited ``meet and discuss'' arrangements.
If collective bargaining in public employment is indeed a public
good, we need to focus more on explaining and defending that process,
rather than just highlighting the obstacles that individual unions face
while trying to boost their own membership. For example, in France,
unions count only 10 percent of the workforce as dues-payers but unions
negotiate in nearly all industrial sectors based on longstanding
support for collective bargaining. Unions actively compete against each
other--both for membership and votes for government-mandated workplace
committee members open to all workers in the same workplace or firm.
But the country's various labor federations then find ways to engage in
common contract campaigns with management or the government; as a
result, nearly 90 percent of French workers have collective bargaining
agreements.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very balanced. Given the unique
responsibilities of the public safety community, the bill specifically
outlaws strikes by firefighters, police officers, and other public
safety personnel. The bill also does not interfere with State right-to-
work laws; preserves the rights of volunteer firefighters; protects all
existing certifications, recognitions, elections and collective
bargaining agreements; and exempts all States with a State collective
bargaining law for public safety officers equal to or greater than the
bill's basic minimum standards.
Promoting collective bargaining is even more critical today, because
the Nation is in much worse shape than half a century ago. What is the
likelihood that we can address America's safety crisis, the collapse of
retirement security, the threat of outsourcing, workplace safety and
health hazards, or the growing income inequality without far more
workers winning the right to bargain? We know the answer, and it is
H.R. 980. For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this resolution.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, throughout my career, I have
been a strong supporter of workers' rights to bargain collectively with
their employers. And while I believe every worker should have the right
to bargain collectively, I think there are few who have more earned
that right than our Nation's first responders.
Historically, Congress has given States and localities wide
discretion in determining how to negotiate with their public safety
employees. The result of this has been a myriad of different rights for
different workers depending on where they serve. Some States have very
strong rules to protect collective bargaining. Other States have none
at all.
Today, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act gives us
an opportunity to ensure that our first responders have a minimum
collective bargaining rights no matter what jurisdiction they serve.
This bill would ensure that police officers and firefighters have the
basic rights to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. The
bill also provides for a mediation or arbitration process to resolve
disputes.
This legislation strikes the proper balance by prohibiting strikes
and lockouts and does not infringe upon existing collective bargaining
agreements.
Our Nation's police officers and fire fighters lay their lives on the
line every day. At a moment's notice, they are ready to protect us from
crime, fire, natural disasters, and, regrettably, from terrorists. And
too often they offer their lives in the process.
Though we can never properly repay them for the things they do, this
bill will ensure that their collective voice is heard at the bargaining
table.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007. I applaud Mr.
Kildee and Mr. Duncan for their impressive work on this bill and I'm
proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.
As a result of this legislation, public safety officers--police
officers, fire fighters, and EMTs--will be able to discuss workplace
issues and collectively bargain with their employers.
Public safety officers in Iowa and across our nation regularly put
themselves in harms way and risk their lives so that we are safe. It's
only right that they have a say in the decisions that affect their
lives and their livelihoods. They should be able to negotiate for
wages, hours, and safe working conditions.
This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It's the right thing
to do and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns
about H.R. 980. Unfortunately, this bill, like many under the new
majority has come to the House floor under a closed process that
prevents Members of Congress from offering any amendment to this bill.
Florida is a right-to-work State, and while the proponents of the
legislation argue that this bill does not preempts states rights, the
details of the bill simply do not match the rhetoric.
This bill, which is opposed by the National League of Cities, has the
effect of forcing thousands of State and local governments to recognize
union officials as the exclusive bargaining agents of public-safety
officers. Under the process established in this bill--even in right to
work states--if union organizers win the representation of 50 percent
of workers plus one, they are recognized as the sole bargaining
representative of each and every public safety officer. This preempts
State laws and strips tens of thousands of police and firemen of their
freedom to negotiate directly with their employer. This is tantamount
to compulsory unionizing. The bill amounts to an unprecedented
federalization of collective bargaining; an area traditionally left to
State and local governments. This issue was succinctly stated by R.
Theodore Clark who testified on behalf of the National Public Employer
Labor Relations Association during the Committee hearing on H.R. 980
when he said:
[My] opposition to federal collective bargaining
legislation such as H.R. 980 is not because I oppose public
sector collective bargaining, but rather because of my firm
belief that the enactment of a federal collective bargaining
law would severely limit the demonstrated innovative and
creative abilities of the states and local jurisdictions to
deal in a responsible manner with the many complex issues
that the public sector collective bargaining poses.
Finally, concerns have been raised that H.R. 980 might endanger
public safety by decimating volunteer fire departments that currently
protect countless small communities across America. A fact well
understood and opposed by small community mayors and volunteer
firefighters across the country.
Our local cites and States are the best deciders of how to provide
vital services to our citizens. We should not tie their hands by
establishing a ``one size fits all'' Federal pattern that cannot hope
to account for the unique conditions and structures that our states and
localities face. It is for this reason and the decision by the majority
leadership to deny the ability of members of Congress to address these
shortcomings that I could not vote for final passage of H.R. 980.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 980, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________