[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1641-E1642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 980 PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION 
                              ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. VIRGINIA FOXX

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 27, 2007

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the first responders of our Nation deserve 
our great respect and admiration for their commitment to keep the 
public safe from harm. They play a vital role in securing our 
communities against our time's many threats to peace. I fully support 
our public-safety community in its increasingly complex and difficult 
task.
  The measure before the House, H.R. 980, would allow the Federal 
Government to assert itself on an issue that has typically been left to 
State legislatures. H.R. 980 would establish a national system of 
collective bargaining for most of the Nation's public safety officers, 
including but not limited to, law enforcement officers, firefighters, 
and other emergency service

[[Page E1642]]

personnel (such as EMTs and other first responders) employed by State 
and local Governments.
  This legislation does not pass good policy muster for a variety of 
reasons. Foremost among those reasons is its utter disregard for the 
10th Amendment rights of States. My home State of North Carolina has 
exercised its State rights and chosen to prohibit collective bargaining 
rights. It has been a Right-to-Work State since 1947. Under the 
provisions of this bill, North Carolina could no longer exercise its 
constitutional rights, but would be forced to comply with unprecedented 
Federal mandates.
  The legislation also does not include protection for secret ballot 
elections. Public-safety workers would be at the whims of strong-arming 
union-boss tactics. But despite the threat to the interests of States 
and their public safety workers and the fact that it supersedes State 
and local authority, this bill was pushed through the House under a 
suspension rule.
  Fortunately, there is a decent chance this law will be ruled 
unconstitutional because of the Federal Government's overstepping its 
bounds and imposing a Federal mandate on States. This bill would 
preempt State authority to regulate the collective bargaining rights of 
its State and local public safety employees. While the bill asserts 
that States would not be preempted, this assertion only applies to 
States with comparable or greater rights than those required under this 
legislation. In other words, if a State doesn't match or exceed what 
the Federal Government wants, it is preempted.
  H.R. 980 infringes on State rights and it expands the Federal 
Government's scope and role by creating an onerous national standard 
for public safety employee labor laws. But there is no real case for 
enacting this bill--currently 48 States have labor laws governing these 
workers and 29 of those States would already meet the proposed 
standard. The dark side of these 29 States that meet the standard is 
the 21 States that would have to create new labor laws or face Federal 
Government intervention of imposed regulations.
  Moving away from how this affects States, H.R. 980 does not provide 
protections for individual public-safety employees who do not want to 
unionize--especially in States that do not currently allow such 
unionization. States often have good reason to prohibit such 
unionization of public-sector employees. Collective bargaining and the 
process that surrounds it can cause strife in the workplace that might 
otherwise undermine Americans' public safety. Although current law 
already prohibits strikes in the public sector, such prohibition has at 
times been violated during the collective bargaining process.
  North Carolina is one of the States that has laws barring monopoly 
collective bargaining for public safety employees. It would be 
significantly affected by this bill's mandates. Since North Carolina's 
laws do not meet these new burdensome standards, the State is faced 
with two choices: enact or amend its laws that conform to the Federal 
standard; or have Federal labor law, administered by the Federal 
Government, govern the rights of its State and local firefighters and 
public safety officers.
  With such an imposition, Democrats are empowering the Federal 
Government to supersede State's rights and set a minimum standard that 
must be observed, in an area where 48 States already have some form of 
allowance present. We do not need to expand the Federal role in this 
issue and it is unclear whether or not this would be constitutional 
under the Tenth Amendment.
  For decades, States have exercised their constitutional right to make 
public-sector employment laws that each State found reasonable. With 
the passage of H.R. 980, the States would be forced to comply with 
Federal standards that might not reflect the values of the State and 
its citizens. This is just one more example of how the majority insists 
on inserting the Federal Government into more and more aspects of our 
lives. I believe a no vote on this bill is a protest against continued 
intrusion into issues best left to States.

                          ____________________