[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19135-19143]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 19136]]

       (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 19137]]

      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

[[Page 19138]]

firefighter named Ryan Cooper was nearby when he heard the plane 
roaring toward the houses. As the airplane smashed the two homes and 
exploded 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. 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

[[Page 19139]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 19140]]

  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.

                              {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

[[Page 19141]]

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.
  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. Mr. 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

[[Page 19142]]

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.
  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

[[Page 19143]]

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. SALI. Mr. Speaker, the House voted on a measure that would 
require public sector employees at the State and local level to set up 
a system of monopoly bargaining. H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act, is well-intended, as are most bills that come 
before this body. Yet its effects would be profoundly negative, both on 
fire and police departments nationwide and on the way Congress operates 
with respect to our most fundamental allegiance, the Federal 
Constitution.
  As we all know, the tenth amendment to the Constitution states, ``The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States 
respectively, or to the people.'' Yet with H.R. 980, Congress is 
plainly overriding carefully crafted State labor laws with a single 
stroke. This bill dictates to States how they must deal with 
unionization issues, which is a serious abridgement of the role of 
Congress envisioned by our Founders.
  We took an oath here, Madam Speaker--an oath to uphold a Constitution 
that does not give us the power to ride roughshod over States whenever 
it strikes our fancy.
  Moreover, the practical effect of this legislation would be 
disastrous. As the International Chiefs of Police have noted, ``By 
mandating a `one-size fits all' approach to labor-management relations, 
H.R. 980 ignores the fact that every jurisdiction has unique needs and 
therefore requires the freedom to manage its public safety workforce in 
the manner that they have determined to be the most effective.''
  Worse yet, H.R. 980 would give the Federal Labor Relations Board the 
responsibility of overseeing labor-management laws in virtually every 
jurisdiction in the Nation, from municipalities to counties to States.
  Not only is Congress extending its meddling arms into matters 
reserved by the Constitution for the States, but now, some of my 
friends across the aisle want to cut funding for the only Federal 
agency that reviews union abuses. As John Fund put it in the Wall 
Street Journal, ``The new Democratic Congress has finally found a 
government agency whose budget it wants to cut: an obscure Labor 
Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal 
law.''
  Allow me to quote Mr. Fund at some length:

       In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management 
     Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 
     corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to 
     union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set 
     to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS 
     budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is 
     due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added 
     $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for 
     Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the 
     one engaged in union oversight . . . GOP Rep. John Kline of 
     Minnesota will offer an amendment Thursday to restore $3 
     million of the $11 million planned cutback in OLMS's budget, 
     so its budget would merely be restored to its 2007 level. 
     Whatever sums are spent on union disclosure reports appear to 
     be a good investment. Unions held $22 billion in assets in 
     2005, and you'd think that a modest enforcement budget, 
     representing less than 0.003% of that amount shouldn't be the 
     only target for cuts by budget appropriators.

  Mr. Speaker, allowing workers to determine whether or not they wish 
to join unions is consistent with the American principle of personal 
freedom and self-determination. A Federal law concerning public sector 
union membership that would render State laws irrelevant is 
unconstitutional, reckless, and unnecessary. And reducing funding for 
the one Federal agency that pursues notorious union corruption is 
incomprehensible in its own right--but especially coming from a new 
majority that heralds its own allegiance to the highest ethical 
standards.
  These things must not be allowed. These are matters of ``liberty and 
justice for all'' we must not take lightly.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 980, the 
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007. This vital 
legislation will provide police officers, firefighters, and other 
public safety officers with basic collective bargaining rights, without 
undermining state authority or existing state laws--providing modest 
minimum standards to be included in state laws.
  Sadly, some members of this body object to H.R. 980 on the grounds 
that it supposedly ``tramples on state's rights.'' This could not be 
further from the truth. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation 
Act only requires that states and localities have a bargaining process, 
it does not mandate binding arbitration, it does not allow strikes, and 
local employers still retain the final say in all budgetary decisions. 
Furthermore, most states and localities already meet or exceed the 
bill's minimum requirement of having a process in place that allows 
police, firefighters and others sit down and talk about their jobs with 
their employers. For these reasons, it seems to me that the state's 
rights objections raised by the bill's opponents do not stand up under 
scrutiny.
  Congress has long recognized the benefits of a cooperative working 
relationship between labor and management. Over the years we have 
extended collective bargaining rights to letter carriers, postal 
clerks, public transit employees, and even Congressional employees. It 
is long past time that we allow public safety employees the basic right 
to bargain collectively and raise workplace and public safety issues 
with their employers and in passing H.R. 980 today we will correct this 
wrong.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 980, which ensures that police officers, 
firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other public safety 
officers have basic collective bargaining rights. Americans depend on 
public safety workers and first responders to keep us safe and healthy. 
These critical personnel should be able to depend on Congress to 
provide them basic rights, including the ability to negotiate for the 
wages and benefits that they deserve.
  This bill promotes the development of labor-management partnerships, 
which are frequently established through collective bargaining. These 
partnerships enhance public safety by increasing communication and 
cooperation between employees and employers, leading to more effective 
and efficient delivery of services.
  It is important to note that the Public Safety Employer-Employee 
Cooperation Act in no way undermines existing State laws. It simply 
establishes a basic minimum standard that most states already meet and 
many exceed. This balanced legislation does not force parties to reach 
agreement, but rather opens the door for dialogue and negotiation. 
Additionally, H.R. 980 recognizes that public safety officers play a 
significant role in emergency situations, and for that reason includes 
a provision Outlawing strikes.
  This bipartisan bill is widely supported by the American public, and 
it is endorsed by the International Association of Fire Fighters, 
Association of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Fraternal Order 
of Police, International Union of Police Associations, and the National 
Association of Police Organizations.
  It is essential for all workers to have a voice at work. Please join 
me in supporting collective bargaining rights for public safety 
officers.
  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.

                          ____________________