March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1609 The result of the vote was announced (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given that someone must be at least 50 per- as above recorded. permission to revise and extend his re- cent motivated to work for the em- A motion to reconsider was laid on marks.) ployer to be taken seriously as a job the table. Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank applicant. f the gentleman for yielding me this Title IV of the Fairness for Small time. Business and Employees Act is what we PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246, the Fairness call a ‘‘loser pays’’ concept, applied APPROPRIATIONS TO HAVE for Small Business and Employees Act against the NLRB when it loses com- UNTIL MIDNIGHT, FRIDAY, is a pro-employee, pro-employer, pro- plaints it brings against the very small MARCH 27, 1998, TO FILE 2 PRIVI- labor organization bill that is also good companies or small labor organiza- LEGED REPORTS ON BILLS MAK- for the economy and good for the tions, those who have no more than 100 ING SUPPLEMENTAL APPRO- American taxpayers. employees and a net worth of no more PRIATIONS AND EMERGENCY Having introduced last session three than $1.4 million. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA- of the four bills which comprise the Title IV is a reasonable provision TIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 four titles of this legislation, I would which ensures that taxpayer dollars Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask like to focus my time on two titles. are spent wisely and effectively. It unanimous consent that the Commit- Title I is a targeted provision intended tells the Board that after it reviews the tee on Appropriations may have until to help employers who are being dam- facts of a case, that before it issues a midnight, Friday, March 27, 1998 to file aged and even run out of business due complaint and starts the serious ma- two privileged reports on bills, one to abusive union ‘‘salting’’ tactics. chinery against the ‘‘little guy,’’ making emergency supplemental ap- Title IV is a provision allowing small whether union or business, that it propriations for fiscal year 1998 and the employers and small labor organiza- should be very careful to make sure it other making supplemental appropria- tions who prevail against the NLRB has a reasonable case. If the NLRB tions for fiscal year 1998. unfair labor practice complaint to re- does move forward against these small The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. cover their attorney fees and costs. entities of modest means and loses the KINGSTON). Is there objection to the re- Title I says simply that someone case, then it simply must reimburse quest of the gentleman from Louisi- must be a ‘‘bona fide’’ employee appli- the small business or labor organiza- ana? cant before the employer has an obliga- tion, the winner’s legal expenses. There was no objection. tion to hire them under the National Title IV is a winner for the small The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Labor Relations Act. Mr. Chairman, a company and the small union who do ant to clause 8 of rule XXI, all points of ‘‘bona fide’’ applicant is defined as not have the resources to mount an adequate defense against a well-funded, order are reserved on the bills. someone who is not primarily moti- well-armed National Labor Relations f vated to seek employment to further other employment or other agency sta- Board who pays, by the way, from the taxes all of the expenses of the com- FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS tus. What this means in layman’s plainant, whether it is the union or an AND EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1998 terms is that someone who is at least The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. employer. half-motivated to work for the em- This bill ensures that the little guy KINGSTON). Pursuant to House Resolu- ployer is not impacted by this legisla- has some sort of an incentive to fight a tion 393 and rule XXIII, the Chair de- tion at all. case and ensures that they will not be clares the House in the Committee of Now, significantly, and I want to forced into bankruptcy to defend them- the Whole House on the State of the make this clear, the test of whether a selves, as countless employers have Union for the consideration of the bill, job applicant is a ‘‘bona fide applicant’’ been. H.R. 3246 is a narrowly crafted, H.R. 3246. under Title I is a decision that will, in targeted bill attempting to correct four the first instance, be made by the gen- b 1817 specific problems at the NLRB. It is be- eral counsel of the NLRB. This legisla- nign, and it is fair, and I urge my col- IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE tion seeks only to prevent the clear-cut leagues to be serious and look at the Accordingly, the House resolved abusive situations in which union real facts of this issue. itself into the Committee of the Whole agents or employees openly seek a job House on the State of the Union for the Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield as a ‘‘salter’’ with nonunion businesses. such time as he may consume to the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3246) to Mr. Chairman, if people will listen to assist small businesses and labor orga- gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SAWYER). this one point: A ‘‘salter’’ is described (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given nizations in defending themselves in the Organizing Manual of the Inter- permission to revise and extend his re- against government bureaucracy; to national Brotherhood of Electrical marks.) ensure that employees entitled to rein- Workers as an employee who is ex- Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise statement get their jobs back quickly; pected, now get this, and I quote, in opposition to the bill. to protect the right of employers to To threaten or actually apply economic This country was founded on democratic have a hearing to present their case in pressure necessary to cause the employer to principles; on majority rule that protects the certain representation cases; and to raise his prices to recoup additional costs, rights of the minority. Yet for 150 years, we prevent the use of the National Labor scale back his business activities, leave the failed to have democracy in the workplace. Relations Act for the purpose of dis- union’s jurisdiction, go out of business. In 1935, the passage of the National Labor rupting or inflicting economic harm on Now, that is an exact quote in the Relations Act for the first time ensured that employers, with Mr. MCCOLLUM in the manual of the International Brother- workers, unions, and employers were given a chair. hood of Electrical Worker’s definition forum for resolving labor practice disputes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. of what a salter can be. How is that for Not every worker will join a union, or even The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the a bona fide applicant? has the desire to do so, but democracy in the rule, the bill is considered as having A final point on Title I. This legisla- workplace means that workers can make that been read the first time. tion does not overturn, does not over- choice. The bill before us today would take Under the rule, the gentleman from turn the Supreme Court’s decision in away that basic worker right to choose wheth- Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) and the 1995 in Town & Country. That decision er to join a union. gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) held very narrowly that the definition This legislation is being portrayed as nec- each will control 30 minutes. of an employee under the NLRA can in- essary to modernize this law. I agree that The Chair recognizes the gentleman clude paid union agents. Title I does given the fundamental changes in the labor from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING). not change this, nor the definition of market since the 1930's this law may be ripe Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I an employee, nor the definition of an for reform. But we must not undermine the yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from employee applicant under the NLRA. principles of democracy that it took so long for Illinois (Mr. FAWELL), the subcommit- They obviously can still be involved in workers to get. tee chairman who studies carefully and customary efforts to organize a non- In its 1994 report, the Dunlop Commission knows what it is he says. union shop. It simply would make clear recommended a number of changes that H1610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 would help clarify and update federal labor My Republican colleague referred to cerning representation, a question to law. Unfortunately, the cosponsors of this bill title IV as the loser pays provision. be raised concerning whether that was, did not attempt to integrate those changes into The term is false. Nothing in this bill indeed, an appropriate unit of bargain- law. Instead, this bill would make it more dif- requires employers to reimburse tax- ing. Then the Board would look at a ficult for those who want to exercise long-es- payers when the Labor Board prevails hearing at a number of different fac- tablished and fundamental rights and respon- in a case, but taxpayers are required to tors. This is the way it has been for a sibilities in their workplace, and make it more pay if the board does not win. In other generation. difficult for the Board to be an even handed words, only one loser pays, and that Mr. Chairman, the key here is to de- arbiter of honest disagreements that arise loser is the taxpayer. cide whether the control over those fa- from time to time. Mr. Chairman, under the Equal Ac- cilities is so centralized; whether, for Despite the nation's current economic cess to Justice Act, the Board is al- example, labor relations are controlled strength, there is still a contingent of workers ready required to pay lawyer costs for by one central supervisor at one loca- who have failed to benefit from this prosperity. frivolous actions. In fact, the Board tion, and that controls it for all the lo- The collective bargaining process provides a must pay any time it takes a position cations, that it would be inappropriate, forum for workers and employers to discuss that is not substantially justified in as the Board says, to have bargaining workplace conditions in an equitable way. This law. in one location. is especially important as companies wrestle Title IV is especially unfair to work- You can understand why, Mr. Chair- with investment decisions in a changing tech- ers. Workers have no private right of man. We do not want to have a nological environment and as workers struggle action under the labor law, and are franchisor who has several different to adapt to that change. wholly dependent upon the Board to chain restaurants, for example, bar- Mr. Chairman, this bill would undermine de- enforce their rights. However, under gaining with different unions in each mocracy in the workplace. I urge my col- title IV, the Board is effectively pre- different restaurant, when the classic leagues to reject this bill and to begin the seri- cluded from acting unless it is guaran- tradition has been to have one set of ous work of ensuring that our nation's labor teed a win. Such a standard clearly and policies, one set of pay, one policy re- laws reflect the labor market of today. obviously chills reasonable and legiti- garding uniforms and vacations and Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- mate law enforcement efforts. the rest of it. self such time as I may consume. So the Board looked at a number of From the start of the 104th Congress, Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill up- different factors to determine whether the Republican leadership has tried to sets a 40-year-old presumption in favor control was so centralized that one sin- undermine workers’ rights, tried to of single-site bargaining units. Under gle facility would be an inappropriate stop the minimum wage increases, try- title II, workers may have to organize unit for bargaining. Then a couple of ing to take away overtime pay, trying every facility an employer owns before years ago the Board decided to throw to gut workplace and environmental they have a right to bargain. all that out. The Board proposed a rule safety laws. Now, these same forces are This bill is a radical attack on the and made the whole thing turn on the trying to deny workers the right to basic rights of workers, and I urge its presence or absence of several factors, join unions. defeat. This bill is an assault on the Na- Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance which really do not have anything to tional Labor Relations Act, which pro- of my time. do with what the Board has tradition- tects the right of workers to engage in Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ally considered to be relevant; factors collective bargaining. There are valid yield 31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman like are the locations more than a mile reasons why we should all support this from Missouri (Mr. TALENT), who has apart? right. Workers with union representa- many talents, and is the chairman of What does that have to do with any- tion earn higher wages than their non- the Committee on Small Business. thing? What does that have to do with union counterparts, have better bene- Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the stability of collective bargaining? fits, have greater job security, and are the gentleman for yielding and for his That is what we are trying to achieve much more productive. This bill de- kind compliments. with these laws, the stability of labor stroys the rights of workers to orga- I rise in support of the bill on each of relations. That is why the National nize. Title I directly overturns the its sections, and I want to address spe- Labor Relations Act was passed in the unanimous decision of the United cifically the single facility site section mid-1930s. Mr. Chairman, you can run a States Supreme Court that upheld the and to do that, Mr. Chairman, I need to business from around the world today right of workers to engage in lawful or- explain just a little bit of the back- with a fax machine and a phone, so ganizing activities. ground about what happens when a what difference does one mile make? Title I allows employer interrogation union seeks to organize a multifacility Another factor, whether there are of workers regarding their desire to be site. more than 15 employees in the facility, it is a totally arbitrary criterion. So represented by a union. In effect, Mr. b 1830 Chairman, this provision resurrects Congress for the last 2 years has passed employer black lists and sanctions the That can occur in a lot of different riders in appropriations bills saying, no-union, yellow dog contracts that lines of businesses. It can occur where no, do not implement that rule. It will labor law was specifically designed to you have a franchisor who owns several disrupt collective bargaining, it is prohibit. different shops or stores, restaurants. frankly kind of silly, and do not do Supporters contend that H.R. 3246 is It can occur in the trucking business. that. necessary because employers are forced When a union wants to organize a Now what we have is an opportunity to hire uncooperative and unproductive site like that, we first have to deter- to enshrine into law the standard that workers. Mr. Chairman, do not be mis- mine what the appropriate unit is for has been applied for 30 years that was led. The law does not require any em- bargaining. Is it one of the facilities, or developed by the Kennedy-Johnson ployer to hire anyone; it only prohibits is it all of the facilities, or is it some, Board in the sixties. It has worked very discrimination on the basis of union but not all? well. It is not overburdensome. It al- support. Union organizers may be fired The union has the right in the first lows these matters to be taken up in a on the same basis as any other worker. instance to file a petition and choose hearing, to be disposed of. Let us do While this bill effectively denies em- the size of the bargaining unit that it that with this bill. Let us preserve the ployment to those who wish to form a wants. If a union files a petition and stability of labor relations in this union, it does nothing to prohibit em- limits it to one facility, that is pre- country, and with regard to this impor- ployers from hiring outside, expensive, sumptively, under Board law, and has tant aspect of collective bargaining. union-busting consultants. Other parts been for 30 years, under both Repub- Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 of the bill demonstrate an equal dis- lican and Democratic boards, that is minutes to the gentleman from Michi- regard for the rights of workers. Title presumptively the appropriate unit for gan (Mr. BONIOR), the minority whip. IV effectively denies a whole class of bargaining. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank workers any protection under the Na- But it was also possible for the last the gentleman for yielding me the tional Labor Relations Act. 30 years for a question to be raised con- time. March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1611 Mr. Chairman, this bill is a dan- Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I many dollars after they have hired an gerous, a dangerous attack on Ameri- yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from attorney, they can get another deci- ca’s working families and their right to North Carolina (Mr. BALLENGER), some- sion. After the decision has been made, organize. It is dangerous because it one who knows what is in the legisla- they can have their attorney file or says some Americans do not have the tion. fight an appeal. Many months and same rights to free speech as the rest Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I many dollars after they have fought of us. It is dangerous because it says would like to ask a question: Why and determined the appeal, they get an some Americans do not have the right would any small business man who is outcome. to voluntarily join together in pursuit sane hire someone to unionize his busi- I may not be the expert that the gen- of a common goal. It is dangerous be- ness? It does not make sense. Yet, the tleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) says cause it encourages employers to dis- present law today demands that he on this bill, but I do have some com- criminate against people simply on the must. mon sense, and I know this, people who basis of their beliefs. Some unions have concocted the are looking for a job cannot afford to It is about silencing the voices of ideal trap for employers, an unscrupu- wait many months for an answer. They people who speak out for decent wages, lous workplace Catch-22 called salting. cannot afford the many dollars they for basic health care, for a secure re- Dozens of union activists will show up would have to pay an attorney. They tirement. It is about silencing the at a nonunion company and apply for will not get the job they need because voices of people who make this country work. If they are not hired, they file an they had the audacity in the past to work and expect the same rights as any unfair labor practice charge. If they lead or join a union. That is what this other American, the right to express are hired, they disrupt the workplace, bill does to men and women who need their own beliefs and act upon them. destroy property, and do whatever it work and are pursuing it legitimately. This bill is radical. It singles out peo- takes to get themselves fired. Then We should oppose this bill because of ple who believe in unions. It is aimed they file an unfair labor practice why it is being done. This is not a at people with the courage to stand up charge, alleging wrongful discharge. statement of fact, it is a statement of against injustice and intimidation to Do Members know how long it takes opinion. But I suspect if organized organize democratic elections for their today for the NLRB to settle this? It labor had slouched away from the chal- co-workers, so they might decide for takes an unlawful discharge union ac- lenge of the 1994 majority and never themselves whether or not they want a tivist case, treated like any other labor raised a fight, never tried to assist union, people like Betty Dumas, a dispute. Right now the median time for those of us who fight for working fami- woman who worked for 18 years at the the NLRB to process an unfair labor lies to win the majority back, we would Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana, who practice case is 546 days. Imagine a never be here this afternoon doing this. was fired because she refused to de- small business man having to face this Because this is not about labor law re- nounce her democratically elected legal charge. The uncertainty for all form, this is about retribution for peo- union. Betty Dumas was fired because sides can be maddening. ple standing up for their rights at the of her beliefs. The answer is to clarify the rules so polls and in campaigns across the coun- So what is next? Are we to sanction an employer is not forced to hire nor try. discrimination because of religious be- We ought to oppose this bill because keep on the job any person with ulte- liefs, because someone is Catholic or of what this bill says. This bill is not rior motives. The proposed measure Jewish or Baptist or Muslim? Such dis- worthy of the 1990s, it is worthy of the takes pains not to infringe upon em- crimination I think everyone would 1950s, because it does not remind me of ployees’ existing protections, such as agree is morally repugnant, but this the great efforts to write labor law, it the right to organize. bill is no different. It overturns a unan- reminds me of the McCarthy era in this Mr. Chairman, this bill, that is the imous Supreme Court decision that country, when we had lists of people only part of this bill that has any rea- prohibits discrimination based upon who could not get work. son for the unions to fight. In reality, people’s affiliation with organizations That is what is going to happen if outside of work. for years they have been taking the this bill becomes law. There will be It sanctions discrimination against small business man for granted. I think lists of people who are troublemakers, people who believe in unions, organiza- we need to pass this bill. who do not think and act the right tions that speak out for working fami- Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 way. The list will circulate, because lies on issues like raising the minimum minutes to the gentleman from New she had the audacity to join a union, or wage, extending Medicare, protecting Jersey (Mr. ANDREWS), someone who he had the audacity to run for the pres- Social Security. knows more about this bill than any- idency of a union. This country was founded by people body in the House. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill. who fought and died for the freedom to (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I freely associate, to elect their own permission to revise and extend his re- yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from leaders, and to speak their own beliefs. marks.) Michigan (Mr. KNOLLENBERG). This bill would take away these rights Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, from millions of American families. thank the gentleman for yielding me I rise in very strong support of H.R. Once some Americans begin to lose the time, and for his compliment. 3246, the Fairness to Small Business their constitutional rights, once we say Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this and Employees Act. I believe it strikes it is okay to discriminate against some bill because of what it does to working a unique balance that gives the more people simply on the basis of their be- people, what it does to working people than 22 million small businesses in liefs, the rights of everyone are endan- and what it says to all people. America relief against a very well-for- gered. To understand what is wrong with tified bureaucratic NLRB, and gives This bill is cynical. It is a politically this bill, we have to walk in the shoes employees something called ‘‘justice motivated attempt to silence the of someone who wants a job and needs on time’’ to get their jobs back. voices of America’s working families. a job who does not intend to organize a Title I, as we have heard, deals with It is a shameful attack on all of us, and union, who does not intend to do that. the unions’ practice of salting; some it threatens the constitutional rights If that person is denied that job be- might say espionage, but it is salting, that Americans hold dear. cause sometime in their past they have they say. It is unfortunate that many It is almost impossible today in this been a union officer, a union organizer, of my colleagues on the other side of country to organize, anyway. To come or even a union member, they have all the aisle have succumbed to the typical to the floor with a bill like this that kinds of rights. They can file a com- union practice of never letting the would shut down the limited window plaint with the National Labor Rela- facts get in the way of a good story. that people have to express their views tions Board, and many months and Title I sends a clear message that if and to organize for a better living for many, many dollars later they can get a paid union employee’s primary pur- them and their families is an outrage. a decision. pose is to work for the employer, he or I urge my colleagues to vote against If they do not like that decision, they she is protected. If, however, that per- this bill. can hire an attorney. Many months and son is found to be there to disrupt or H1612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 inflict economic hardship on an em- must take a loyalty oath that they are tions Act that will ensure a more level ployer, the law will not and it should there to be ‘‘bona fide’’; They are never playing field for small businesses, not protect them. going to be entrepreneurs on their own; small unions, and employees. Title II codifies the NLRB’s long- they are not going to walk away with H.R. 3246 incorporated four pieces of standing practice of giving employers certain secrets; they are forever loyal legislation that address distinctive the right to argue before the Board to the company; then he would destroy parts of our labor law. Together, the whether a single site, and this has been his own company. Truth in Employment Act, the Fair repeated over and over this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, this bill is just one of Hearing Act, the Justice On Time Act, whether a single site should be consid- about 10 more bills that we can expect and the Fair Act accomplish much- ered part of a bargaining unit. The which constitute a battery of assaults needed reform to our Nation’s labor Board’s promotion of a one-size-fits-all in the 105th Congress on working fami- laws. approach was ill-conceived, it ignores lies. It is a renewal of the assaults that For example, under H.R. 3246, an em- reality, and it is inflexible in today’s took place in the 104th Congress. ployer will be secure in the knowledge competitive global economy, which has Labor unions have been good for that an employee he or she hires is a also been pointed out. America. The Republican attack is vio- bona fide applicant who is there to Title III ensures that employees, lating a commonsense bond, a com- work, not there to harass or disrupt their families and children, should not monsense covenant with the larger so- employee-company operations. have to wait over a year for resolution ciety. Labor unions are responsible for And then once they are working, em- of their cases, for over a year. The a lot of good things that have hap- ployees are ensured that they will be Board’s bureaucratic practice thumbs pened, including their drive and their given timely legal recourse in the its nose at these hardworking men and willingness to take the case for the event they feel their rights have been women by taking a median time of al- minimum wage to the American peo- violated. Taken as a whole, these meas- most 600 days, and in some cases, 800 ple, resulting in public opinion being ures help correct some of the unfair- days to decide their fate. That is changed in ways, marshaled in ways ness in Federal labor law and the NLRB. We need to remove these exces- wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is which the Republican majority could sive, burdensome, and unfair regula- frankly disrespectful. H.R. 3246 cor- not ignore last year. Last year, NLRB destruction was at- tions that create additional hurdles on rects this by making the NLRB issue a tempted. In 1994, the assault was to our Nation’s businesses, and I urge my final decision within a year. This is wipe out the effectiveness of the NLRB colleagues to vote for H.R. 3246. justice on time. by cutting its budget drastically. Now Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 Title IV, finally, protects the little they are proposing that they speed up minutes to the gentlewoman from Cali- guy against the heavy-handed lawyer- their deliberations. I think a lot of fornia (Ms. WOOLSEY). fortified NLRB. It will make the Board workers and unions would love to have (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given think twice before they bring a case NLRB speed up also. But are my col- permission to revise and extend her re- against a small business or a labor or- leagues on the other side of the aisle marks.) ganization. I did say labor organiza- ready to say that they are willing now Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the tion. If they lose, the Board, not the to give additional funding for NLRB Fairness for Small Business and Em- little guy, should pay for the attor- and do what is needed to make it effec- ployees Act is neither. It certainly is neys’ fees and the expenses the com- tive? not fair to employees and it is cer- pany or the union had to spend to de- The Reagan and Bush years almost tainly not fair to small businesses. fend itself. destroyed the effectiveness of the Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 allows any Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It NLRB. Let us restore the effectiveness employer, large or small, to refuse em- is a fair and balanced bill. I commend by restoring their funding and let them ployment to workers because of sus- the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. serve the interests of both workers and pected labor union affiliations. Sus- GOODLING) and the gentleman from Illi- business. pected. nois (Mr. FAWELL) for their efforts to Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I This is the road that this Congress bring this bill to the floor, and I urge yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from and this country should not and cannot my colleagues to vote for its passage. California (Mr. MCKEON), a fine sub- go down. First of all, the right to orga- It is common sense. committee chairman. nize and join a labor union is a basic Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank American civil right. Unions give minutes to the gentleman from New the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. American workers a voice at their jobs York (Mr. OWENS). GOODLING) for yielding me this time and they give the union worker a voice (Mr. OWENS asked and was given and commend him for his leadership on in our economy. They also give Amer- permission to revise and extend his re- this bill. I also wish to commend the ican workers a voice in our electoral marks.) gentleman from Illinois (Mr. FAWELL), process, but that is another bill we are Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this is chairman of the subcommittee, for the going to have to fight. not a fair and balanced bill. This is a fine work that he has done in bringing This bill, H.R. 3246, allows employers bill filled with dirty tricks. The tricks this bill to the floor. to refuse to give jobs to workers they are pretty obvious. This bill to restrict Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup- suspect will organize other employees workers from organizing is radical and port of the Fairness for Small Business to join a union. Suspect. extreme. The bill is part of a larger and Employees Act. H.R. 3246 is one of Once employers can refuse to hire plot to create a separate America for the most important pro-business, pro- suspected union members, what will working families and their representa- employee bills before the House during come next? Some employers may want tives. We want workers to abide by this Congress. I am proud to say that I to refuse to hire a young woman be- rules that we are not making for any- am a cosponsor of this legislation. cause they suspect she will get preg- body else. Mr. Chairman, as a small business- nant someday, or an older man because man, I am well aware of the burden of they suspect he will take too many b 1845 Federal taxes and regulations on our sick days. We could end up with em- We do not require loyalty oaths for Nation’s businesses. During the 105th ployers telling job applicants, I am just any other category of employees. Only Congress, we have fought hard to pro- not going to hire you because I do not the workers are required; middle man- vide relief from these hardships. Last like the way you look. agement will not be required and tech- summer we enacted the Taxpayer Re- Mr. Chairman, it is every American’s nicians will not be required to take lief Act which provided billions of dol- right not to be judged by suspicions. loyalty oaths. If the bill did that, of lars in tax relief through capital gains Surely American workers have this course, we would place businesses at a and estate tax cuts. And now today, we right too. great disadvantage. are addressing the need for regulatory H.R. 3246 punishes American workers. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, if Bill and legal relief. It is antiworker, it is anti-American. Gates of Microsoft required that every Under this bill, we will make critical And I do not suspect, but I know, we young person coming into his company changes to the National Labor Rela- must vote it down. March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1613 Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I Mr. Chairman, because workers can (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman organize to represent themselves, given permission to revise and extend from Nebraska (Mr. BARRETT). workers are able to raise their families his remarks.) Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. and to make this country strong. If Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, Chairman, I thank the gentleman from workers have a pension, they can there they go again. The Republican Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) for yield- thank organized workers. Thank them leadership has once again launched a ing me this time. again for the minimum wage. Thank major attack on working families and Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of them for the 8-hour day, for the 40-hour the unions that simply try to represent H.R. 3246. The purpose of the legisla- work week, for overtime pay and for their interests. tion, as I see it, is to help small busi- compensatory time off. They can thank Just last week, Republicans passed a nesses and labor organizations in de- organized workers for workplace safe- campaign reform bill through commit- fending themselves against govern- ty, for grievance procedures, and per- tee which has as its centerpiece a ment bureaucracy, to ensure that em- haps, most importantly, for health ben- worker gag rule which would silence ployees entitled to reinstatement get efits. the voice of American workers by shut- their jobs back quickly, and to protect Before workers could organize and ting them out of the political process. the right of employers to have a hear- represent themselves, we did not have Now, today Republicans have ing to present their case in certain rep- maternity leave, let alone paid leave. brought to the floor a bill which rep- resentation cases and, of course, to pre- These are just some of the improve- resents a frontal assault on the Na- vent the use of the National Labor Re- ments that all working families in the tional Labor Relations Act and the lations Act for the purpose of disrupt- United States enjoy because of the rights it preserves for millions of work- ing or inflicting economic harm on em- struggles of organized labor. ing people across this country. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill ployers. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to H.R. 3246 contains four narrowly reject H.R. 3246. would make it more difficult for work- drafted titles addressing four specific Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ers to organize and easier for employ- problem in the National Labor Rela- yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from ers to get away with violating labor tions Act. The legislation recognizes Texas (Mr. BRADY). laws. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, thank The most egregious part of this bill is that the NLRB, which is supposed to be goodness that the practice of salting is the so-called antisalting provision a neutral referee in labor disputes, is not applied to Members of Congress, which would seriously undermine the applying the law in a way that not only because if the equivalent of salting organized labor movement in the harms small employers, business and were applied to us, we would easily see United States. Under the Republican unions, but does a great disservice to this scenario: If a Democratic Con- bill, businesses could refuse to hire or hardworking men and women who may gressman or woman with a strong, fire people, just because the employer have been wrongly discharged. proud, liberal philosophy were to seek suspects them of trying to organize Mr. Chairman, title 4 of the bill is applicants for an important job in their their workplace. modeled on the effective ‘‘loser pays’’ office, under salting an applicant who concept and requires the NLRB to pay b 1900 minimally met the criteria for that job attorney’s fees and expenses of small position could walk in in a ‘‘Rush is This legislation would overturn a employers of modest means, including Right’’ T-shirt and proclaim to that unanimous Supreme Court decision businesses and labor organizations, Congressman or woman that ‘‘I have no which held that union organizers are who win their cases against the Board. intention of representing your con- entitled to the same worker protec- H.R. 3246 only applies to the smallest stituents, of serving the people in your tions as any other employee. In addi- businesses and unions which have 100 district. My sole job in this job is to or- tion, the Republican bill, through the employees or fewer and a net worth of ganize the workers on your staff attorneys’ fees provisions, would have $1.4 million or less. against you, to create an environment a significant chilling effect on future The bill before us today would force resentful of your philosophy. And if NLRB actions, making it less likely the government to consider carefully you do not go along with this process, that American workers will have their the merits of the case before it pro- I have a right to bring your office and right vigorously defended and pre- ceeded against a small entity with few your staff down.’’ served. financial resources. If that Congressman or woman were Finally, the Republican bill provides Right now, small employers often to make the right decision and not hire employers with a new way to delay and settle with the Board rather than that person, they would be subject to a challenge union elections and restrict spend significant amounts of money National Labor Relations Board com- the NLRB’s ability to reach a fair and and time in litigation. I believe Chair- plaint, subject to spending thousands just conclusion on unfair labor practice man GOODLING’s legislation would of dollars to defend a reasonable deci- complaints. make certain that small employers and sion, and perhaps compelled to hire In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, one of unions have an incentive to stand up that person. the most precious freedoms of the for their rights by fighting cases of As ridiculous as that seems, as crazy working men and women in this coun- questionable merit. as it seems to push that merit and pro- try is their right to organize. The bill Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues ductivity as criteria out the window, Republicans have brought to the floor to support H.R. 3246. small businesses face that same ridicu- today would have a devastating effect Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2 lous scenario every day. Families who on the labor movement in this country, minutes to the gentlewoman from Cali- have risked their savings to trade a which has done so much to ensure that fornia (Ms. SANCHEZ). job, and who are fighting in the mar- working Americans earn livable wages (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given ketplace, are handcuffed to hire the and have decent benefits for their fami- permission to revise and extend her re- best people, the most qualified, the lies. marks.) meritorious people who can help them President Clinton has already Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask achieve their dream, and they face this pledged to veto this harmful legisla- my colleagues to reject H.R. 3246. It every day. tion. I urge my colleagues on both should be titled the ‘‘Silence Working Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this sides of the aisle to vote against this Families Act.’’ It is a shame that the bill to bring some reasonableness and bill and stand up for the rights of the House is jeopardizing the living stand- fairness into the decision making of hard-working men and women of this ards of working families. small businesses. I urge my colleagues’ country. As a result of the National Labor Re- support for this fairness and a Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I lations Act and other Federal laws, healthier work environment. yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from working families have livable wages Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 Pennsylvania (Mr. PETERSON). and job protections. And now the minutes to the distinguished gen- Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. House is attempting to roll back the tleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT), Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clock on American labor law. the minority leader. yielding. H1614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 I would urge some of the previous America and to maintain our infra- costs him an incredible amount of speakers at some point recently to read structure. They work under harsh con- time, and in the process, drags down the bill, because if they had read the ditions. They are compelled to move his productivity. bill, they would not have made the from job to job, from one employer to What the current law does is to per- statements that were just made. In another, to make a decent living. petuate a gross unfairness where one America, if we want the unemployed to What keeps these workers productive class of employees can, in fact, prey have jobs, if we want working families is the skills that they have received upon another group of employees in the and the underemployed to have better from thousands of joint apprenticeship same trade; and the only distinction jobs, we need to nourish and be fair programs, high-quality programs that between the two is that one has a sin- with small business. are only available to them because of gular deliberate motivation to drag The Fortune 500 companies are not their affiliation with construction down the place of employment of the growing. The small businesses are unions. It is their union membership others who are employed in a particu- growing and will grow faster if we are and their dedication to training, to lar trade or business. fair with them. What is wrong with education, to quality work which al- If someone has at least half on-the- someone, who mortgages everything lows them to contribute to our econ- job qualification designation under the they own to start a business, to ask for omy. And they are proud to carry their bill, why should an employer be obli- loyalty from those they hire to help union membership from job to job. gated to hire them? House Resolution them build that business, and if they This bill would make these hard- 3246 guarantees small employers a are there to help them do that, they working Americans second-class citi- hearing before the National Labor Re- are going to support them? That is zens. It would allow employers to fire lations Board. It has been the practice America. construction workers, or not hire them for decades in organizing cases involv- What is wrong with a hearing process in the first place, simply because they ing single-site locations; it is the epit- to decide if they are being organized, have chosen union membership. This is ome of fairness, in my estimation, with and they have three or four sites, blatantly unfair. It is discriminatory. workplace fairness and job security and whether it is going to be a single site It is unworthy of the democratic tradi- job opportunity. or collective? That is America. tions of the Nation. The right to orga- I think we should not attack those, What is wrong with putting a limit nize, the right to join a union are not as my colleagues on the other side of on a decision to 1 year? A year is long simply political rights, they are moral the aisle are suggesting here today, at- enough to have delay. rights essentially to protect liberty tack those who are legitimately em- What is wrong with when the big and equality and justice. ployed, legitimately enjoy their oppor- NLRB, with all of our money and all of Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I tunity to work, and are gainfully em- ployed and wish to remain so. their lawyers, comes down on small yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, may I in- businesses unfairly, and it is proven from Colorado (Mr. BOB SCHAFFER). quire as to how much time is remain- they were unfair, that that small busi- Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. ing on both sides? ness can at least get its legal fees Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gen- The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MCCOLLUM). back? That is the what America ought tleman, the distinguished chairman, The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. to be standing for and what America is yielding me the time. CLAY) has 9 minutes remaining, and Those who claim that there is some all about. the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Those who have talked about all the unfairness in this bill, I would submit, GOODLING) has 61⁄2 minutes. labor issues of the past have not read probably have not read the bill or are Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 this bill. This bill is fair to small busi- not knowledgeable about the compo- minutes to the gentleman from Califor- ness giving an equal, level playing field nent parts of the legislation. House nia (Mr. BECERRA). so that we can grow small businesses, Resolution 3246 does not affect in any Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I so unemployed people can have jobs, so way the legitimate applicant’s or em- thank the gentleman for yielding me underemployed people can have a bet- ployee’s rights to engage in union orga- the time. ter job. It is about fairness. nizing efforts. It strikes me, the perspective of the If we in this Congress are fair to I have heard a lot of these stories sponsors of this legislation, I think, small business, this country will grow about salting from many employers was fairly well recapped by the gen- and the workers of America will have within my district in Colorado and tleman from North Carolina a few choices of jobs. other congressional districts in the speakers ago who said, ‘‘Why would Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 State of Colorado. Here is how this any small business member hire some- minutes to the gentleman from Ohio works, for those who are unfamiliar: A one who wants to organize the work- (Mr. KUCINICH). union organizer with the deliberate, place?’’ The answer is, he would not. Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, H.R. distinct purpose of dragging an em- Well, that is the attitude of the spon- 3246 is a terribly unfair bill, but it is ployer before the Labor Relations sors of this bill. Right from the start, part of a wider assault on the rights of Board walks into an employee’s place they suspect anyone they wish to hire workers to free association. This bill of business and says, ‘‘Please hire me. to work with them. How sad that there would turn back the clock to a time I am a member of a labor union and I are sponsors who believe that we can- when employers had absolute power am an organizer and I am here to orga- not hire someone who we cannot look over the lives of workers and their fam- nize and destroy your place of busi- at as an enemy in the beginning. What ilies. It would effectively blacklist peo- ness.’’ a way to begin a working relationship. ple who believe that employees need to The employer takes the application, Why would any new employee want band together to pursue their collec- considers it among all other appli- to undermine the very employer who tive interest. cants, and if that employer decides for will issue her first paycheck? And more This bill would have a huge negative a variety of reasons, based on merit, than that, if they think of some of our impact on the rights of all working based on qualifications, based on com- successful small businesses, they origi- people, making it far more difficult for pleteness of the application, and on nally started as successful family-oper- the NLRB to carry out our Nation’s in- many occasions based on whether the ated businesses, but once they became dustrial relations laws. This bill would applicant signed the application, the too successful they had to hire outside have a devastating impact on our Na- employer may decide to hire someone of the family. They expected the same tion’s workers and the building and more qualified. things from these nonfamily employees construction trades. If that occurs, in a salting case, that as they got from their family employ- Every day millions of men and activity alone almost guarantees and ees, probably good working com- women go to work building the roads compels a hearing in front of the Na- petency, commitment to the effort. and bridges, building the high-rise of- tional Labor Relations Board, a hear- And the employee, whether family or fice towers, building the schools that ing which, if he wants to vindicate not, probably expected the same as our Nation depends upon. These work- himself and declare his innocence and well, a decent wage, reasonable bene- ers risk their lives every day to build profess it, costs him attorneys’ fees, fits. March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1615 Well, what makes anyone believe employers around Title I, and do not stead this House needs to pass real that if we start off with suspicions, we say it applies only to paid union orga- labor law reform. are going to be able to treat anyone as nizers. This applies to any employee, Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 a good worker, let alone the family of any prospective employee, any person. minute to the gentlewoman from Or- your business? Unfortunately, that is And here is what it says. egon (Ms. FURSE). what this bill says. Beware, any em- The person comes up, wants a job. Ms. FURSE. My goodness, how quick- ployer; when you hire an employee, be This gives the right to the employer to ly some people forget our history, but suspicious; never be able to believe read or try to guess his or her intent. we Democrats do not forget. We re- that that person you hire wants to And then if the employer decides what member that less than 100 years ago in make you succeed as well. the primary purpose is, it is very clear Centralia, Washington three wood- How shameful that is that we in Con- from their own majority report who workers were hanged because they gress will stand here and tell the Amer- has the burden of proof, it is the NLRB, tried to organize the timber industry. ican people that America’s working where a charge has been filed that has But other courageous workers were not men and women must be treated with to show as part of its prima facie case intimidated. They went ahead and they suspicion simply because they wish to that the employer was wrong. organized the mills and the woods. work and work under decent working Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the That is our history, too. We have a conditions and also receive decent ben- gentleman yield? right in this country to organize. We efits. And if we cannot do that collec- Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman must not be naive. This bill is anti- tively, why do families do so well? from Illinois. labor, it is anti-organizing, it is anti- They do it collectively. Mr. FAWELL. It is the affirmative union. Vote no. Let my employee come to any place defense that the employer has to un- Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the of work and say, I will work com- dertake to be able to show. balance of my time to the gentleman petently for you, hard. I will make you Mr. LEVIN. But the prima facie case, from Texas (Mr. GREEN). succeed. I will make you have a profit. reading from their own language, the (Mr. GREEN asked and was given In return, let me have something de- burden is placed on the NLRB. permission to revise and extend his re- cent. And if I wish to do it collectively, Now what is going to happen here is, marks.) as many family-operated businesses do, my colleagues are bringing about a Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank do not think of me as someone you sus- chilling effect on the right of people to my good friend from Missouri, the pect. organize. They are letting an employer ranking member of the Committee on Please defeat this bill. guess intent and then make somebody Education and the Workforce, for Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I prove that that employer is wrong. yielding me this time. Again the name yield 1 minute to the gentleman from That is wrong. keeps changing every session. I rise in Illinois (Mr. FAWELL). Already the deck is tilted in favor of opposition to the bill. I spoke earlier Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, if I the employer under the NLRA, as it on the rule. I am glad to have the op- could just get this thought in. The Su- has been interpreted in terms of cap- portunity to close, because, one, I preme Court in Town & Country made tive audience provisions in terms of the think this legislation is misguided. The it very clear that an employer, in deal- right of people to express themselves opposition is based on, one, it is a ing with an applicant, has to treat that on the floor of the shop. They cannot closed rule. There are some of us who applicant, even though the applicant is do that. And now they want to go one would like to have a real debate on a member of a labor union and even step further and try to chill the tradi- labor law reform. Yet from what I un- though he may be a paid employee of a tional American right to associate, to derstood in committee, the bill came labor union, he has got to give him all organize. They are wrong. out on a party line vote and here on of the rights of the National Labor Re- the floor those of us who may not serve b 1915 lations Act. on the committee anymore do not have Now, the only thing that the em- Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 the opportunity to offer amendments ployer is coming back here and saying minute to the gentleman from Indiana to correct what we see in the legisla- is, can I not at least, when I know that (Mr. VISCLOSKY). tion. That is why the bill’s intent is that person is primarily there, and I (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was misguided, but it also did not give us have got the facts to prove it and I am given permission to revise and extend the opportunity today to change it. going to have to prove it, general coun- his remarks.) The bill withdraws the benefits of sel is going to have to agree that I can Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I free enterprise to the employees. We prove it. But if I can show that his pri- rise in opposition to H.R. 3246 and heard a lot today about free enterprise mary motivation is going to be able to would like to take this opportunity to is great, and it is. We are all products help some other employer by whom he talk about union organizing. The peo- of the free enterprise system. But it in- is employed or to whom he has a loy- ple of the debate here are correct. cludes both the employers and the em- alty, do I not at least have that much Much work needs to be done. But the ployees, and that is what this bill right? Are we going to say to the small work to be done is not to stifle people’s takes away, the free enterprise of the business people of America they do not opportunity to associate with one an- employees. This free enterprise system even have that right? other on an economic basis, but to pro- is the greatest in the world and it is That is what we are trying to express tect access of workers to legitimate the greatest in the world because of the here. And it has nothing to do with union representation. The real problem last 50 to 60 years we have recognized taking away the rights of people to col- which needs to be addressed in this that. It has both sides of the bargain- lectively bargain or to organize or any- House is that every year clear majori- ing table. This takes away even a level thing of that sort. ties of workers at businesses across the playing field. I do not think the play- Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 country indicate their support for ing field is level today even between minutes to the gentleman from Michi- union representation and 1, 2 or 3 years the employee and the employer, but gan (Mr. LEVIN). later the representation is still not ap- this makes it even more unlevel. That (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per- proved because it is tied up with ap- is why this bill is so wrong. mission to revise and extend his re- peals to the National Labor Relations I guess I have a concern because only marks.) Board. In the meantime, unscrupulous 14 percent of the workforce in the Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I hope the employers too often take advantage of United States is unionized. Granted, gentleman from Illinois will listen, be- the opportunity to illegally intimidate, there are efforts to organize, but 14 cause his effort to make this Title I be- fire or commit other unfair labor prac- percent. This is like taking a bomb nign is very misguided. I want to tell tices against workers in order to defeat that you could use a fly swatter for if him specifically why he is wrong. By subsequent votes on union representa- you really needed it. This is so over- the way, this has nothing to do only tion. H.R. 3246 would simply aggravate whelming for that 14 percent that are with small employers. Title I affects this problem. I urge my colleagues to unionized. Maybe next year if this bill all employers. So do not wrap small join me in voting against the bill. In- is not passed, maybe it is 15 percent, H1616 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 but we have not had this bill in the law ‘‘Why would you seek employment to who are so concerned, as I am, about and that percentage of unionization harm the company? No one would ever the working men and women out there, has actually gone down. do anything like that.’’ I hope you will join with me as we So what is the need for the legisla- Mr. Chairman, that is what this leg- move forward with some legislation, tion? Except to pay back a debt or to islation is about, because that is ex- because I have been in the backyards of pay back what may have happened last actly what is happening. Do not ask me some of those who are speaking today, year during the elections because orga- whether that is happening. Listen to and I saw the most horrible conditions nized labor tried to make sure that someone who was a union organizer anyone can ever imagine, and you say, those of us on the floor of the House who told us before our committee. This ‘‘It is in America?’’ What did I see? No understand that, sure, they may be is what he said. Why don’t we ‘‘spend unemployment compensation, no work- union bosses but they also represent more time negotiating in good faith ers’ compensation, no OSHA, no wage workers and they represent employees with the company we were organizing, and hour, a fire trap, they would all die to try and have that level playing field. especially when we felt we had an em- if there were a fire. There is only one We do need real labor law reform, Mr. ployee or two willing to request us as exit to get out of the place. No ventila- Chairman. I would have liked to have an agent to collective bargaining?’’ tion, no overtime. Most of them were seen a real debate today and a real give And what was the response that he represented by organized labor. Where and take for labor law reform, to say, got? ‘‘He told us that the NLRB is com- is the Federal Government? Where is yes, okay, maybe you do not like what mitted to prosecute every single the State government? Where is the is happening with salting. Maybe you charge, that there was no expense to us city? Where is OSHA? Where is Wage & do not like that. Also I do not like at all for it and that, at the very least, Hour? Let us really think about the what happens because I see people who the contractor would be forced to spend difficult cases that are out there. Let do sign cards or do have an election time and money to defend them- us not try to put people out of business that may take them years before they selves. . . .’’ who are trying to do well, because it is actually have a contract or have that That is why these two people who the employee that loses the job. We representation that they voted for. To came to a place of employment in Ar- protect the employee, we protect the this day we see people who are fired kansas and were told, ‘‘We don’t have small business, we protect the small from their jobs because they voted for any jobs,’’ they left, the employer unions in this legislation. That should a union. It takes them years to get thought, ‘‘Well, that’s it.’’ Lo and be- be a reason for everyone to vote for that job back. They ultimately may. hold, the National Labor Relations this legislation. But justice delayed is justice denied. Board said, ‘‘No, we have a case against Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise That is what is happening today. That you, a discrimination case.’’ He went today in strong support for the Fairness for is why this bill is so wrong. to his lawyer, his lawyer said, ‘‘You Small Business and Employees Act. According I asked earlier under the rule, be- have two choices. You can fight it and to the Small Business Administration, 19 cents cause I happen to have a card in the win and I’ll guarantee you you’ll win out of every revenue dollar is spent on com- union, I did my apprenticeship as a but it will cost you $23,000. You’re a plying with federal, state, and local regula- printer but I also went to law school. I small business, that may put you out tions. When you consider that there are over said I had learned how to read law as of business, but you’ll win. Or you can 22 million small businesses in the United well as print a newspaper. What wor- pay $6,000 and lose.’’ He did a little States, these regulations more than add upÐ ries me about page 4 of the bill is where arithmetic and said, ‘‘Gee, I’ve got to they cost jobsÐthey stifle the American it says, ‘‘Nothing in this subsection pay to lose, otherwise I’m out of busi- dream. shall be construed as requiring an em- ness.’’ So he paid his $6,000 to lose rath- For too long Congress has passed man- ployer to employ any person who is not er than the $23,000 to win. dates on small businesses and federal agen- a bona fide employee applicant.’’ My How frivolous are these suits? Time cies have regulated compliance without even concern is that definition of bona fide and time and time again. Let me just considering its impact on a business. Mr. Chairman, today Congress is going to employee. I looked in the report. I am read my colleagues a list. From Indi- do the oppositeÐwe are going to bring some concerned that the person who makes ana, 96 charges, 96 dismissed by the Na- relief to small businesses. I hope my col- that hiring decision out there in the tional Labor Relations Board. But leagues will review this legislation with small what did it cost the small business? real world will not know what is in this business in their district in mind. report and does not even have the $250,000, to get 96 cases dismissed. H.R. 3246 has four provisions, but I want to standard of law. If we want to make From Maine, 14 dismissed without focus my attention on Title I, the Truth in Em- sure that they are not going to dis- merit. What did it cost the small busi- ployment Act. Under current labor law, job ap- criminate against someone because ness? $100,000. In Missouri, 47 dis- plicants may or may not be seeking employ- they had a union card or maybe they missed, one settled for $200. What did it ment for personal reasons, they may be seek- were a former union member, then we cost? $150,000. Little Rock, Arkansas, 20 ing employment as a union agent solely in need to put it into law and put those dismissed, $80,000. order to unionize the organization. This tactic, All we are saying here is that your protections in here. otherwise known as salting, is not truthful nor That is why this bill ought to be de- motivation to be employed, at least 50 does it benefit the company for which they feated tonight. If it is not defeated, I percent of it should be a motivation to hope to work. hope to be able to stand here and op- improve the company, to work to help Mr. Chairman, in salting situations a com- pose it, also, when the President vetoes make the company successful, so that pany is put in the difficult position of deciding it. you get higher wages, so that you get either to hire a union salt or face NLRB, Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I higher fringe benefits. That is all it OSHA and EEOC inquiries and possible fed- yield myself the balance of my time. says. In another part of the legislation, eral fines. In some cases, salting has been This is not legislation that takes a step I have watched in my district and used by labor unions to harass or disrupt op- backward, as some people mention. As throughout this country people lose erations of companies that have not been fa- a matter of fact, it is an attempt to jobs, businesses go out of business. vorable to their cause. This is not right and I move into the 21st century. As I indi- Why? Time and time again they were believe Congress should act. cated before, unless we can get labor sitting there waiting rather than nego- A small business in my district has faced and management to move into the 21st tiating in good faith, labor and man- salting. The Company had some openings and century, there is very little hope for us agement both, waiting for the NLRB to sought applications. There were salt appli- to be competitive with the rest of the act, because they both thought they cants and non-union applicants. One salt ap- world. It is time we understand it is will act in their favor, and they took 1 plicant told the company boss that his union the 21st century, not the 1930s when the year, 2 years, 3 years. Finally, no jobs, determined that this Company was on the labor laws were written, not the 1930s no business. We are saying in the legis- union hit list and that it better hire him or face when we talked about men only in the lation, act in a year. The employee has the consequences. The salts had no desire to workforce, when we talked about only the right to know. The employer has work at his companyÐonly to unionize it. The a manufacturing economy. It is the the right to know. Then we can get on company chose to hire the most qualified ap- 21st century. Someone over there said, with the negotiating business. Those plicant, which this time was non-union, and his March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1617 company was hit with NLRB grievances equal The current law protects American workers. It would also make it harder for workers to to the number of salt applicants. The company An employee who holds a job for the purpose organize by forcing them to organize all the fa- has spent thousands of dollars fighting these of organizing a particular workplace is an offi- cilities of an employer, instead of just one. So and other NLRB grievances. In the end, the cial employee of the company that hired that if you tried to organize the workers in a federal government forced him through the person. If this worker performs their employ- McDonalds, you would be forced to organize NLRB to pay backpay and agree to hire those ment duties satisfactorily, they are protected every worker in every McDonalds in the coun- union salts on future jobsÐunion salts who against discrimination for union activity and af- try. have no desire to work for his company. filiation. If H.R. 3246 passes, it will overturn a And while we're at it, lets have the Federal Mr. Chairman, salting affects hard-working 1995 unanimous Supreme Court decision that Government pay the legal bills of businesses small business owners. Unions have a valid upheld the current law. This bill will give em- in National Labor Relations Board disputes. place in American enterprise, and most union ployers the ability to discriminate against work- That will only ensure that fewer such cases members are hard working, well intentioned ers who exercise the right to organize. The are brought, and further weaken hard won employees. Unions have a heritage of which NLRB will be unable to protect workers worker protections. they are proud, but salting is a practice that against unfair employer discrimination. The masks are off Mr. Chairman. We can hurts the labor movement, gives it a bad This anti-labor bill also gives employers the see the true agenda this week. It's all about name, and doesn't serve well the cause of or- ability to frustrate and delay their employees' screwing the working families of America. ganized labor. I believe Congress should out- choice of union representation. The NLRB, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair- law this tactic. I urge my colleagues to help through years of experience, has determined man, I rise in opposition to HR 3246, a bill that small businesses in their district by supporting that in most situations, it is appropriate for is mislabeled the Fairness For Small Business H.R. 3246. workers to organize in a single location of a & Employees Act. It should be titled a Bill to Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to multi-facility business rather than organizing at Keep Organizers From Organizing. This bill voice my strong opposition to H.R. 3246. This all locations at once. This bill requires the undercuts the fundamental right of workers to bill is less about fairness to small business, NLRB to apply a subjective test to determine choose a collective bargaining representative and more about unfairness to working men the appropriate unit to organize. This will allow free from employer coercion. and women. employers to have control over their workers' This bill just adds to the arsenal of weapons H.R. 3246 would give employers the right to right to organize. that employers currently use in their anti-union fire or deny employment to any worker they Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246 is unfair to our campaigns. Under current law, an employer suspect is not a bona fide employee applicant. workers and unfair to America. One of the may lawfully order all employees to listen to a In the bill's words, someone whose primary foundations of this Nation is the right for work- speech or watch a video urging them to vote purpose is not to work for the employer. ers to organize. This bill is at odds with basic against union representation. Employees who The committee report states that the primary principles of American labor law and jeopard- refuse to attend such anti-union campaign purpose provision would apply to a person izes fundamental worker rights. The bill is a di- meetings can be disciplined, including being who was seeking a job without at least a 50 rect and specific attack by the Republican fired. percent motivation to work for the employer. Leadership on American workers and unions Employers may also prohibit union organiz- What set of scales will employers use to de- and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. ers from entering their premises throughout termine what percentage of the employee's Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, let's face it. It's the organizing campaign, and may prohibit motivation is to work for the employer versus screw labor week! employees from discussing the union among working to help organize his or her cowork- My colleagues on the other side of the aisle themselves except during breaks. This bill ers? have decided that they know better than the gives powerful new weapons to employers, Mr. Chairman, we are not engaged in an entire Supreme Court in this instance. large and small, to prevent employees from idle academic exercise here. We're not talking about a 5 to 4 decision joining unions. This legislation will have real-life con- here, or 6 to 3. Noooo. My Republican friends Let me turn my attention to the issue of sequences for real-life men and women in want to overturn a unanimous, 9 to nothing ``salting'', because it deals directly with an real-life workplaces. Supreme Court decision that said that union issue in which the Supreme court has ruled. The Dunlop Commission reported that, each organizers who apply for and hold jobs for the Contrary to the claims of the bill's supporters, year, 10,000 American workers are wrongfully purpose of organizing employees in a work- ``salts'' do not come to a company to destroy fired from their jobs for trying to organize their place cannot be fired for disloyalty. it. They come to organize the company's em- co-workers. By reversing the Supreme Court on this ployeesÐnot to eliminate their jobs. They un- H.R. 3246 would further weaken the federal issue, my colleagues are turning labor history derstand that they need to fulfill the employ- laws which currently provide American work- on its head and giving employers another tool er's legitimate expectations. ers with a modicum of protection. against organized workers. Salts must obey employer rules that apply As others have pointed out, the U.S. Su- And that's what this bill is all about, my to all employees. In addition, employers may preme Court, in an unanimous 1995 decision, friends. It's another battle in the Congressional lawfully prohibit union activity in work areas ruled that a worker could be both a company Republicans continuing campaign against during working time. Employees engage in employee and a paid union organizer at the working families. salting activities who do not comply with such same time. The High Court further stated that In the last Congress, the Republican-con- rules, or who are insubordinate or incom- employers have no legal right to forbid an em- trolled House tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon petent, can be lawfully fired on the same basis ployee from engaging in organizing activity Act, which provides for prevailing wages in as other employees. protected by the NLRA. Federal construction contracts. They tried to Clearly, employers who object to salting do Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3246 would overturn that repeal the Service Contract Act, which pro- so not because of any inherent unfairness in unanimous opinion of the High Court. vides for prevailing wages in Federal service the practice, but because they object to the H.R. 3246 is a terrible piece of legislation contracts. They also tried to abolish the De- fact that the law permits their employees to or- which should offend the sensibilities of every partment of Labor and they cut millions from ganize, and prohibits them from firing employ- Member of this House who values our Amer- job-training funding. ees who promote union organizing. ican tradition of freedom, fairness, and fair They tried to ram through legislation that The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1995 play. would allow corporations to raid worker pen- decision, NLRB v. Town and Country Electric, Let's vote down this very bad bill. sions to the tune of $20 billion. ruled that a worker could be both a company Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in In the 105th Congress, the attack continued employee and a paid union organizer at the strong opposition to H.R. 3246, a bill the Re- within H.R. 1, The Comp Time Act and the same time, and that an employer has no legal publican Leadership has seen fit to name the ``Team Act.'' right to require that a worker, as a condition of ``Fairness for Small Business and Employees Later this week, the Republicans will be at employment, refrain from engaging in union Act'' but should more appropriately be called a it again. They are bringing the worker gag rule activity protected by the NLRA. This bill would ``Bill to Restrict Workers from Organizing''. to the floor of the House, which will basically effectively overturn that ruling. This is unac- This bill should not have been brought to the require workers to get a note from their ceptable and should not be allowed. House floor for a vote. The only reason we mommy before they can be politically active. I urge my colleagues to vote against this are debating this bill today is because the Re- But, before I get off course, let's get back to bill. publican Leadership has, as part of their agen- the Anti-Organizing Act currently before us. Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I da, set a goal of removing the right of Amer- Because it goes beyond discrimination in hir- rise in opposition to H.R. 3246, another exam- ican workers to organize. ing. ple of the majority's continued assault on the H1618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 rights of working men and women in this from costly government interference and small employees concerning collective bargaining, country. business from big labor. an employer should have the right to expect If allowed to become law, H.R. 3246 would Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today job applicants to be primarily interested in shift power away from workers, making it more utilizing the skills of the applicants to fur- to oppose H.R. 3246, another attempt by this ther the goals of the business of the em- difficult for them to organize and for the Na- Republican Congress to cripple the ability of ployer. tional Labor Relations Board to stop employ- working men and women of America to orga- SEC. 102. PURPOSES. ers from violating labor laws. nize. The purposes of this title are— When will these attacks on the men and At the beginning of the 20th century, work- (1) to preserve the balance of rights be- women who are the backbone of this country ers organized in order to attain a better stand- tween employers, employees, and labor orga- end? ard of living for their families. As we approach nizations which is fundamental to our sys- H.R. 3246 would allow employers to dis- the end of the century, unions still serve this tem of collective bargaining; criminate against people they suspected of try- noble purpose. The bill before us is another (2) to preserve the rights of workers to or- ing to organize their workplace by refusing to ganize, or otherwise engage in concerted ac- partisan attempt to end unions as we know tivities protected under the National Labor hire them or firing them if they are already em- them. Relations Act; and ployed at the company. This clearly anti-union H.R. 3246 would debilitate unions by putting (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to bill is intended to overturn a unanimous Su- a scarlet letter on union organizers. Title I of hire individuals who seek or gain employ- preme Court decision of 1995 which held that this legislation makes it legal for companies to ment in order to disrupt the workplace of a union organizer employed by a company discriminate against job applicants who have the employer or otherwise inflict economic was entitled the same protections as any other been involved in union organizing. Further- harm designed to put the employer out of employee. more, it would overturn a unanimous 1995 Su- business. My colleagues, employees' rights are al- preme Court ruling that allows unions to place SEC. 103. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS. ready seriously in jeopardy. Thousands of Section 8(a) of the National Labor Rela- organizers in jobs for the purpose of organiz- tions Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by working Americans lose their jobs every year ing a particular shop. adding after and below paragraph (5) the fol- just for supporting union organizing. H.R. 3246 The workers in my home state of New York lowing: would make an already difficult period of time cannot afford to lose these protections. Just ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be con- for American workers even worse. We must this month, a U.S. District Judge ordered a strued as requiring an employer to employ oppose this attempt to give employers a li- company in Syracuse to rehire Kathy Saumier any person who is not a bona fide employee cense to discriminate against workers rights to applicant, in that such person seeks or has and Clara Sullivan. These two women had sought employment with the employer with organize and protect the integrity of the Na- been fired for trying to organize a union at the the primary purpose of furthering another tional Labor Relations Act as well as the col- plant because of unsafe working conditions. employment or agency status: Provided, That lective bargaining process. Under this law, those women would still be this sentence shall not affect the rights and Support our American workersÐvote no on jobless because of their activism on behalf of responsibilities under this Act of any em- H.R. 3246. their co-workers, In fact, companies could ployee who is or was a bona fide employee Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in refuse to hire workers like Kathy Saumier and applicant.’’. support of the Fairness for Small Business Clara Sullivan simply because they might be- TITLE II—FAIR HEARING and Employees Act. This bill might just as come leaders. That is unfair. That is un-Amer- SEC. 201. FINDINGS. easily be called the No-Brainer Act. If you sup- ican. The Congress finds the following: port creating jobs and promoting a strong (1) Bargaining unit determinations by Mr. Chairman, to protect American workers, their nature require the type of fact-specific economy, you should support this bill. It we need to preserve their right to organize. should be a No-Brainer for all of us to support analysis that only case-by-case adjudication That is why we need to oppose this legisla- allows. this goal. tion. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' (2) The National Labor Relations Board This bill is necessary because for years the The CHAIRMAN. All time for general has for decades held hearings to determine NLRB has considered imposing a single site debate has expired. the appropriateness of certifying a single lo- rule. For over 40 years, the courts have inter- Pursuant to the rule, the bill is con- cation bargaining unit. preted the law to provide employers with the sidered read for amendment under the (3) The imprecision of a blanket rule limit- right to a hearing on whether a single facility 5-minute rule. ing the factors considered material to deter- mining the appropriateness of a single loca- selected by a union is an appropriate bargain- The text of H.R. 3246 is as follows: ing unit. A reversal of this precedence by tion bargaining unit detracts from the Na- H.R. 3246 tional Labor Relations Act’s goal of promot- NLRB would create a litigation nightmare. Si- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- ing stability in labor relations. multaneously, it would increase business costs resentatives of the United States of America in SEC. 202. PURPOSE. threatening jobs. It should be a No-Brainer to Congress assembled, The purpose of this title is to ensure that realize that this is a dangerous path to take. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. the National Labor Relations Board con- Passage of this bill helps ensure NLRB will This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for ducts a hearing process and specific analysis not threaten jobs with this approach in the fu- Small Business and Employees Act of 1998’’. of whether or not a single location bargain- ing unit is appropriate, given all of the rel- ture. TITLE I—TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT This bill makes other necessary reforms to evant facts and circumstances of a particular SEC. 101. FINDINGS. abuses of the current system of labor-man- case. Congress finds that: SEC. 203. REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS. agement relations. The bill stops ``salting,'' a (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in Section 9(c) of the National Labor Rela- practice where union organizers seek employ- labor-management relationships is essential tions Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by ment solely to organize a workforce. It should to a productive workplace and a healthy adding at the end the following: be a No-Brainer to recognize that a company economy. ‘‘(6) If a petition for an election requests must make hiring decision based on an em- (2) The tactic of using professional union the Board to certify a unit which includes ployee's genuine interest in contributing to a organizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted the employees employed at one or more fa- company's success, not on their desire to pro- employer’s workplace, a practice commonly cilities of a multi-facility employer, and in referred to as ‘‘salting’’ has evolved into an the absence of an agreement by the parties mote big labor's agenda. The bill requires the aggressive form of harassment not con- (stipulation for certification upon consent NLRB to issue a final decision on certain un- templated when the National Labor Rela- election or agreement for consent election) fair labor complaints within a year. tions Act was enacted and threatens the bal- regarding the appropriateness of the bargain- It should be a No-Brainer to support resolv- ance of rights which is fundamental to our ing unit at issue for purposes of subsection ing these disputes in a timely manner and not system of collective bargaining. (b), the Board shall provide for a hearing leaving companies in bureaucratic limbo. (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seek- upon due notice to determine the appro- Finally, the bill requires the NLRB to pay at- ing employment with nonunion employers priateness of the bargaining unit. In making torney fees and costs to parties who prevail not because of a desire to work for such em- its determination, the Board shall consider against the NLRB in administrative and court ployers but primarily to organize the em- functional integration, centralized control, ployees of such employers or to inflict eco- common skills, functions and working condi- proceedings. It should be a No-Brainer to sup- nomic harm specifically designed to put non- tions, permanent and temporary employee port this common sense effort to deter bureau- union competitors out of business, or to do interchange, geographical separation, local cratic persecution. both. autonomy, the number of employees, bar- The bill before us represents a common (4) While no employer may discriminate gaining history, and such other factors as sense effort to protect our economic prosperity against employees based upon the views of the Board considers appropriate.’’. March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1619 TITLE III—JUSTICE ON TIME TITLE IV—ATTORNEYS FEES position of the United States was substan- tially justified or special circumstances SEC. 301. FINDINGS. SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds as fol- make an award unjust.’’. The Congress finds the following: lows: SEC. 403. APPLICABILITY. (1) An employee has a right under the Na- (1) Certain small businesses and labor orga- (a) AGENCY PROCEEDINGS.—Subsection (a) tional Labor Relations Act to be free from nizations are at a great disadvantage in of section 20 of the National Labor Relations discrimination with regard to hire or tenure terms of expertise and resources when facing Act, as added by section 402 of this Act, ap- of employment or any term or condition of actions brought by the National Labor Rela- plies to agency proceedings commenced on employment to encourage or discourage tions Board. or after the date of the enactment of this membership in any labor organization. The (2) The attempt to ‘‘level the playing field’’ Act. Congress, the National Labor Relations for small businesses and labor organizations (b) COURT PROCEEDINGS.—Subsection (b) of Board, and the courts have recognized that by means of the Equal Access to Justice Act section 20 of the National Labor Relations the discharge of an employee to encourage or has proven ineffective and has been underuti- Act, as added by section 402 of this Act, ap- discourage union membership has a particu- lized by these small entities in their actions plies to civil actions commenced on or after larly chilling effect on the exercise of rights before the National Labor Relations Board. the date of the enactment of this Act. provided under section 7. (3) The greater expertise and resources of The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to (2) Although an employee who has been the National Labor Relations Board as com- the bill is in order except the amend- discharged because of support or lack of sup- pared with those of small businesses and ment printed in House Report 105–463, port for a labor organization has a right to labor organizations necessitate a standard which may be offered only by a Mem- be reinstated to the previously held position that awards fees and costs to certain small ber designated in the report, shall be with backpay, reinstatement is often ordered entities when they prevail against the Na- months and even years after the initial dis- considered read, shall be debatable for tional Labor Relations Board. the time specified in the report, equal- charge due to the lengthy delays in the proc- (b) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this essing of unfair labor practice charges by the title— ly divided and controlled by the pro- National Labor Relations Board and to the (1) to ensure that certain small businesses ponent and an opponent, shall not be several layers of appeal under the National and labor organizations will not be deterred subject to amendment, and shall not be Labor Relations Act. from seeking review of, or defending against, subject to a demand for division of the (3) In order to minimize the chilling effect actions brought against them by the Na- question. on the exercise of rights provided under sec- tional Labor Relations Board because of the AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. GOODLING tion 7 caused by an unlawful discharge and expense involved in securing vindication of Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pur- to maximize the effectiveness of the rem- their rights; edies for unlawful discrimination under the (2) to reduce the disparity in resources and suant to the rule, I offer amendment National Labor Relations Act, the National expertise between certain small businesses No. 1. Labor Relations Board should resolve in a and labor organizations and the National The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- timely manner all unfair labor practice com- Labor Relations Board; and ignate the amendment. plaints alleging that an employee has been (3) to make the National Labor Relations The text of the amendment is as fol- unlawfully discharged to encourage or dis- Board more accountable for its enforcement lows: courage membership in a labor organization. actions against certain small businesses and Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. GOODLING: (4) Expeditious resolution of such com- labor organizations by awarding fees and Page 4, line 17, before the first period, in- plaints would benefit all parties not only by costs to these entities when they prevail sert ‘‘, including the right to self-organiza- ensuring swift justice, but also by reducing against the National Labor Relations Board. tion, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- the costs of litigation and backpay awards. SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO NATIONAL LABOR RE- tions, to bargain collectively through rep- SEC. 302. PURPOSE. LATIONS ACT. resentatives of their own choosing, and to The National Labor Relations Act (29 engage in other concerted activities for the The purpose of this title is to ensure that U.S.C. 151 and following) is amended by add- purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- the National Labor Relations Board resolves ing at the end the following new section: tual aid or protection’’. in a timely manner all unfair labor practice complaints alleging that an employee has ‘‘AWARDS OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the been unlawfully discharged to encourage or ‘‘SEC. 20. (a) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEED- rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania discourage membership in a labor organiza- INGS.—An employer who, or a labor organiza- (Mr. GOODLING) and a Member opposed tion. tion that— each will control 10 minutes. ‘‘(1) is the prevailing party in an adversary SEC. 303. TIMELY RESOLUTION. The Chair recognizes the gentleman adjudication conducted by the Board under from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING). Section 10(m) of the National Labor Rela- this or any other Act, and Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I tions Act is amended by adding at the end ‘‘(2) had not more than 100 employees and yield myself 5 minutes. the following new sentence: ‘‘Whenever a a net worth of not more than $1,400,000 at the Mr. Chairman, my amendment fur- complaint is issued as provided in subsection time the adversary adjudication was initi- (b) upon a charge that any person has en- ated, ther spells out in the most direct and gaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor shall be awarded fees and other expenses as clear manner possible the intent of practice within the meaning of subsection a prevailing party under section 504 of title title I, which ensures that the truth in (a)(3) or (b)(2) of section 8 involving an un- 5, United States Code, in accordance with employment provisions of the Fairness lawful discharge, the Board shall state its the provisions of that section, but without for Small Business and Employees Act findings of fact and issue and cause to be regard to whether the position of the Board do not infringe upon any rights or pro- served on such person an order requiring was substantially justified or special cir- tection for employees under the Na- such person to cease and desist from such cumstances make an award unjust. For pur- tional Labor Relations Act. My amend- poses of this subsection, the term ‘adversary unfair labor practice and to take such af- ment lays out specifically some of the firmative action, including reinstatement of adjudication’ has the meaning given that an employee with or without backpay, as term in section 504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United important essential rights granted will effectuate the policies of this Act, or States Code. workers under the NLRA which are not shall state its findings of fact and issue an ‘‘(b) COURT PROCEEDINGS.—An employer impacted under title I so long as an in- order dismissing the said complaint, not who, or a labor organization that— dividual is a bona fide employee appli- later than 365 days after the filing of the un- ‘‘(1) is the prevailing party in a civil ac- cant in that they are at least half mo- fair labor practice charge with the Board ex- tion, including proceedings for judicial re- tivated to work for the employer. cept in cases of extreme complexity. The view of agency action by the Board, brought While H.R. 3246, as currently drafted, by or against the Board, and Board shall submit a report annually to the does make clear that title I shall not Committee on Education and the Workforce ‘‘(2) had not more than 100 employees and of the House of Representatives and the a net worth of not more than $1,400,000 at the affect the rights and responsibilities Committee on Labor and Human Resources time the civil action was filed, under this act of any employee who is of the Senate regarding any cases pending shall be awarded fees and other expenses as or was a bona fide employee applicant, for more than 1 year, including an expla- a prevailing party under section 2412(d) of my amendment makes it explicitly nation of the factors contributing to such a title 28, United States Code, in accordance clear that this includes the right to delay and recommendations for prompt reso- with the provisions of that section, but with- self-organization, to bargain collec- lution of such cases.’’. out regard to whether the position of the tively through representatives of their United States was substantially justified or SEC. 304. REGULATIONS. special circumstances make an award unjust. own choosing, and to engage in other The Board may issue such regulations as Any appeal of a determination of fees pursu- concerted activities for the purpose of are necessary to carry out the purposes of ant to subsection (a) or this subsection shall collective bargaining or other mutual this title. be determined without regard to whether the aid or protection. H1620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 b 1930 is exactly who makes the decisions I have no intentions of opposing the Under my amendment, there should now. We are not giving them anything amendment because it does nothing. be absolutely no confusion whatsoever new. The same individual makes the Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to that H.R. 3246 does not seek to punish determination of the intent of employ- the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. anyone for their union activities. It ers under current case law. If the ap- ANDREWS). simply amends the NLRA to clarify propriate referee of a employer’s intent Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I that an employer is not required to is the NLRB’s general counsel, then thank the ranking member for yielding hire anyone who seeks a job primarily certainly an appropriate referee of an this time to me. to further other employment or agency employee’s intent is also NLRB’s gen- I also support the amendment, but I status. So long as someone is at least eral counsel. do want to speak about how little I half motivated to be a productive em- Mr. FAWELL. I have also heard it think it does to improve the very nega- ployee, then title I does not apply to said this week that union salting is tive underlying bill. I find it rather ironic that the party them at all. protected by the United States Su- Title I of H.R. 3246 is only intended to preme Court in its unanimous 1995 of Abraham Lincoln would be pursuing address the egregious, abusive, salting Town and Country decision, and that a piece of legislation that has such neg- practices involving individuals who, it title I seeks to overturn this case ative implications for people’s individ- is clear, are not applying for a job to go which held that union organizers are ual liberty and autonomy. It is a con- to work every day and be a productive employees under the NLRA and enjoy cern that really has not been brought worker, but rather applying so they all of the act’s protections. up yet about this bill, but it is a very can start filing frivolous charges, and I Mr. GOODLING. That is deliberate practical one, and I want to spend a read all of those frivolous charges that misinformation as well. The holding of few minutes talking about it. A few minutes ago, our friends from are always thrown out, but rather are NLRB versus Town and Country Elec- Pennsylvania and Illinois said that the applying so they can start filing frivo- tric was very narrow. The Supreme party who would determine the em- lous charges against the employer with Court held simply that paid union or- ployee’s intent as to primary purpose NLRB in an attempt to cost the com- ganizers can fall within the liberal would be the general counsel of the Na- pany money defending itself. statutory definition of ‘‘employee’’ Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, would contained in section 23 of the NLRA. tional Labor Relations Board. In fact, the gentleman yield? Title I of the Fairness for Small as a practical matter, the first person Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gen- Business and Employees Act does not who would determine the employee’s tleman from Illinois. change the definition of ‘‘employee’’ or principal purpose would be the em- Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, there ‘‘employee applicant’’ under the NLRA. ployer. The employer is going to deter- has been a lot of information floating It simply would change the NLRB’s en- mine what the principal or primary around this week that title I of the forcement of section A by declaring purpose of the employee is. Fairness for Small Business and Em- that employers may refuse to hire indi- How exactly is the employer going to ployees Act would gut workers’ rights viduals who are not at least half moti- do that? Is the employer going to under the National Labor Relations vated to work for the employer. So speak? I assume the employer is going Act and would take away employees’ long as even a paid union organizer is to interview the employee, and most right to organize and participate in le- at least 50 percent motivated to work employees are going to say, my pur- gitimate collective bargaining activi- for the employer, he or she can not be pose is to do the job well. Then the em- ties. refused a job in violation of section ployer has to start to ask other ques- Does H.R. 3246 do any of this? 8(A). tions. Is the employer going to ask the Mr. GOODLING. It does not. In fact, Title I thus established a test which spouse of the applicant what the appli- as I pointed out, the legislation has a does not seek to overrule Town and cant said to his or her spouse? Is the provision spelling out quite clearly Country, does not infringe on the le- employer going to ask prior employers that nothing in the act shall, quote, af- gitimate rights of bona fide employees of the employee further information fect the rights and responsibilities and employee applicants to organize on than that which would be on the nor- granted by the NRA, quote, of any em- behalf of unions within the workplace. mal letter of reference? Is the em- ployee who is or was a bona fide em- Indeed, the Supreme Court’s holding ployer going to go to persons that the ployee applicant. The amendment I that an individual can be servant of applicant may have talked to at the have offered is intended to provide all two masters at the same time is simi- place of religious worship or at a social the more assurance that title I in no larly left untouched. gathering or political gathering the way would infringe on any NRA rights. The CHAIRMAN. Is there an oppo- person may have gone to? Mr. FAWELL. And what does all this nent of the amendment who seeks rec- I would suggest to my colleagues mean in English? ognition? that the practical implication of this Mr. GOODLING. It means that if an Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not bill is that it opens up an Orwellian individual applies for a job at a com- opposed to the amendment, but I ask can of worms where an employer clear- pany and expresses at least 50 percent to claim the time in opposition so I can ly has the right to ask all kinds of interest in actually working there, speak in favor of the amendment. questions about what the employee’s then that individual is entitled to all The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- motive might be, and that Orwellian the rights granted by the National nizes the gentleman from Missouri for can of worms runs into some very real Labor Relations Act. In fact, an indi- 10 minutes. privacy considerations of the applicant vidual could very well be a paid union Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the major- or employee. organizer, and title I would not impact ity must have some serious misgivings I am sure that Abraham Lincoln, who them one bit, so long as they are not about title I of its own bill. Earlier this founded his party in part on the prin- applying for the job with the primary week, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ciple of individual liberty and auton- purpose of furthering interest of some FAWELL), chairman of the subcommit- omy, would be rather surprised to other employer. tee, prefiled and then withdrew an know that one of the prices now of ap- Mr. FAWELL. You have mentioned amendment to strike title I from the plying for a job is evidently giving the this 50 percent test several times. Who bill. Now the gentleman from Pennsyl- employer to whom you have applied would determine what the level is of a vania is trying to salvage this extreme carte blanche to find out what you applicant’s motivation to work for the and reckless title through this amend- think and what you say to people out- employer? ment. side the normal job application proc- Mr. GOODLING. The level of intent The truth is this amendment does ess. And if this were to become law, would be determined by the general nothing to fix this bill. It merely re- which I doubt and hope does not occur, counsel of the National Labor Rela- states the current law protections I wonder exactly how this inquiry tions Board, and someone just a little while still allowing employers to refuse would be conducted and by whom. It is while ago said we are putting it on the employment to workers, based on the one more reason, whether any union or National Labor Relations Board. That outside group affiliations. not any union, whether in the work March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1621 force or not in the work force, it is one That is what this is all about. It just cases and current law that permits union orga- more reason to oppose this underlying reshuffles the deck to bring it back up nization on this basis. piece of legislation. against the court with the option that This legislation turns the process of litigation Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I they can undercut that person’s ability and National Labor Relations Board appeals yield myself 2 minutes. to do what they see and what we think inside out requiring in the bill that small busi- I wish to continue the colloquy with is proper in a free economy. ness must be compensated if they prevail in a the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. FA- As has been said by my colleague decision. Today the NLRB and court have WELL). from New Jersey, I think this goes such discretion, but to require such no matter As I was indicating, title I thus es- right to the issue of mind control. This the circumstance will assure that almost all tablishes a test which does not seek to invites absolute control by the employ- decision will be carried forth with the hope of overrule, does not seek to overrule ers over the thoughts and over the success and payment. Town and Country, does not infringe on views of employees with regards to how These measure certainly don't achieve a the legitimate rights of bona fide em- they ought to be organized and their common sense result in terms of labor-man- ployees and employee applicants to or- opportunity to attain decent working agement accord and fair treatment, rather they ganize on behalf of unions within the conditions and wages. are a transparent attempt to superimpose a workplace. Indeed the Supreme Court’s Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill disadvantage upon working men and women holding that an individual can be a H.R. 3246. and their access to the collective bargaining servant of two masters at the same This measure has numerous provisions process. One may wonder if this is some part time is similarly left untouched. Title which are specifically defined to frustrate the of retaliation for the fact that organized labor I simply calls for at least 50 percent to ability of working men and women from orga- has become more politically active in recent be for the employer. If an applicant nizing and joining a union. The result denys years and that this is some small minds is the cannot show the NLRB’s general coun- the fundamental freedom of association and may to penalize labor. sel that he or she sought the job at speech at the care of our society and our These actions are poor policy and the least half because they really wanted basic freedoms. wrong was to force or win the day. The reac- to be an employee, then I believe we The collective bargaining process is the ve- tion to this bill can only be to reject the pro- would all agree that the employer hicle that serves the workers and employer to ponents and to re-double the effort to change should not have to hire them. achieve an agreed upon condition on the job the political equation. Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the with a fair wage and benefits. Rather than loading the NLRB down with gentleman yield? Unfortunately because of the evolution of more paper work and appeals and requests Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gen- our U.S. mixed economy labor unions and or- for report along with the mandate to pay legal tleman from Illinois. ganization represent less than 20% of our total fees for those who successfully appeal. Con- Mr. FAWELL. So under H.R. 3246, Mr. labor force. This is also a result of the fact that gress should provide the resources that would Chairman, even organizers are not pro- labor law and policy has not kept pace with address the backlog that has been building up hibited from getting jobs. the changes and a concerted effort by many the past decade to permit timely investigation Mr. GOODLING. That is correct. business to contest and successfully resist ef- and decision making by the NLRB. Title I is completely consistent with forts by workers to achieve union representa- This measure is a bad faith effort to dis- the policies of the National Labor Re- tion and access to the collective bargaining advantage workers and the unions they may lations Act. All the legislation does is process. choose to represent them. I certainly urge its give the employer some comfort that it Ths bill before the House will make that defeat. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield is hiring someone who really wants to process even more difficult. In a situation work for the employer, and as my back the balance of my time. where workers are already at a disadvantage Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I amendment points out with particular- this bill seek to tilt the table and stack the yield myself such time as I may con- ity, title I in no way infringes on the deck against worker. sume. rights granted by the National Labor Working men and women deserve a fair I would merely indicate to the gen- Relations Act. shake and regards the law as a measure to tleman who just spoke that obviously I would hope my colleagues on both undercut and shred what remains of our labor he has little faith in the general coun- sides of the aisle support my amend- laws. sel at the National Labor Relations ment, which while granting some pro- Ths bill plan and simple permits an em- Board. I will guarantee him that all tection to the employers against clear ployer to fire or not even hire a person who employees have great confidence in instances of salting abuses, also makes has an interest and may play a role in organiz- that general counsel. I will guarantee crystal clear this legislation does not ing a collective bargaining election. Today that him that organized labor has great con- in any way scale back on the rights is an unfair labor practice, but this proposes to fidence in that general counsel at the contained in the National Labor Rela- make such an discriminatory action legal. National Labor Relations Board. tions Act. Today a prospective worker's values and Let me close simply by repeating Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance thoughts are private and an employer appro- what was said in an editorial in a paper of my time. priately consider a employment situation that I read today: It is reassuring to Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 based on qualification and the willingness of a know that some relief is being consid- minute to the gentleman from Min- worker to perform his or her assigned tasks. ered for the real victims of status quo: nesota (Mr. VENTO). This bill crosses the line into mind control and workers, small businesses, and small Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank invites absolute employer control of the work- unions. the gentleman for yielding and I appre- ers private thoughts and values as to their in- Let me repeat that: It is reassuring ciate the gentleman from Pennsyl- terest in collective bargaining and joining a to know that some relief is being con- vania, the chairman, trying to correct union. Control of the communication and the sidered for the real victims of status the impression that I have from this thoughts of a worker deny the fundamental quo: workers, small businesses and bill. I think the problem is that this freedoms that characterize a free society and small unions. bill tends to want to throw out the ex- a free labor force. My colleagues have an opportunity isting law and existing court cases Additionally this measure which purports to to help all three. All they have to do is with regards to what constitutes a advocate for small business denys a collective vote yes on the amendment and on the bona fide employee. The court has bargaining election for a separate work place, legislation. ruled on this, and the effect of this, of rather it mandates that the collective bargain- Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- course, is to drag it back into court, ing election must take place on an overly ance of my time. change the circumstances and to un- broad basis rather than permit a one location The CHAIRMAN. The question is on dercut the ability of someone to be em- electionÐturning a single facility collective bar- the amendment offered by the gen- ployed that happens to harbor the no- gaining election into a multi-state or even na- tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOOD- tion of organizing and of exercising tional collective bargaining election. Both the LING). their freedom to in fact seek a collec- provision to prevent the hiring and permitting The question was taken; and the tive bargaining election or join a the firing of a employee and the mandate to Chairman announced that the ayes ap- union. deny a single site election over turn court peared to have it. H1622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE March 26, 1998 RECORDED VOTE Norwood Rothman Strickland present their case in certain represen- Nussle Roukema Stump Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I de- Oberstar Roybal-Allard Stupak tation cases; and to prevent the use of mand a recorded vote. Obey Rush Sununu the National Labor Relations Act for A recorded vote was ordered. Olver Ryun Talent the purpose of disrupting or inflicting Ortiz Sabo Tanner economic harm on employers, pursuant The vote was taken by electronic de- Owens Salmon Tauscher vice, and there were—ayes 398, noes 0, Oxley Sanchez Tauzin to House Resolution 393, he reported not voting 32, as follows:. Packard Sanders Taylor (MS) the bill back to the House with an Pallone Sandlin Taylor (NC) [Roll No. 77] amendment adopted by the Committee Pappas Sanford Thomas of the Whole. AYES—398 Parker Sawyer Thompson Pascrell Saxton Thornberry The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under Abercrombie Deutsch Jenkins Pastor Scarborough Thune the rule, the previous question is or- Ackerman Diaz-Balart John Paul Schaefer, Dan Thurman dered. Aderholt Dickey Johnson (CT) Paxon Schaffer, Bob Tiahrt Allen Dicks Johnson, Sam Pease Schumer Tierney The question is on the amendment. Andrews Dingell Jones Pelosi Scott Torres The amendment was agreed to. Archer Dixon Kanjorski Peterson (MN) Sensenbrenner Towns The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Armey Doggett Kaptur Peterson (PA) Serrano Traficant Bachus Dooley Kasich Petri Sessions Turner question is on the engrossment and Baesler Doolittle Kelly Pickering Shadegg Upton third reading of the bill. Baker Doyle Kennedy (MA) Pickett Shaw Velazquez The bill was ordered to be engrossed Baldacci Dreier Kennedy (RI) Pitts Shays Vento and read a third time, and was read the Ballenger Duncan Kennelly Pombo Shimkus Visclosky Barcia Dunn Kildee Pomeroy Shuster Walsh third time. Barr Edwards Kilpatrick Porter Sisisky Wamp The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Barrett (NE) Ehlers Kim Portman Skaggs Watkins question is on the passage of the bill. Barrett (WI) Ehrlich Kind (WI) Poshard Skeen Watt (NC) Bartlett Emerson King (NY) Price (NC) Skelton Watts (OK) The question was taken; and the Barton English Kingston Pryce (OH) Slaughter Waxman Speaker pro tempore announced that Bass Ensign Kleczka Quinn Smith (MI) Weldon (FL) the ayes appeared to have it. Bateman Eshoo Klink Radanovich Smith (NJ) Weldon (PA) Becerra Etheridge Klug Rahall Smith, Adam Weller RECORDED VOTE Bentsen Evans Knollenberg Ramstad Smith, Linda Wexler Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a Bereuter Everett Kolbe Redmond Snowbarger Weygand recorded vote. Berman Ewing Kucinich Regula Snyder White Berry Farr LaFalce Reyes Solomon Whitfield A recorded vote was ordered. Bilbray Fattah LaHood Riggs Souder Wicker The vote was taken by electronic de- Bilirakis Fawell Lampson Riley Spence Wise vice, and there were—ayes 202, noes 200, Bishop Fazio Lantos Rivers Spratt Wolf not voting 29, as follows: Blagojevich Filner Largent Rodriguez Stabenow Woolsey Bliley Foley Latham Roemer Stark Wynn [Roll No. 78] Blumenauer Forbes LaTourette Rogan Stearns Young (AK) AYES—202 Blunt Fossella Lazio Rohrabacher Stenholm Young (FL) Boehlert Fowler Leach Ros-Lehtinen Stokes Aderholt Ensign Leach Boehner Fox Levin Archer Everett Lewis (CA) Bonior Frank (MA) Lewis (CA) NOT VOTING—32 Armey Ewing Lewis (KY) Borski Franks (NJ) Lewis (GA) Bonilla Houghton Millender- Bachus Fawell Linder Boswell Frelinghuysen Lewis (KY) Baker Foley Livingston Brown (FL) Hunter McDonald Boucher Frost Linder Ballenger Fossella LoBiondo Cannon Jackson-Lee Payne Boyd Furse Lipinski Barr Fowler Lucas Cardin (TX) Rangel Brady Gallegly Livingston Conyers Rogers Barrett (NE) Fox Manzullo Brown (CA) Ganske LoBiondo Jefferson Bartlett Frelinghuysen McCollum Cooksey Johnson (WI) Royce Brown (OH) Gejdenson Lofgren Crapo Sherman Barton Gallegly McCrery Bryant Gekas Lowey Johnson, E. B. Bass Ganske McInnis Engel Markey Smith (OR) Bunning Gephardt Lucas Ford Smith (TX) Bateman Gekas McIntosh McDade Burr Gibbons Luther Gonzalez Waters Bereuter Gibbons McIntyre McDermott Burton Gilchrest Maloney (CT) Harman Yates Bilbray Gilchrest McKeon McNulty Buyer Gillmor Maloney (NY) Hefner Bilirakis Gillmor Mica Callahan Gilman Manton Bliley Gingrich Miller (FL) Calvert Goode Manzullo b 2003 Blunt Goode Moran (KS) Camp Goodlatte Martinez Boehner Goodlatte Morella Campbell Goodling Mascara Messrs. BOUCHER, CUNNINGS, Boyd Goodling Myrick Canady Gordon Matsui OBERSTAR and STARK changed their Brady Goss Nethercutt Capps Goss McCarthy (MO) vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ Bryant Graham Neumann Carson Graham McCarthy (NY) Bunning Granger Ney Castle Granger McCollum So the amendment was agreed to. Burr Greenwood Northup Chabot Green McCrery The result of the vote was announced Burton Gutknecht Norwood Chambliss Greenwood McGovern as above recorded. Buyer Hall (TX) Nussle Chenoweth Gutierrez McHale Callahan Hansen Oxley Christensen Gutknecht McHugh PERSONAL EXPLANATION Calvert Hastert Packard Clay Hall (OH) McInnis Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, during roll Camp Hastings (WA) Pappas Clayton Hall (TX) McIntosh call vote number 77 on the Goodling Amend- Canady Hayworth Parker Clement Hamilton McIntyre Castle Hefley Paul Clyburn Hansen McKeon ment to H.R. 3246 I was unavoidably de- Chabot Herger Paxon Coble Hastert McKinney tained. Had I been present, I would have Chambliss Hill Pease Coburn Hastings (FL) Meehan voted yes. Chenoweth Hilleary Peterson (PA) Collins Hastings (WA) Meek (FL) The CHAIRMAN. No other amend- Christensen Hobson Petri Combest Hayworth Meeks (NY) Coble Hoekstra Pickering Condit Hefley Menendez ment being in order under the rule, the Coburn Horn Pitts Cook Herger Metcalf Committee rises. Collins Hostettler Pombo Costello Hill Mica Accordingly, the Committee rose; Combest Hulshof Porter Cox Hilleary Miller (CA) Cook Hunter Portman Coyne Hilliard Miller (FL) and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cox Hutchinson Pryce (OH) Cramer Hinchey Minge TIAHRT) having assumed the chair, Mr. Crane Hyde Radanovich Crane Hinojosa Mink MCCOLLUM, Chairman of the Commit- Cubin Inglis Ramstad Cubin Hobson Moakley tee of the Whole House on the State of Cunningham Istook Redmond Cummings Hoekstra Mollohan Davis (VA) Jenkins Regula Cunningham Holden Moran (KS) the Union, reported that that Commit- Deal John Riggs Danner Hooley Moran (VA) tee, having had under consideration DeLay Johnson, Sam Riley Davis (FL) Horn Morella the bill (H.R. 3246) to assist small busi- Dickey Jones Rogan Davis (IL) Hostettler Murtha Doolittle Kasich Rohrabacher Davis (VA) Hoyer Myrick nesses and labor organizations in de- Dreier Kim Roukema Deal Hulshof Nadler fending themselves against govern- Duncan Kingston Ryun DeFazio Hutchinson Neal ment bureaucracy; to ensure that em- Dunn Klug Salmon DeGette Hyde Nethercutt ployees entitled to reinstatement get Ehlers Knollenberg Sanford Delahunt Inglis Neumann Ehrlich Kolbe Saxton DeLauro Istook Ney their jobs back quickly; to protect the Emerson Largent Scarborough DeLay Jackson (IL) Northup right of employers to have a hearing to English Latham Schaefer, Dan March 26, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1623 Schaffer, Bob Stearns Upton b 2022 chairman and ranking minority member of Sensenbrenner Stenholm Walsh the Committee on Agriculture. After general Sessions Stump Wamp The Clerk announced the following debate the bill shall be considered for Shadegg Sununu Watkins pair on this vote: Watts (OK) amendment under the five-minute rule. In Shaw Talent Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. McDade against. lieu of the amendment recommended by the Shuster Tanner Weldon (FL) Committee on Agriculture now printed in Skeen Tauzin White So the bill was passed. Smith (MI) Taylor (MS) Whitfield the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an Wicker The result of the vote was announced Smith (OR) Taylor (NC) original bill for the purpose of amendment Wolf as above recorded. Smith, Linda Thomas under the five-minute rule an amendment in Young (FL) Snowbarger Thornberry A motion to reconsider was laid on the nature of a substitute consisting of the Souder Thune the table. text of H.R. 3530. Each section of that Spence Tiahrt f amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order NOES—200 PERSONAL EXPLANATION against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause Abercrombie Hall (OH) Olver Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, during the final Ackerman Hamilton Ortiz 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are Allen Hastings (FL) Owens vote on H.R. 3246 (Rollcall 78) I was in the waived. During consideration of the bill for Andrews Hefner Pallone Chamber and attempted to vote, but the amendment, the chairman of the Committee Baesler Hilliard Pascrell Speaker closed the vote before I could cast of the Whole may accord priority in recogni- Baldacci Hinchey Pastor tion on the basis of whether the Member of- Barcia Hinojosa Pelosi my vote. I attempted to secure the attention of Barrett (WI) Holden Peterson (MN) the Chair but was unseccessful. Had I been fering an amendment has caused it to be Becerra Hooley Pickett allowed to vote I would have voted ``no.'' printed in the portion of the Congressional Bentsen Hoyer Pomeroy Record designated for that purpose in clause Berman Jackson (IL) Poshard f 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall Berry Johnson (CT) Price (NC) GENERAL LEAVE be considered as read. The chairman of the Bishop Johnson (WI) Quinn Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone Blagojevich Kanjorski Rahall until a time during further consideration in Reyes Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask Blumenauer Kaptur the Committee of the Whole a request for a Boehlert Kelly Rivers unanimous consent that all Members Bonior Kennedy (MA) Rodriguez may have 5 legislative days within recorded vote on any amendment; and reduce Borski Kennedy (RI) Roemer which to revise and extend their re- to five minutes the minimum time for elec- Rothman Boswell Kennelly marks and include extraneous material tronic voting on any postponed question that Boucher Kildee Roybal-Allard follows another electronic vote without in- Brown (CA) Kilpatrick Rush on H.R. 3246, the bill just passed. tervening business, provided that the mini- Brown (OH) Kind (WI) Sabo The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. mum time for electronic voting on the first Sanchez Campbell King (NY) IAHRT Sanders T ). Is there objection to the re- in any series of questions shall be 15 min- Capps Kleczka quest of the gentleman from Illinois? utes. At the conclusion of consideration of Carson Klink Sandlin Clay Kucinich Sawyer There was no objection. the bill for amendment the Committee shall Schumer rise and report the bill to the House with Clayton LaFalce f Clement LaHood Scott such amendments as may have been adopted. Serrano Clyburn Lampson PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION Any Member may demand a separate vote in Condit Lantos Shays the House on any amendment adopted in the Costello LaTourette Sherman OF H.R. 2515, FOREST RECOVERY Shimkus Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the Coyne Lazio AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1998, Sisisky amendment in the nature of a substitute Cramer Levin Skaggs AND LIMITATION OF TIME FOR made in order as original text. The previous Cummings Lewis (GA) Skelton AMENDMENT PROCESS Danner Lipinski question shall be considered as ordered on Slaughter Davis (FL) Lofgren the bill and amendments thereto to final Smith (NJ) Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I Davis (IL) Lowey passage without intervening motion except Smith, Adam ask unanimous consent that House DeFazio Luther one motion to recommit with or without in- Snyder DeGette Maloney (CT) Resolution 394, the rule, be considered Spratt structions. Delahunt Maloney (NY) as adopted, and that during consider- Stabenow DeLauro Manton f Stark ation of H.R. 2515, the forestry bill, in Deutsch Markey Stokes Diaz-Balart Martinez the Committee of the Whole, pursuant REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER Strickland Dicks Mascara to that resolution, 1, that the amend- Stupak AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 202 Dingell Matsui Tauscher ment in the nature of a substitute Dixon McCarthy (MO) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I Thompson made in order as original text be con- Doggett McCarthy (NY) Thurman ask unanimous consent that my name Dooley McGovern sidered as read; and 2, after general de- Tierney be removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 202. Doyle McHale bate, the bill be considered for amend- Torres Edwards McHugh The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there Towns ment under the 5-minute rule for a pe- Eshoo McKinney objection to the request of the gen- Traficant Etheridge Meehan riod not to extend beyond 1:30 p.m. on Turner tleman from Washington? Evans Meek (FL) Friday, March 27, 1997. Velazquez There was no objection. Farr Meeks (NY) Vento The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there Fattah Menendez f Visclosky objection to the request of the gen- Fazio Metcalf Watt (NC) Filner Miller (CA) tleman from Oregon? Waxman PERMISSION FOR AUTHORIZATION Forbes Minge There was no objection. Weldon (PA) TO SIGN AND SUBMIT REQUESTS Frank (MA) Mink Weller The text of House Resolution 394 is as Franks (NJ) Moakley TO ADD COSPONSORS TO H.R. Wexler Frost Mollohan follows: 2009 Weygand Furse Moran (VA) H. RES. 394 Wise Gejdenson Murtha Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask Woolsey Resolved, That at any time after the adop- Gephardt Nadler unanimous consent that I may be au- Wynn tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur- Gordon Neal Young (AK) suant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the thorized to sign and submit requests to Green Oberstar add cosponsors to the bill, H.R. 2009. Gutierrez Obey House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there NOT VOTING—29 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2515) to ad- objection to the request of the gentle- Bonilla Harman Payne dress the declining health of forests on Fed- woman from California? Brown (FL) Houghton Rangel eral lands in the United States through a There was no objection. program of recovery and protection consist- Cannon Jackson-Lee Rogers f Cardin (TX) Ros-Lehtinen ent with the requirements of existing public Conyers Jefferson Royce land management and environmental laws, b 2030 Cooksey Johnson, E. B. Smith (TX) to establish a program to inventory, mon- Crapo McDade Solomon itor, and analyze public and private forests Engel McDermott Waters PERSONAL EXPLANATION and their resources, and for other purposes. Ford McNulty Yates Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would Gilman Millender- The first reading of the bill shall be dis- Gonzalez McDonald pensed with. General debate shall be con- like the RECORD to reflect that I would have fined to the bill and shall not exceed one voted ``no'' on H.R. 3246, but the gavel was hour equally divided and controlled by the pounded before I registered my vote. I tried to