Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank you, Congressman Price, for continuing to make sure that the Official Truth Squad is represented here in Special Orders and that we continue to hold the majority accountable for telling the truth. They forget that a good part of the time; so I am very pleased to continue to be a member of the Official Truth Squad. My colleague has shared some of the concerns that I have already with this legislation that we are talking about that nobody has actually seen, the supplemental war funding bill that we think that the Democrats are going to unveil this week. We believe that it is laden with a great deal of unnecessary pork which is being used to buy votes on behalf of the Democrats to try to get the legislation passed. It is also, I think, out there to try to make us look bad if we vote against it. But the worst part about this bill is that it is a reckless attempt to curtail the President's power to wage a congressionally approved war. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply need to understand that this misguided proposal will serve only to hamstring our generals as they work to bring peace and democracy to this tumultuous region. And again my colleague that has spoken before me, Congressman Kline, I think has done a great job of talking about what the generals have said and what they need, and we know that the Democrats very selectively take quotes out of what General Petraeus has said. And I agree with you, Congressman Price, we have both a military and a political war to win in the Middle East, and we are going to do that. I have every conviction that we are going to do that. But I think it is very interesting, as Congressman Kline pointed out, that even the very liberal mainstream media understands that this slow-bleed strategy on the part of the Democrats is absolutely wrong. It is such a cynical thing that they are proposing to do. And I think that the L.A. Times editorial, ``Do we Really Need a General Pelosi?'' is so appropriate. These people promised so much to get elected last fall, and the kinds of things they are doing are so far away from what they promised to do. And getting involved in micromanaging the war is absolutely the opposite of what they should do. I am going to quote some of what nobody else has quoted from the editorial. It went on to call the bill ``an unruly mess, bad public policy, bad precedent, and bad politics . . . It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict.'' And we saw this morning a replay of a press conference where even the Democrats couldn't agree on what the timetables are that they are setting up. They talk about 2007, they talk about August, they talk about April. Even they are very, very confused about it. But the L.A. Times article goes on to say: ``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy. If Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, then lawmakers have a duty to let the President try this`'surge and leverage' strategy. ``By interfering with the discretion of the Commander in Chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.'' I mean even when the liberal press comes out against you, you have got to know that something is wrong with what you are planning to do. The Washington Post has described the Democrats' slow-bleed strategy as leading ``not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.'' I think these people are so detached, they are so focused on what they see as their power, one they think through an overwhelming majority, which was not an overwhelming majority in the fall, but they think that they now have all power. They don't want to just be Members of Congress. They want to be the President. And I think that it is ridiculous that they want to do that. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to see America's troops come home as soon as possible. But the best way to do that is to achieve victory in Iraq. Somebody pointed out in the last few days that we never hear the word ``victory'' out of the mouths of any Democrat, and I started listening for that and I think the American people need to listen for that. The Democrats want us to lose in Iraq. They want to be able to prove that this was not a good war. I think for their own political purposes they would like to see us lose. They never mention victory. If we don't secure Iraq before we leave, we will be encouraging the terrorists and insurgents by convincing them that their war of attrition has been successful. I want to emphasize again what has been said before. There are very good reasons why our founders set up congressional oversight and accountability for presidential war powers, but micromanaging legitimate wars on the basis of political considerations was never one of them. This Congress needs to focus on our constitutional duty to provide long-term oversight. Not enough of that has been done. We need to do more of that. But to set a precedent of micromanaging a war is short-sighted and extremely dangerous. We need to get back to doing what Congress should be doing and leaving the execution of this war to the President and the generals who are there to do it, and let us do our job. We don't do well enough as it is.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address important changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. I recently held a roundtable discussion on this issue with my constituents from all over the Fifth District held in Forsyth County, North Carolina. It was a great opportunity for me to hear from superintendents, board of education members, principals and teachers from across the district about their concerns with No Child Left Behind and their recommendations for program improvements. As a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, it was important for me to hear firsthand what educators believe is working and is not working in No Child Left Behind. One of the main concerns brought to me during this roundtable was the role that special education students play in the Federal oversight process. Due to the wide-ranging needs and challenges faced by special needs students, it is becoming increasingly difficult for schools to meet Federal standards. It is apparent that the subgroup of special needs students is not accounted for in the way No Child Left Behind enforces standards on a state-wide basis. In fact, the unique needs of special needs students is often the only reason many of North Carolina's excellent schools do not reach AYP, or average yearly progress. Based on what North Carolina's educators are saying, the A-PLUS Act is a step in the right direction that responds to the needs of our teachers and students. The A-PLUS Act preserves States rights while keeping essential funding for our schools intact. Instead of cumbersome Federal mandates that take a cookie-cutter approach to education, the A-PLUS Act would give States the constitutional freedom to set their own education policies, based on the needs of their students, without burdensome Federal Government intrusion. This bill reduces the burden that Federal financial support poses on education programs so that teachers can focus on educating instead of paperwork and bureaucratic mandates. We have many wonderful teachers out there doing their best every day to do their job, and they are distracted from doing their job by this paperwork. By giving States back their full constitutional right to set education policy, this bill will encourage innovative solutions to the unique education issues faced by every State. The A-PLUS Act provides States and their local communities with maximum freedom and flexibility to determine how to improve academic achievement and implement education reforms. State and local governments should be in control of education policies, and the Federal Government's limits the responsibility should lie in providing incentives and accountability. Thus, A-PLUS allows States and local school systems the freedom to set up local accountability plans. In conclusion, local accountability places the emphasis where it should be, on students, parents and teachers, instead of on an often unresponsive Federal bureaucracy. And I want to support the comments made by my colleague from New Jersey, who reminds us that the Constitution doesn't have the word ``education'' anywhere in it. It is not the role of the Federal Government to provide for the education of our children. It is the role of the States, the localities and parents, and I applaud him for bringing that to our attention. We need to have that brought to our attention every time the Federal Government starts getting involved in an inappropriate way.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of California (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Leo McCarthy was a dedicated public servant and long time political force in the San Francisco area for decades. It is with sad news that we speak about him on the floor today after learning about his recent death. Throughout his political career, he worked tirelessly on issues such as coastal protection, nursing home reform, breast cancer awareness, female-owned small businesses, financing for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, employer provided child care and the prevention of hate crimes, just to name a few. He was born in Auckland, New Zealand and emigrated with his family to California at the age of 4. The son of an Irish bar owner, he was raised in San Francisco's Mission district and attended St. Ignatius College Preparatory. Before his political life began, he served his country proudly in the Korean war in the U.S. Air Force. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of San Francisco and his law degree from San Francisco law school. He began his political career as the youngest member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1963 before serving on the California Assembly from 1969 to 1982. He honorably led the California Assembly as its Speaker from 1974 to 1980. He was elected to a record three terms as Lieutenant Governor before retiring from politics in 1994. While serving as Lieutenant Governor, he instituted reforms to provide more accountability and greater public access. Among his work, he established the Feminization of Poverty Task Force comprised of women leaders from business executives to former welfare recipients to develop ways to overcome economic barriers confronting women. He also supported the Greater Avenues for Independence Program to help welfare recipients enter the work force. After retiring from politics in 1994, his passion and dedication to public service continued with the creation of the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good at the University of San Francisco. The goal of the center is to inspire and equip students for lives and careers of ethical public service and serving others. Since its inception in the fall of 2001, the McCarthy Center has initiated several programs including academic courses, public panels, internship programs and faculty-led projects that engage students in the analysis of social and political issues. Leo McCarthy's leadership in the center spread inspiration throughout all the students and staff involved. It exemplified his dedication to his community and to the greater good. He will be greatly missed by all those who knew him and worked with him. I ask all Members to join me in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 180, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend Mr. Cohen for his eloquence, for introducing this resolution; and I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 162, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 162, which honors the Negro Baseball League. Those of us who love baseball relish the comparisons between players of different eras that our rich statistical records permit. Nobody who witnessed Hank Aaron, a Negro League alum, break Babe Ruth's home record can deny the impact that feat had on the game and on society. The shame of racism, which afflicts our country even today, prevents us from properly assessing the place in the game of Negro League players. We know that some of the greatest players ever to pick up a bat and ball toiled in those leagues. But who was better, Josh Gibson or Johnny Bench? Satchel Paige or Cy Young? Cool Papa Bell or Mickey Mantle? How would the Pittsburgh Crawfords, who had six Hall of Famers, stack up against the 1927 Yankees, the best team of baseball's all- white era? Baseball today is one of America's most perfect meritocracies. If you can throw 92-mile-per-hour strikes or hit them consistently, there is a place in the game for you. It wasn't until 1890, when team owners began to see the potential of their product, that black players began to disappear from white teams. And then it wasn't until the mid 1940s when Branch Rickey of the Dodgers decided he would rather beat the Yankees than honor the unspoken agreement to keep black players out of the game that black players returned. Today we understand as a Nation that talent comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Baseball taught us that. Negro League players taught baseball that. For that, Mr. Speaker, we are eternally grateful. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 162. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 182, a resolution to recognize the contributions of Virginia State University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and my colleague on the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Scott, for introducing this resolution and recognizing the important role that Virginia State University plays in educating young people from all over the world. As a historically black college and university, or HBCU, Virginia State University is one of a diverse community of institutions. Historically black colleges and universities include 2- and 4-year institutions, public and private institutions, as well as single-sex and coed institutions. To be designated a historically black college or university, an institution must have been established prior to 1964 with a primary mission of educating African Americans. Mr. Speaker, HBCUs have a long, proud and well-established heritage. These institutions have been educating the students of this Nation for over 100 years. While comprising fewer than 3 percent of the country's 2-and 4-year institutions, HBCUs are responsible for producing a significant number of all bachelor's, master's and professional degrees earned by African Americans. Congress has repeatedly recognized the importance of the historically black colleges and universities. Between 1995 and 2006, congressional funding for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program rose from $109 million to $238 million, a 118 percent increase. What is more, funding for the HBCU Grad Program increased from $19.6 million to $57.9 million, an increase of 195 percent. Virginia State University, located in Petersburg, VA, was originally founded on March 6, 1882, as the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute and was the first fully State-supported 4-year institution of higher education for African Americans and one of Virginia's two land- grant institutions. VSU's first president, John Mercer Langston, went on to become the first African American Member of Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia. This school offers 43 undergraduate degree programs and 15 graduate degree programs. The campus is composed of more than 50 buildings, which include a 416-acre agricultural research facility. Since its founding, VSU has grown from a small HBCU to an institution that enrolls just over 5,000 students, 96 percent of whom are African American. Mr. Speaker, it is for all of these reasons and more that I urge my colleagues to honor the 125th anniversary of Virginia State University and support H. Res. 182 Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he needs to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairwoman, last week I said in the committee that I have never in my life seen language twisted in issues and ideas twisted in the way that they have been twisted in response to this bill. I said that Congress has often been described as a circus, and if this were a circus, then the people on the Education Committee who support this bill would surely be in the contortionist area of the circus, because contorting the language to say that taking away the right to a secret ballot is more democratic than the right to a secret ballot is the most unbelievable language that I think I have ever heard on the floor. And I think this has to be one of the worst bills that has ever been introduced in the Congress. And I want to say that at least, by passing my amendment, we could avoid harassment and intimidation by the unions. And I know that that occurs. And we could at least allow people the freedom to be not bothered by the union people who, the only way of getting this done is to harass people to sign a card.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment, which we are calling Do Not Contact Amendment to H.R. 800, which I agree is the Employee Intimidation Act. I strongly oppose H.R. 800 in its current form, and that is why I have submitted this amendment. This amendment requires the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards and a model notice for an employee to put him or herself on a Do Not Contact list to avoid union solicitation. This will really test whether the opposition believes what they have just been saying in the last few minutes. By removing workers' rights to a private ballot election, we are consequently leaving those workers vulnerable to coercion, pressure, outright intimidation and threats. But if we have a Do Not Contact list, then they can avoid the intimidation and threats. Let me illustrate the need for a Do Not Contact list by quoting from the testimony of Tom Riley, employee of Cintas Corporation in Pennsylvania, before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, House Committee on Education and the Workforce on September 30, 2004: ``But I draw the line, Mr. Chairman, when union organizers come to my house on a Sunday afternoon telling my wife that they were with the company and needed to talk with me. When I came to the door, they admitted they were really with the union and started trying to tell me all sorts of bad things about Cintas. I told them to leave, and they eventually did. ``I called a friend of mine from work, and he said they had been to his house too. What is disturbing is that I have an unlisted telephone number and address on purpose. I don't like the fact that union organizers are now coming to my door lying to my wife about who they are and what they want. ``I have since learned that the union may have gotten my personal information illegally by copying down my license plate number and getting information from the State's vehicle registration files, which we understand is a violation of the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. In one case there is a co-worker who doesn't live with his parents, but the car he drives was registered at his parents' address, and his parents got visits by union organizers. ``That is why several of my fellow employees and me, along with a number of our family members, have filed a lawsuit against the unions for what we believe they have done in violation of Federal law, and it appears that the unions have been doing this to other employees in other parts of the country too.'' Madam Chairman, this is why I think Congress must consider the Do Not Contact amendment to further protect American workers. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. McKeon).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this recognition and the opportunity to come in as the Official Truth Squad usually does. I didn't bring the Official Truth Squad banner with me today, but I have heard enough of the session that has just gone on. I see that the 2006 class didn't take very long to be brainwashed by their colleagues who were already here. I will tell you, I think that maybe every Congress has a theme to it. And I would say the theme of this Congress is hypocrisy. I served in the State Senate for 10 years, and I have often commented on this. We were never allowed to tell an untruth on the floor of the State Senate because we would get called down for it. But it happens here on the floor of the House every day, and it is truly an amazing situation to see, and I continue to be astonished by that occurrence when I see it here. I want to talk a little bit and give another side of the story of this bill that passed here today called the Employee Free Choice Act. We have been calling it the Employee Intimidation Act. And what I find most astonishing is that our colleagues on the other side are so willing to knock down one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and that is the right to a private ballot. For centuries, Americans, regardless of race, creed or gender, have fought for the right to vote and the right to keep that vote to themselves. Now, just months after a new House majority was elected in 435 separate elections, it has just voted to strip men and women of this country of their right to a private ballot in the workplace. I don't know what could be more undemocratic than that. Again, it just seems to me that hypocrisy is running rampant among the House majority. In recent polls, almost 9 in 10 voters, 83 percent, agreed that every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union; 80 percent also oppose the Employee Free Choice Act; 71 percent of union members agreed that the current secret ballot process is fair; and 78 percent said Congress should keep the existing secret ballot election process in place and not replace it with another process. But that kind of feedback means absolutely nothing to the majority in this House. They are bound and determined to pay off the people who help put them in the majority and they are going to do that. Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, issued a press release saying that, ``without the anonymity of the secret ballot, the Fraternal Order of Police would probably not exist today.'' The only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation is through the continued use of secret ballot election so that personal decisions about whether to join a union remain private. Even the AFL-CIO has expressed support for secret ballot elections when workers are presented the opportunity to decertify a union. The union argued that ``private ballot elections provide the surest means for avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressure and not individual decisions.'' Now, they have expressed their opinion for that, but then sometimes they express a different opinion. And we know that the Federal courts have repeatedly stated that secret ballot elections are the most foolproof method of ascertaining whether a union has the support of a majority of the employees. In reality, the card check process does not give employees a choice at all. Instead, it gives union organizers the choice of whether to organize through a card check process. And during this card check process, those employees who do not want a union do not have a voice and are, in effect, removed from the process of making decisions about their own jobs. Now, I think it would be useful to talk a little bit about who does want this bill, and we have a list. Acorn, which has been very much in the news in the last few months and fined thousands and thousands of dollars for illegal election practices all over the country. That is a really wonderful group to have supporting this bill. I can't understand how the people on the majority side want to be associated with such a group. And then the AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, Center for American Progress, the Democrat Leadership Council. But there is a group that has been left off this list, I noticed, and that is very important to put on. It is the Communist Party. The Communist Party of the United States favors this bill. And I think it is very important that the American public understand that. Our folks are aligning themselves with the Communist Party. The people who support this bill are aligning themselves with the Communist Party of the United States. Now, I would be a little bit concerned about that if I were them, but it doesn't seem to bother them in the least that they advocate communistic practices. In fact, in our committee meeting last week or about 10 days ago when we discussed this bill in the Education and Labor Committee, I made a couple of comments about how struck I was by the comments that were being made. The folks were trying to make the argument that not allowing the secret ballot is more democratic than having the secret ballot. And I commented that the illusion that came to me was that of certain people in a circus. I have often heard the Congress described as a circus. And I said that day I could understand people calling the Congress a circus, and I knew exactly where the Democratic members of that committee would be in the circus if they were part of the circus and we all had a place. They would be the contortionists because I had never heard people do such a job on manipulating the English language to make it sound like no secret ballot made more sense than the secret ballot in terms of the democratic process. I mean, you have got to be a real contortionist with the language to be able to do that. It reminds me of the book ``1984,'' where they rewrite history and white is black and black is white, and it was a truly amazing display of illogic, not logic, but illogic. And then they went on to say, and I don't have the exact quotes but I can paraphrase: it is a real shame that there are some people in this country who make too much money, and we shouldn't allow that to happen. We shouldn't allow people to make too much money; so we have to figure out a way to take some of the money from people that we think are making too much money and give it to people who are not making enough. And, again, that struck me as the definition of communism. And I said, That has been tried in lots of other places, and it has never worked. It has always failed, and we can see it failing. Here we have one of the strongest economies that has existed in the history of this country, and people are doing extremely well, which is one reason, I think, that people aren't joining the union. We know that union growth is going down, and that is one of the main reasons that they are pushing this, so that they can intimidate people into signing these cards, not have a secret ballot, and force people into belonging to a union. And that is the reason that they are doing this. And as they gained the majority in the House, they see this as one of the big ways again to pay back the unions who helped put them here. A lot of people today and in the committee talked about personal experiences, and I haven't talked any about any of my personal experiences as far as the unions are concerned. But my father, when he was working, was forced to join unions and he had a visceral negative response to that. It offended him tremendously that he could not go out and on his own get a job and be able to work at that job without having to go through a union boss, pay union dues, give up a lot of his hard- earned money to the unions in order for him to get a job. And he was very, very much opposed to the unions because he had seen that intimidation personally. He had seen money being taken away from him and being misused when he could have used that for his family. We haven't heard too much about that on the floor today. We have heard a lot about other kinds of things, but we haven't heard much about that. We have heard, though, that there has been no union violence, no harassment, no intimidation. Well, that isn't true. There are at least 300 incidences of violence perpetrated by the unions on either their members or on people who are not members but coming from the union. Three hundred per year for the last 30 years. And I am just going to give a few examples of that: West Virginia miner shot dead for working during a strike. Virginia women targeted for working during a strike. And I will give some details about the second one: When the United Auto Workers Local 149 called a strike against Abex Friction Products in Winchester, Virginia, several of the workers decided they needed their paychecks and crossed the picket lines to work. They were targeted for harassment and intimidation. In one instance an employee who crossed the picket line found a severed cow's head placed on the hood of her car. Later someone made up a photograph with her face superimposed over the dead cow's head and mailed it to her. The union paid a substantial settlement to six women for its members' harassment of them. The same thing with the miner, the union was forced to pay. UPS driver beaten and stabbed by fellow union brothers. Worker who opposed unionization has his house ``put on the map.'' Math teacher fired for challenging union president. And let me give you the details of this one: George Parker taught math in Washington, D.C. and was a member of the Washington Teachers Union. In 1997 he challenged union president Barbara Bullock's financial administration with the Department of Labor, and she allegedly had him fired for doing so. But Parker's suspicions were proven correct. Bullock was later convicted of embezzling $4.6 million of member dues money and sentenced to jail. Laborers Union thug attacks union and nonunion workers alike: Laborers Union Local 91 of Buffalo, New York, often relied on Andrew Shomers to harm and intimidate workers, union or not, who weren't paying dues to the local. Shomers pleaded guilty in June 2005 to a series of crimes involving violence and sabotage. His offenses included vandalizing the offices of the local housing authority, because it didn't use Local 91 labor to install a small section of sidewalk outside its offices, participating in a group assault on workers from another union, stalking and attacking nonunion workers on an asbestos- removal project by throwing a homemade firebomb through a window and destroying work that had been done by workers from another union and ruining their tools. Shomers was just one of 15 former Local 91 leaders indicted by authorities in 2003. Following his plea bargain, seven other former leaders pleaded guilty. Electrician fired for asserting his rights. Workers' families, pets threatened because they didn't want the union. There are many, many examples of union violence and intimidation. And one of the things that struck me about the comments that were being made here and the comments that have been made on the floor and in the committee is the attitude of the majority party toward workers. They talk over and over again about the helplessness of workers. They talk about employers controlling employees. What a bad impression they have of other human beings. It is really part of their overall feeling toward us. They feel like the government or the union has to do everything for us because we are so incapable of doing anything ourselves. I find that really demeaning to other human beings, and I don't think they even understand that they are coming across like that. But just in the session just before now, they talked about the helplessness of workers as though the union has to do everything for these poor people who can't think and do for themselves. That is just unconscionable that they would talk that way. Another interesting thing about their approach, though, is how these same people who don't want our workers in this country to be able to have a secret ballot and vote for a union want that for people in Mexico. Sixteen House Democrats wrote a letter in August 2001. I am going to take one quote out, and I am going to read the letter. This is what they said: ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'' That is the absolute height of hypocrisy. I have given you lots of other examples of it, but to say we want the people in Mexico to have a secret ballot to vote for a union, but the people in the United States shouldn't have a secret ballot? Where are these people living? I am just chagrined at that. And they write the letter to the Junta Local de Conciliacion, and I won't try to pronounce the rest of it with my very bad Spanish, but it was in the state of Puebla: ``As Members of the Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights and international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.'' Unbelievable that these folks would want the secret ballot for people in Mexico but not want the secret ballot for the folks in this country. Again, I find it absolutely amazing. I have pointed out, again, they are aligned with the Communist Party of the United States. Those are the people who favor this. Now let me see if I can go here and tell you some of the people who are opposed to this legislation: the American Hospital Association, the Hotel Lodging Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and there are many, many, many more. Now, what is it that is unique about these people? And I will go back to the other chart in a minute. What is unique about these organizations compared to the other organizations? These are the people that create jobs in our country. We live in a capitalistic country, the best country in the world. I don't see anybody rushing out of this country because their work opportunities are so rotten and so lousy. They talk about how horrible it is in the United States. Well, how come we don't have people going to Mexico and to these other countries where working conditions must obviously be better if they are so rotten in this country? It is because they aren't rotten in this country. It is because we have the best country in the world. To hear these people talk about it, all these folks who create jobs, all these employers out there, individual small businesses, even large businesses are rotten people and all they want to do is intimidate and harass their workers. And yet unemployment is the lowest rate that it has been in this country in 50 years. Wages are up. The economy is booming. Something has got to be right about this country. But to hear them talk about it, it is the most miserable place in the world to live. I think they ought to find another place to live, frankly, if they think that this is such a rotten place to live. I, frankly, love it here. I get teary eyed when we sing the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' even when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, because I am so grateful to live in a country where people have freedom and where they are not harassed and where they can do the kinds of things they want to do. But taking the right away for a secret ballot, where is it going to stop? Why don't they recommend taking away the secret ballot for their leadership elections, for example? Would they like to do that? I don't think so. Would they like to take away the secret ballot for us voting when we elect people to this Chamber? I don't think so. But that is what they want to do for the people who want to elect or not elect to have a union. I think that it is really rotten. Now, I want to show you what has happened in terms of the decline in union membership and talk just a little bit about this. This is the real reason that there is such a push on to push this bill through. We are now at the point where we have 7 percent, I believe it is, of private employment where people belong to unions. Most of the growth in unions is now in the public sector. You can see the total membership. The peak for union membership was in the 1980s, and it has been going down steadily since then. My guess is a lot has to do with the fact, again, that we have a good economy, that things are working very well. Folks have figured out how to protect their own rights. They don't need to pay union bosses, who make hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, who live in great luxury, while the workers make much, much less money than they do. People have begun to understand that the unions are not value-added for them. They are not giving them something they couldn't get on their own. Yet our colleagues across the aisle want to continue to believe that poor American workers are so helpless they can't do anything on their own without the help of the unions. We have said before in the Official Truth Squad that everybody has a right to his or her opinion, but they don't have a right to the facts. Again, I want to point out, this is what is happening. We can see the total membership is going down, the private sector membership particularly, and that is what is really getting at our colleagues across the aisle. I want to talk a little bit about the kind of assets that some of these unions have too, because for some reason they accumulate a lot of wealth and their leaders, again, are paid huge salaries. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have total assets of $57 million. They have about 1.5 million members and they have 620 employees. That is pretty good. Some of the other ones have even more assets for themselves. Let's talk a little bit more about the union violations versus the employer violations. The folks in favor of the bill argue that employer coercion during union-organizing drives is rampant, while union coercion is virtually nonexistent. Specifically, they claim that employers engaged in illegal coercion in excess of 30,000 times last year alone, while in the history of humankind unions have only engaged in coercive tactics 42 times. Well, I read you some details on some of those and gave you some facts. Again, they have their opinions, but they can't change the facts. But these allegations are both deceptive and misleading. We know that if they are willing to engage in this kind of deception on the floor of the House in a campaign where they are trying to get a bill passed, where their comments are subject to public scrutiny, we can only wonder what type of deceptive tactics they might use in a card check campaign. Mr. Speaker, the NLRB, which is not exactly a conservative group of people, reports that in 2006, there were 8,047 charges of employer discrimination or illegal discharge and 5,405 charges of union coercion and illegal restraint, in addition to another 594 cases of union discrimination. So we are talking about 8,000 charges against employers and 6,000 charges against the unions. And that doesn't account for the fact that unions are likely to file more frivolous charges than employers. One thing is clear, however. The numbers are not as lopsided as organized labor and their allies would have you believe. Thousands of cases of union intimidation, as well as employer intimidation, are filed every year. We should all agree that intimidation by employers, as well as intimidation by union organizers, is wrong. It isn't right for either of them to do it and I don't condone any of it. But while our Nation's labor laws may not be perfect, at least they provide a federally supervised process by which a worker can make the important decision about whether to join a union in private without his or her employer, coworkers, or union organizers knowing how he or she ultimately voted. Again, I cannot imagine a more basic right than our right to vote in private and not have anybody know how we vote. It is a sacred right, and we should not allow that to be taken away. What we should be doing is strengthening workers' privacy rights in making this important decision, not eliminating them. Let me now talk a little bit more about the decline in union membership. For the past 40 years, there has been a steady decline in both union membership and influence. There are several reasons for such a decline, the first having to do with employers keeping their businesses union-free. Some were active in their opposition and even hired consultants to devise legal strategies to combat unions. Others put workers on the management team by appointing them to the board of directors or establishing private sharing plans to reward employees. Another is that new additions to the labor force have traditionally had little loyalty to organized labor. Because more and more women and teenagers are working and their incomes tend to be a family's second income, they have a proclivity towards accepting lower wages, thus defeating the purpose of organized labor. Another reason is many businesses have gone out of business because of union employees, because union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers. This results in companies having to cut back on production, which caused some workers to lose their jobs and hence unions have lost some of their members. Today's workers also tend to be more highly educated and tend to be of the professional white collar class. All of these have decreased union membership. The percent of the workforce in 1948 that were in the unions was about 31.8 percent. In 2004, in the private sector it dropped to 7.9 percent, and in the total workforce it was 12.5 percent. So we know that the numbers are coming down and coming down dramatically. That is why the folks have gone after this bill to try to force people to join the unions by having them simply sign a card and not allow them to be able to have a vote. As I said before, the hypocrisy that runs rampant in this place is mind-boggling. Bills get called one thing and they do something just the opposite. The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't provide employees free choice. It does just the opposite. We have had lots of groups and lots of editorials against this bill, many, many people saying this is absolutely the wrong way to go. I want to enter into the Record today an article from The Wall Street Journal from February 2. I am going to read some quotes from it, but I want to put the entire article in, because I think the comments are so pertinent. [From the Wall Street Journal, Online, Feb. 2, 2007] Abrogating Workers' Rights (By Lawrence B. Lindsey) Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so- called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' is right there near the top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card-signing system. Under the act, once a union gets a majority of the workers to sign a card expressing a desire for a union, that union is automatically certified as the bargaining representative of, and empowered to negotiate on behalf of, all workers. In the 28 states that do not have right-to-work laws, all employees would typically end up having to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues whether or not they signed the card. Moreover, under the act, the bargaining process would be shortened, with mandatory use of the Federal Mediation Service after 90 days and an imposed contract through binding arbitration 30 days after that. I am sympathetic to the argument that strengthening the negotiating position of workers is good public policy, and that expanding the choices available to them is the best way to accomplish that. So, for example, pension portability unlocks the golden handcuffs that financially bind workers to jobs they may become dissatisfied with after they have become vested. Health savings accounts are an important first step to liberating people from jobs they put up with only because they fear a disruption in health-care coverage. When it comes to unions, it doesn't take a very deep appreciation of game theory to understand that a worker's best position comes when a nonunion company has a union knocking on the door. Indeed, one allegation about ``union busting'' by supporters of the bill is that, during union certification elections, one employer in five ``gave illegal previously unscheduled wage increases while a similar number made some kind of illegal unilateral change in benefits or working conditions.'' In other words, they made workers better off. But, never fear, the Employee Free Choice Act will limit these unconscionable increases in pay, benefits and working conditions by imposing fines of up to $20,000 against employers who make such ``unilateral changes.'' Similar penalties will be assessed against employers who caution that unionization may cause them to shut down or move production elsewhere. Sometimes the interests of workers and unions coincide, sometimes they do not. The chief complaint by the bill's sponsors is that unions only win secret-ballot elections half of the time. Apparently workers, after they think things over and when neither the union nor the company knows how they vote, often decide they are better-off without the union. The solution of the Employee Free Choice Act is to do away with such elections. It is hard to see how that ``empowers'' workers. And it is hard not to conclude that this bill has little to do with employee choice or maximizing employee leverage, and everything to do with empowering union bosses and organizers. The unions allege that companies use unfair election campaign tactics and that a pro-employer National Labor Relations Board doesn't punish them. But statistics cited by the leftwing Web site, Daily Kos, on behalf of this allegation come from 1998 and 1999--when the entire NLRB had been appointed by President Clinton. In any event, roughly half the injunctions brought against companies by the NLRB were overturned by federal courts: This does not suggest under-enforcement of the law by the NLRB. All of this does not mean that there are no legitimate complaints about the union certification process. Companies have been found that fired workers for union organizing activities. One careful examination of NLRB data found that there were 62 such cases in fiscal 2005. This is not a large number in a work force of 140 million, or in a year where there were more than 2,300 certification elections. But it is 62 too many, and it would be reasonable to stiffen the penalties for employers who break the law. But it is hard to think of offering more pay or better worker conditions as something that should be punished with draconian penalties, as the Employee Free Choice Act does. Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some employers break the law. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive--if one's goal is worker empowerment. How can a worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced with a public card signing? For the worker it is the ultimate example of being caught between a rock and a hard place. The political rhetoric in support of this bill is a willful exercise in obfuscation. For example, on the presidential campaign stump John Edwards says, ``if you can join the Republican Party by just signing a card, you should be able to join a union by just signing a card.'' The fact is, you-- and everyone else--can join any union you want by just signing a card, and paying union dues and meeting any other obligations imposed by the union. But, under this bill, contrary to Mr. Edwards's false analogy, signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. The Employee Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28 non-right-to-work states, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all Democrats and independents to become Republicans and pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican Party cards. That is free choice? The final proof that this bill is about union power, and not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story--and maybe do a better job of representing them--before the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote. No one has ever argued that secret-ballot elections are a perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power of the people who really matter, whether citizen or worker. Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do away with workers' right to vote. Mr. Speaker, the article starts, ``Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is right there near the top of the Democrat's agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card-signing system.'' Mr. Speaker, another reason union membership is down is because of the abuses of the unions, and, as I said before, because our economy is so good. We know that we have the best economy we have had in 50 years and people don't need the unions in the way they needed them before. There was a time probably in the early part of the last century when there was a need for unions. There were worker abuses, and that is very unfortunate. But we know that era is gone, and we don't need that anymore. So we know that we don't need the unions, and people are voting with their feet. There is another quote that I want to share with you from The Wall Street Journal, which comes toward the end of the article, which points out another part of the hypocrisy of this bill. Let me again quote from the Wall Street Journal article, because I think it says it very well: ``The final proof that this bill is about union power, and not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: Decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story, and maybe do a better job of representing them, before the union's fate is decided by a secret ballot vote.'' You see, they oppose a card check for decertification of the union. That is just not right. If they want it one way, why don't they want to allow it the other way? The last paragraph says, ``No one has ever argued that secret ballot elections are a perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power of the people who really matter, whether citizen or worker. Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do away with workers' right to vote.'' Again, I cannot think of anything more undemocratic than saying to people, ``We are going to allow you to be intimidated into joining a union. We are taking away your right to vote in a secret ballot election. We don't think secret ballots are the right way to go in the greatest republic in the world. We do think that secret ballots are the way to go in Mexico, but we don't think that they are the way to go in the United States of America.'' Again, it is unbelievable to me that these people can stand up and say it. I want to say again, who are the people who supported this bill and point out the kind of folks that these people are associating with and say again that the fact that the communist party of the U.S. is one of the major supporters of this bill should tell us a lot about what this bill is doing. Elections in communist countries are not like elections in this country. There aren't choices given to people. They don't have free elections. What they do is have the kind of election that is going to come about by people doing a card check for these union elections, and that is the kind of election that they want there. We have heard again comments made over and over again by the people who have supported this bill, but I want to say to you, I am sorry I don't have the Official Truth Squad emblem up here tonight, because we could have both of them here. We need to set the record straight on what is being said. Doing this bill, if this bill were to pass the Senate and become law, it would be one of the greatest travesties against American workers that has been done in this country, and it would be done by people who say that they support American workers. It would be done by people who treat American workers as though they are helpless individuals, unable to do anything for themselves, unable to walk away if they don't like a job, unable to bring a suit against someone who might have discriminated against them. Again, I don't want anybody to think that I would ever tolerate anyone being discriminated against or anyone being mistreated; I don't support that in any way. However, that is not what is behind this. What is behind this is power and money. These people have been bought by the unions. The unions got them into office, and they are now asking for their payback. And that is exactly what is happening here. And that isn't the way it is supposed to be done. Our folks on the other side of the aisle have railed against that in the past. They rail against it when they accuse us of doing that, but they are doing it in ways that are really unconscionable, in my opinion. And, again, I want to quote from the letter that 16 Members of Congress sent to Mexico where they said: ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'' I cannot, again, hear how they can justify wanting the people in Mexico to be able to have the secret ballot to vote for a union and take that right away from our great American workers who want the same right for themselves. I hope that the Senate will do the right thing and vote this bill down, if it even ever comes up for a vote, and say to the American workers, and hear what Republicans are saying: we respect American workers. We will do everything we possibly can to protect your rights. We are not going to take away from you the right to a secret ballot. That is simply wrong in the greatest Republic that has ever existed in the world.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act which provides employees anything but free choice. Contrary to its title, the bill would strip workers of their right to privacy in union organization elections by removing the option of a secret ballot. This paradoxical bill will kill private voting rights, making workers vote publicly through a mandatory card check where union bosses gather authorization cards supposedly signed by workers expressing their desire for a union to represent them. Such mandatory card checks make workers' personal votes known to their coworkers, their union organizers and their employers, stripping workers of the right to choose freely and anonymously whether to unionize. This leaves workers vulnerable to coercion, pressure, outright intimidation and threats. Supporters of the bill claim it is necessary to preserve workers' rights, when, in reality, this bill is not about workers at all. Rather, it is about Big Labor's last desperate attempt to retain power. I urge my colleagues to vote for workers' rights by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, a true patriot, Mr. Johnson. Madam Speaker, I rise today not only in support of the brave men and women of the American Armed Forces, but also in support of the cause for which they fight. They heroically give of themselves every day to ensure the safety of our Nation and the freedom that we Americans enjoy. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want America's troops home as soon as possible, but disengaging at this time would invite the terrorists to follow us home. This resolution sends the wrong message and will have grave consequences. It will demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies. We are combating a global adversary who sees an enemy in any Nation that supports the ideals of freedom. In the interest of democracy, global safety and rural peace, victory in Iraq is absolutely crucial. While some seem happy to complain about the war, they have offered nothing in the way of a solution to defeat the jihadists. It is fine to disagree, but your opinion holds little weight if you fail to offer a constructive alternative. Leadership takes strengths and courage to succeed in the face of adversity, although mistakes may be made along the way. Many comments have been made by those who support this resolution, but one that deserves a response is the oft-repeated phrase that this is an impossible war to win. What a terrible attitude for Members of the United States Congress to have. What if George Washington had succumbed to the critics of his day who said those things? What if Abraham Lincoln, FDR and President Truman had taken that attitude? Where would we be now? We are here today because people who came before us refused to listen to the naysayers and the defeatists. The true leaders of this Nation have always focused on the possible and accomplished it. These people remind me of the attitude of the Carter administration in dealing with Iran. Let me quote a recent article by Dinesh D'Souza. `` . . . they are willing to risk the country falling into the hands of Islamic radicals. Little do the people waging 'the war against the war' know that in exchange for a temporary political advantage, they are gravely endangering America's security and well-being, ultimately even their own.'' Let us band together as Americans, put aside political differences to show that we understand the need to defend freedom for the long and short terms. This is the decisive battle of our generation, and this is a defining moment of our time. We cannot afford to lose and should vote ``no'' on this resolution [From the American Legion Magazine, Feb. 2007] How We Lost Iran--And Why We Can't Afford Another Loss in Iraq (By Dinesh D'Souza) There are four important Muslim countries in the Middle East: Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Islamic radicals control Iran, and have since the Khomeini revolution a quarter century ago. Now they have their sights on Iraq. If they get Iraq, we can be sure they will target Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Let's remember that this is a region upon which the United States will continue to be oil-dependent for the foreseeable future. If the Islamic radicals succeed, the American way of life will be seriously threatened. To understand the high stakes in Iraq, it's helpful to understand what happened in Iran a generation ago. How did America ``lose'' Iran, and how can we avoid another debacle in Iraq? Islamic radicals have been around since the 1920s, but for decades they were outsiders even in the Muslim countries. One of their leading theoreticians, Sayyid Qutb, argued that radical Muslims could not just promulgate theories and have meetings; they must seek to realize the Islamic state ``in a concrete form.'' What was needed, he wrote, was ``to initiate the movement of Islamic revival in some Muslim country.'' Once the radicals controlled a major state, he suggested, they could then use it as a beachhead for launching the takeover of other Muslim countries. The ultimate objective was the unification of the Muslim community into a single Islamic nation, governed by Islamic holy law. In 1979, Qutb's goal was achieved when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran. Muslim scholar Hamid Algar terms the Khomeini revolution ``the most significant event in contemporary Islamic history.'' It was an event comparable to the French or the Russian revolutions. Virtually no one predicted it, yet it overturned the entire imperial structure and created a new order, even a new way of life. The mullahs restored the Islamic calendar, abolished Western languages from the schools, instituted an Islamic curriculum, declared a new set of religious holidays, stopped men from wearing ties, required women to cover their heads, changed the banking system to outlaw usury or interest, abolished Western-style criminal and civil laws, and placed the entire society under sharia, or laws based on the Koran. The importance of the Khomeini revolution is that it demonstrated the viability of the Islamic theocracy in the modern age. Before Khomeini, the prospect of a large Muslim nation being ruled by clergy according to 8th-century precepts would have seemed far-fetched, even preposterous. Khomeini showed it could be done, and his successors have shown that it can last. To this day, post-Khomeini Iran provides a viable model of what the Islamic radicals hope to achieve throughout the Muslim world. Khomeini also popularized the idea of the United States as a ``great Satan.'' Before Khomeini, no Muslim head of state had said this about America. Muslim leaders like Nasser might disagree with the United States, but they never identified it as the primary source of evil on the planet. During the Khomeini era, there were large demonstrations by frenzied Muslims who cursed the United States and burned its flag. For the first time, banners and posters began to appear all over Iran:

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by what is happening in this Chamber this week. We are taking full advantage of the freedoms that we have while good men and women are dying to protect us, and we are undermining their efforts. The other side has done some very awful things for political gain in this session. But this event is the pit of hypocrisy, not the height of hypocrisy. History has shown that involvement and sending all of the resources necessary was essential to winning World War II. And we did, in fact, preserve freedom and democracy. Many Americans were against World War II, calling for isolationism and pacifism, hoping that Hitler would stay true to his word regardless of the extensive military buildup. The United States had no choice but to enter the war to save Europe and democracy. That was the definitive conflict of that era; we are now facing the definitive conflict of ours. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous disservice to our troops, their families and the American tradition of being honorable liberators fighting for democracy. This resolution is an insult to our troops and the American people. We are leaders in our body. It is time that we came together and act as leaders, leave politics aside to fight terrorism and support our troops. We owe to it ourselves, the people we represent and future generations.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly condemn H.Con.Res 63, and the destructive message it sends our troops. Additionally, it sends a message that emboldens the very terrorists we are fighting to prevent another 9/11. The debate over this resolution makes America appear weak in her resolve to win the war on terror. We have seen terrorism all across the globe, from bombings in Spain, to London and Bali. America is fighting radical Islamic jihadists, an enemy that poses a threat of colossal proportions. They will stop at nothing to follow their twisted version of Islam and to pursue the destruction of Israel and Western civilization. That is why I stand here with the firm resolve and pledge to protect my country and future generations from terrorism. I took an oath and have a constitutional obligation as a Member of Congress to protect and defend America from all enemies, foreign or domestic. This is an obligation all Members of Congress share, and it simply escapes me how some of my colleagues fail to understand the dire consequences of leaving Iraq.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify a little bit with my colleague from Georgia who was here talking about this being the smoke-and-mirrors Congress. There are so many things being talked about that aren't true. Today, I was speaking with one of my constituents at home from Wilkes County, Angela Henley. The issue of airplanes came up, and she said to me, you know, I think the officials should adopt the principle to lead by example and not by extravagance. I said, you know, these are the kinds of things, this is the reason we ought to be going home more instead of spending all this time we are spending in Washington. The majority party wants people to believe that you have got to be in Washington, because that is where all the wisdom of the world is. But I think it is this Beltway mentality that gets us in trouble all the time, and gets people to thinking that we as Members of Congress are here to be served, not to serve. I said here this morning in opening remarks that I am very troubled by this whole affair. I came here to serve the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina. I don't think that we are supposed to be treated like kings and queens. We came here to do the work of the people. It is called the people's House, and I think it is very important that we do that. What is happening is, the mentality of the majority party is that all the wisdom of the world is in Washington, D.C., the only work that gets done is in Washington, D.C. We should be here 5 days a week, not be in our district with the average American citizen. Well, you lose track of what the average American citizen is dealing with. That is why I thought Angela Henley's comments were so brilliant today when I talked to her. Again, elected officials should adopt the principle to lead by example and not by extravagance. That is the message that needs to be sent. That is not the message that is being sent by the majority party and by the Speaker in her example. What we need to be doing is we need to make sure we are doing what is right by the American people and not putting additional burdens on them by adding costs. The other thing I want to mention is, there has been a lot made about the fact that the Department of Defense has approved this. This was a headline in yesterday's paper saying the appropriators are going to get out of the departments what they want by twisting the arms of the various departments and agencies. And we all know that there is a close relationship between some of the appropriators and the Speaker, and I have no doubt that the appropriators are going to get from the departments what it is they want from them, to justify anything at all that they want to justify whether it is extravagant or not.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in disbelief concerning the recent discussion about an airplane for the Speaker. Time and again Members of this body, and more importantly the American people, have been promised that this would be the most ethical and fiscally responsible Congress ever. Many things have clearly derailed that pledge, including a continuing resolution spending billions of dollars without any scrutiny. What we are seeing here is a mentality of waste. I take the Speaker's word that she did not request the luxurious plane to transport her. However, it is troubling to me that the mentality of others is such that they would recommend more than what is needed. We are the people's House, and the people expect us to spend their money wisely. We are here to serve, not live like kings and queens. This is an opportunity for us to review procedures and seek ways to save money, not waste it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his remarks. And I appreciate his being involved and sharing some information with us that is so important. This is his first term, and he has done a wonderful job. He is my neighbor to the west. His district in Tennessee joins the 5th District in North Carolina. We both live in a wonderful, wonderful place. Every time somebody speaks to me about where I live, they say, what a beautiful place you live in, and I feel that way about it. And I want to say that it is a great honor to serve in Congress, but I can tell you that my feet are planted very firmly on the ground in the 5th District of North Carolina, and I don't ever forget where I came from and the people that I represent. I want to talk a little bit on this issue about the economy that Mr. Price set up today for the Truth Squad. And I know he is going to be here probably very shortly, and when he does I am going to yield back to the Chair and hope that the Chair will recognize him so that he can continue this discussion. I want to talk a little bit today about the economy and an egregious situation that we are facing here in the Congress as it deals with unions. I have come to the floor several times in this session and talked about what I consider the hypocrisy that is going on in this Congress by the majority party. We are having black called white and white called black in terms of pieces of things on the paper. It is astonishing to me the hypocrisy that is going on. And I think there is probably no more greater piece of hypocrisy than this so-called Employee Free Choice Act which has been introduced by the Democrats. It deals with the ability for unions to twist people's arms to get them into unions. The unions have been steadily losing ground in this country for many, many years. My understanding is that the percentage and number of U.S. workers that belong to unions declined again in 2006, after having stabilized a little bit in 2005. BLS data show that only 13 percent of all construction workers were members of building trade unions, and that is down from 18 percent in 2001. There is a steady erosion in the percentage of construction workers represented by unions in the past 23 years. What is happening is because the unions are losing membership, they want to take away the secret ballot. I am going to enter into the Record today several different pieces which I have in front of me that I am quoting from. I am going to quote from a Wall Street Journal article of February 2, and from some other information which I will enter into the Record. But I want to read the beginning of this article from the Wall Street Journal because I think it is so pertinent. It says: ``Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away workers' right to vote?'' It seems extraordinary, but the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is right there near the top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card- signing system. One of the reasons that union membership is down so much in this country is because of the abuses of the unions, and also because our economy is so good. And, again, I think that Representative Price is going to talk more about the economy. I mentioned earlier that it is the best that it has ever been in terms of wages, in terms of income and wages and homeownership and the burden that we place on the American people from the government. But people don't need to join unions like they needed to 125 years ago or so. We did have abuses in this country by employers, and I am very sorry about that, but those abuses don't go on anymore, and people are finding out they don't have to belong to unions. But the Democrats, who are so beholden to unions, want to take the right of a secret ballot, which is so fundamental to us in this country, and which they argue for on this floor for voters, and they want to take it away from union members or people who are thinking about forming a union. And I, again, want to make some quotes, because this article is so excellent. Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some employers break the law. Yes, occasionally somebody may not do what they are supposed to do. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive. If one goal is worker empowerment, how can a worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced with a public card signing? For the worker, it is the ultimate example of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Mr. Edwards, who is running for President, has said that if you can join the Republican Party, you should be able to join a union by simply signing a card. But Mr. Edwards' analogy is a very false one, because signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. And I quote again from the article from the Wall Street Journal: ``The Employee Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28 non-right to work States, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all Democrats and Independents to become Republicans and pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican cards. That's free choice?'' The final proof that this bill is about union power and not worker choice is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. Under the Employee Free Choice, can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here, unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story and maybe do a better job of representing them before the union's fate is decided by a secret ballot vote. Again, the hypocrisy is absolutely mind-boggling, and is just one more example. We have bills called one thing and they do another. It just goes on and on and on. But I think it is very important that we point out this particular hypocrisy, because the title of this bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, is I think particularly egregious in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time. [From the Wall Street Journal Online, Feb. 2, 2007] Abrogating Workers' Rights (By Lawrence B. Lindsey) Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so- called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' is right there near the top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card-signing system. Under the act, once a union gets a majority of the workers to sign a card expressing a desire for a union, that union is automatically certified as the bargaining representative of, and empowered to negotiate on behalf of, all workers. In the 28 states that do not have right-to-work laws, all employees would typically end up having to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues whether or not they signed the card. Moreover, under the act, the bargaining process would be shortened, with mandatory use of the Federal Mediation service after 90 days and an imposed contract through binding arbitration 30 days after that. I am sympathetic to the argument that strengthening the negotiating position of workers is good public policy, and that expanding the choices available to them is the best way to accomplish that. So, for example, pension portability unlocks the golden handcuffs that financially bind workers to jobs they may become dissatisfied with after they have become vested. Health savings accounts are an important first step to liberating people from jobs they put up with only because they fear a disruption in health-care coverage. When it comes to unions, it doesn't take a very deep appreciation of game theory to understand that a worker's best position comes when a nonunion company has a union knocking on the door. Indeed, one allegation about ``union busting'' by supporters of the bill is that, during union certification elections, one employer in five ``gave illegal previously unscheduled wage increases while a similar number made some kind of illegal unilateral change in benefits or working conditions.'' In other words, they made workers better off. But, never fear, the Employee Free Choice Act will limit these unconscionable increases in pay, benefits and working conditions by imposing fines of up to $20,000 against employers who make such ``unilateral changes.'' Similar penalties will be assessed against employers who caution that unionization may cause them to shut down or move production elsewhere. Sometimes the interests of workers and unions coincide, sometimes they do not. The chief complaint by the bill's sponsors is that unions only win secret-ballot elections half of the time. Apparently workers, after they think things over and when neither the union nor the company knows how they vote, often decide they are better-off without the union. The solution of the Employee Free Choice Act is to do away with such elections. It is hard to see how that ``empowers'' workers. And it is hard not to conclude that this bill has little to do with employee choice or maximizing employee leverage, and everything to do with empowering union bosses and organizers. The unions allege that companies use unfair election campaign tactics and that a pro-employer National Labor Relations Board doesn't punish them. But statistics cited by the leftwing Web site, Daily Kos, on behalf of this allegation come from 1998 and 1999--when the entire NLRB had been appointed by President Clinton. In any event, roughly half the injunctions brought against companies by the NLRB were overturned by federal courts: This does not suggest under-enforcement of the law by the NLRB. All of this does not mean that there are no legitimate complaints about the union certification process. Companies have been found that fired workers for union organizing activities. One careful examination of NLRB data found that there were 62 such cases in fiscal 2005. This is not a large number in a work force of 140 million, or in a year where there were more than 2,300 certification elections. But it is 62 too many, and it would be reasonable to stiffen the penalties for employers who break the law. But it is hard to think of offering more pay or better worker conditions as something that should be punished with draconian penalties, as the Employee Free Choice Act does. Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some employers break the law. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive--if one's goal is worker empowerment. How can a worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced with a public card signing? For the worker it is the ultimate example of being caught between a rock and a hard place. The political rhetoric in support of this bill is a willful exercise in obfuscation. For example, on the presidential campaign stump John Edwards says, ``if you can join the Republican Party by just signing a card, you should be able to join a union by just signing a card.'' The fact is, you-- and everyone else--can join any union you want by just signing a card, and paying union dues and meeting any other obligations imposed by the union. But, under this bill, contrary to Mr. Edwards's false analogy, signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. The Employee Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28 non-right-to-work states, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all Democrats and independents to become Republicans and pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican Party cards. That is free choice? The final proof that this bill is about union power, and not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story--and maybe do a better job of representing them--before the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote. No one has ever argued that secret-ballot elections are a perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power of the people to really matter, whether citizen or worker. Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do away with workers' right to vote.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in disbelief at the actions of the Democratic Senators' resolutions against the United States efforts in Iraq. These very same Senators voted unanimously to confirm General David Petraeus. It is unbelievably hypocritical to undermine the efforts of the very man they confirmed, along with all the brave men and women who serve with him. The actions of these Senators will simply encourage the terrorists and undermine the U.S. efforts to succeed in Iraq and the war on terror. Republicans want to debate this issue, yet the Democrats only want to pass a resolution. It is time to take a real stand on the issue. If the Democrats want to end the war, then they should stand up and call for it. The hypocritical actions of the Democrats are wrong. They have offered no plan for success in Iraq and are interfering with the President's powers to execute a war that the Congress has already approved. Democrats must realize there is only one commander-in-chief, and it is his job and responsibility to manage the war as he sees fit. Mr. Speaker, I support my Republican colleagues in the Senate who want a real debate on this issue and victory in the central front on the global war on terror.