Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. We have no more speakers. Do you have any?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to honor the women's basketball team at Rutgers University for their incredible accomplishments on the court, as well as their courage and integrity off the court. Led by head coach Vivian Stringer, the Scarlet Knights won their first ever Big East conference tournament championship this year and advanced to the national championship in Cleveland just 2 weeks ago. Though they lost that game to the University of Tennessee, these young women made the 2006-2007 season one to remember for Rutgers students, alumni and fans. Unfortunately, just hours after the national championship game, they were confronted with some disheartening comments by a radio personality. Throughout all the media coverage that followed these comments, these young women handled themselves with an impressive amount of integrity, with grace and with strong character. As a result, it is their accomplishments on the court, not the comments off the court, for which they should and will be remembered. Mr. Speaker, the Rutgers University women's basketball team is comprised of student athletes in the truest sense. They have an impressive collective grade point average, a solid selection of majors and a record in the classroom that matches their great work on the hardwood. On the court, these young women have dedicated themselves to improving and honing their skills through many hours of practice both during the school year and during academic recesses. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Scarlet Knights on these accomplishments and wish them the best of luck in all they will take on in the future, and again, I am pleased to honor these young women through this resolution. I believe they have set an example from which many other collegiate athletes can learn. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 3 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time left.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the headline atop the front page of yesterday's edition of the Virginia Tech student newspaper captured what all of us are feeling right now: ``Heartache.'' On behalf of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee, my staff, my family, and my constituents, I extend my deepest sympathy and offer my prayers to Virginia Tech students, staff, administration and families. Our institutions of higher education are places where students begin to embrace adulthood, where they begin to relish a new found freedom and indeed where they begin to realize their dreams. For that to be cut short for these young men and women by such a senseless act is beyond anyone's comprehension. So all we can do is mourn, comfort one another and pray that the Virginia Tech community and our Nation may begin to heal in the aftermath of this unspeakable tragedy. The collective feeling inside of this building over the last few days is much like the feeling we experienced on September 11 and the days that followed when we cast aside our differences and united to stand with the victims, their families and their communities. Today, just as back then, it is a time not for politics or a time to take advantage of such a horrific turn of events to push a partisan agenda. And similarly today, just as back then, it is not a time to misdirect any blame toward anyone other than the perpetrator of this massacre. In this case, as we currently understand it, this blame belongs squarely to a single gunman who acted selfishly, brutally and without regard for human life. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that we owe sincere and heartfelt gratitude to Virginia Tech's administration, law enforcement officers, faculty and students for the way they have handled these last 3 days. Simply put, no one could have imagined this series of crimes that has risen to the level of the deadliest in U.S. history. These men and women have done their very best to respond to it. And as we witnessed at the convocation a day ago in Blacksburg, they are doing so with a deep respect and love for the campus they call home. May that spirit carry them through the difficult weeks, months and years ahead. And may we learn from their example as we tackle the challenges that we face as a Nation in the aftermath of this great tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is simple: only those legally permitted to work in the United States should be able to make a determination on union representation in their workplace. It defies logic that anyone who lives in this nation illegally--and works here illegally--is able to decide whether legal workers must join a union. But under current law, unions can obtain signatures during card check campaigns without differentiating between whether they were signed by legal or illegal workers. The Workplace Representation Integrity Act simply requires a union conducting a card check to demonstrate that any card presented for recognition be signed by a U.S. citizen or legal alien. In other words, this legislation would ensure the wishes of American citizens are not trumped by the desires of those here illegally. This measure is particularly critical because under the recently- passed, cleverly-worded Employee Free Choice Act--which I strongly oppose, I might add--the mandatory card check would become the law of the land. And, literally, it would allow union bosses to pick and choose which workers they believe they can most easily pressure into joining the union. At the front of that line may very well be those who work here illegally. These men and women are particularly prone to union intimidation and would be more likely than most to sign the authorization card out of fear. Indeed, Madam Speaker, those illegally working in this country should not be pressured into making major decisions--such as those involving unionization--that will only serve to further erode the free choice of workers who are lawfully here. Rather than eviscerate the fundamental rights of workers as the so-called Employee Free Choice Act does, the Workplace Representation Integrity Act strengthens American workers' rights. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Democrat budget resolution. A majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have rightly spoken against this budget because it includes the largest tax increase in American history. And let there be no doubt: This tax increase would destroy jobs, take more money from working families, and bring our economic growth to a screeching halt. However, I'd like to speak for a moment about a little-discussed provision in this resolution that could have significant negative consequences of its own. This resolution includes a reconciliation instruction for the Education and Labor Committee to find $75 million in savings from our mandatory programs. On its face, that seems harmless, although I think we can all agree that $75 million is hardly a serious effort at deficit reduction. After all, our committee is no stranger to this effort, having saved taxpayers some $12 billion through reconciliation in the last Congress while significantly improving the student aid programs for all our students. However, make no mistake, this instruction is not as innocent as it looks. In fact, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee recently called it a ``stalking horse for a significant expansion of spending.'' And he's absolutely correct. This small reconciliation instruction may serve to have the largest impact on the Federal student loan program in history. Simply put, the majority is trying to take advantage of the reconciliation process to jam through an expansion of the federally-run Direct Loan program--knowing that strong opposition to the expansion of this program would prohibit it from being successfully added to the Higher Education Act if its reauthorization was proceeding through regular order. The laundry list of reasons why giving the Direct Loan program a leg-up on the traditional, private-run student loan program would harm students and taxpayers alike is another discussion for another day. But let there be no mistake: This budget would allow for just that. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend the Senate Budget Committee chairman's words slightly and call this reconciliation instruction a ``Trojan horse''--because if this largely unnoticed instruction remained in place, the negative consequences on our student lending system would be almost unimaginable. The Federal Government is not meant to be a clearinghouse for college loans, and the Department of Education's ability to manage the scant 20 percent of all loans currently administered through the Direct Loan program is shaky, at best. Just think of what adding even more bureaucracy would do for the students counting on good customer service and taxpayers counting on a well-managed program. Once again, it's almost unimaginable. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat budget resolution and support the Republican substitute.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because of an abundantly flawed provision it contains. As the ranking member on the committee with jurisdiction over the Davis-Bacon Act, I am particularly concerned about the Davis-Bacon mandate in the bill before us today. I have these two basic concerns for two basic reasons: they represent both bad policy and bad process. First on process: the Education and Labor Committee, again, the committee with jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon, never formally considered the bill's Davis-Bacon provision, not in a hearing, not in a markup, not in any procedure whatsoever. Rather, a simple exchange of letters with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee rendered our committee colleagues powerless to weigh the impact of these provisions on the projects themselves, on local economies, and, indeed, on the American taxpayers. The fact that Davis-Bacon wages rates have not applied to projects funded through the Clean Water Revolving Fund since 1995, a decision made by the Clinton administration I might add, demonstrates that the change before us is not a small one and it is certainly not one that should be made without appropriate consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. The second reason for my opposition to the provisions is much more basic. It is just bad policy. By inflating labor rates, Davis-Bacon typically increases the costs of Federal projects by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent. And who ends up paying for all this? That is right, the American taxpayers. Furthermore, the costs of Davis-Bacon are particularly burdensome for small businesses. Literally, this mandate can saddle private companies with millions of dollars of excess administrative work every year, and because of economies of scale, small, locally owned businesses rarely if ever have the resources to comply with this Federal mandate. As a result, large companies are more often awarded government contracts, even for small projects. Federal law should not have a built-in bias against small businesses, and I believe this assertion is reflected by President Bush's veto threat. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure because it is bad policy and bad process.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, it defies logic that anyone who lives in this Nation illegally and works here illegally is able to decide whether legal workers must join a union. But under current law, unions can obtain signatures during card check campaigns without differentiating between whether they were signed by legal or illegal workers. This motion to recommit simply requires that the union conducting a card check demonstrates that any card presented for recognition be signed by a U.S. citizen or legal alien. This is especially important because under the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, the card check would become the law of the land, and literally it would allow union bosses to pick and choose which workers they believe can be most easily pressured into joining the union. The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is those illegally working in this country should not be pressured into making major decisions such as those involving unionization that will only serve to further erode the free choice of workers who are lawfully here. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for offering this amendment before the Rules Committee yesterday. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Any time democracy itself is placed at risk, it is the responsibility of each Member of this body to rise in strong opposition. I do so today, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Just under 4 months ago, in 435 separate elections, the men and women we represent in this Congress took part in a democratic process not unlike others that have come before it. Whether on paper ballots or by electronic voting, through absentee ballots, or at the polls on election day itself, they cast their votes and registered their voices. No one was looking over their shoulders when they did it. And unless they chose to discuss it on their own, no one needed to know for whom they cast their ballots ever. The privacy and sanctity of the secret ballot is the beauty and the backbone of this democratic process. And it is a right, not a privilege, that has become so customary that we probably have grown to take it for granted. The results of the election led to a change in the majority of this Chamber and on the other side of the building as well. And we have accepted it because we know when the ballots were cast, they were done so in a way we can all trust, privately and secretly, free from coercion. The people spoke, and as we move through this debate today, let none of us forget this: We are standing on this floor, considering this bill, and ultimately casting our votes at the end of the debate because of the power of the secret ballot. Not one voter signed a card to send us here. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information, a stack of authorization cards, a pen and a great, or possibly threatening, sales pitch. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. So here we are, amazingly, but given the agenda the new majority and the special interests that helped it get here, not surprisingly, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process enjoyed by many of the same men and women who sent us here last November. Let's be clear right at the outset. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. Even if some on the other side of the aisle would like this debate to be mischaracterized as just that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do in the exact same way they elect their President, their Representatives of Congress, their Governors, their State legislatures, their local government, that is, through a secret ballot. Think about that. So fundamental and so sacred is the right to organize that we have guaranteed and protected in through the same process we elect our Commander in Chief and the 535 men and women who hold the power of the purse. Through the last 7-plus decades, that right has remained firmly intact. And in spite of occasional and admitted difficulties for which the law has built-in safeguards, workers have relied upon it. In the 1950s, about 35 percent of all workers chose to unionize. In the early eighties, that number slipped to about 20 percent. And last year it dipped to 12 percent; and a meager 7 percent in the private sector alone. However, regardless of the percentage of workers choosing to unionize, regardless of upward or downward trends for organized labor, there has been one constant, the right to a private ballot. That is really what today's debate is all about. That right is squarely in the cross hairs, and this Chamber is about to pull the trigger. Some of us will be tempted to make this a business-versus- labor debate. Others may equate joining the union through a card check to joining the Republican or Democratic Party as if a person doesn't join one of those parties with the intention to vote in secret ballot elections that really count. And still, others may incorrectly claim that the bill before us still provides the right to a secret ballot, a myth put to rest by a Clinton-appointed National Labor Relations Board official in an Education and Labor Subcommittee hearing last month. Those are all distractions to what is really happening today. Brimming with hypocrisy and bluster, falsely defending free choice and workers rights, an untold number of duly-elected Members of the United States Congress will pull out their voting cards today, cards they are entitled to only because of a secret ballot election held less than 4 months ago and cast an historic vote against workplace democracy and against the secret ballot. Last month, I took an oath in which I solemnly swore that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Madam Chairwoman, because of that, I will not be one casting a vote in favor of this bill today. I urge my colleagues also to vote against it. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

Mr. McKEON. I am.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This debate has been exactly as we expected it would be, provocative, passionate, and, yes, quite predictable. After all, the script that was written many, many years ago by special interests chomping at the bit to see this bill come to the floor, and as we near its conclusion they won't be disappointed. They have gotten the payback they have long sought. When you strip away all the statistics, all the rhetoric, all the letters to foreign governments, and all the talking points, this debate comes down to a basic struggle between those defending democracy and those defending hypocrisy. Those opposing this bill do so because it offends the very concept of democracy itself. It undermines it in the workplace, and it turns its back on those who count on it when they expect to have their privacy protected when it matters most. On the other hand, those supporting this measure find themselves defending the staggering record of hypocrisy that card check proponents have amassed through the years. They have struggled to explain how a card check is inherently prone to intimidation some of the time, just not all of the time. They have attempted to square their self- proclaimed title of ``protectors of the working class'' with their support of a bill that strips the working class of one of its most fundamental rights of all, the right to vote. And they have grappled with their staunch support of a bill purported to safeguard free choice when it actually eviscerates it. The last point is perhaps the most important of all, and on this question, card check supporters never have had a consistent or rational answer: How exactly does this bill protect free choice? When you sign a card, everyone knows how you voted, and right away. Your co-workers, your boss, the union organizers, and the union bosses. Anyone associated with that unionization drive knows exactly how you came down on the issue. And once that vote is exposed for all the world to see, there is no turning back. And that is not free choice, not in this country, anyway. You know, we have agreed that there could be intimidation from both sides. The secret ballot is the only way to free people from any intimidation. I would like to conclude by inserting in the Record an editorial that was in The Los Angeles Times, not noted for being a conservative newspaper today. They ran an editorial titled, ``Keep Union Ballots Secret.'' Doing away with voting secrecy would give unions too much power over workers. Unions once supported the secret ballot for organization elections. They were right then and are wrong now. Unions have every right to a fair hearing, and the National Labor Relations Board should be more vigilant about attempts by employers to game the system. In the end, however, whether to unionize is up to the workers. A secret ballot ensures that their choice will be a free one. Vote against this bill today to take away that right of the workers of America. [From the Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2007] Keep Union Ballots Secret Doing away with voting secrecy would give unions too much power over workers THE HOUSE of Representatives is expected today to approve a bill, favored by organized labor, whose stated purpose is glaringly at odds with its key provision. The Employee Free Choice Act is portrayed by its supporters as a way to allow workers to choose whether to join a union. Unfortunately, the legislation would do away with a secret ballot in so-called organizing elections, making it easier for union leaders to pressure co-workers in what should be a free choice. Instead of having the option of insisting on a secret ballot election, employers would have to accept a union formed on the basis of authorization cards signed by workers--not by a secret process. Unions and their supporters in the Democratic-controlled Congress say the so-called card-check system is the only way to overcome aggressive (and sometimes illegal) anti-union tactics by employers. In announcing support for the bill, Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) complained that employers often fire workers who seek to organize. Such reprisals are illegal, and part of the Employee Free Choice Act increases the sanctions for employer violations. Unfair labor practices deserve tougher penalties. But improper influence can work both ways. As a rule, union membership improves worker prosperity and safety. Even so, the bedrock of federal labor law is not unionism under any conditions, but the right of workers to choose whether they want to affiliate with a union. Obviously, employers shouldn't punish workers for wanting to join a union, float falsehoods in trying to influence an organization election or bar union representatives from the workplace. Just as obviously, the penalties they face for doing so are laughable and need to be strengthened. By the same token, however, supporters of unionization shouldn't be able to pressure unwilling or hesitant employees to join a union. And you don't have to be a critic of unions to recognize that the card-check system invites such abuses. Unions once supported the secret ballot for organization elections. They were right then and are wrong now. Unions have every right to a fair hearing, and the National Labor Relations Board should be more vigilant about attempts by employers to game the system. In the end, however, whether to unionize is up to the workers. A secret ballot ensures that their choice will be a free one.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of her amendment. I thank her for her effort in bringing this amendment to the floor. This amendment was crafted with a simple principle in mind. If a worker wants to be free of union solicitation, he or she should have the free choice to ask not to be contacted. During our committee debate, it was said by several Members on the other side of the aisle that the men and women making union decisions are adults and should be left to make up their own minds without outside interference. I totally agree, and that is why this amendment is so important. It provides the opportunity, real free choice, the choice of whether to listen to and engage in union organizers or to tell them to leave you alone. Much like the highly popular Do Not Call list, which places the power in the consumers' hands, this amendment places the power in the workers' hands, where it should be; and I urge its adoption.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While serving in the House, our former colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood, was a tireless advocate for the right to vote through a private ballot, and he introduced this legislative language last month as the Secret Ballot Protection Act. I offer this amendment with Charlie in mind. The Secret Ballot Protection Act would insure that an employee has the right to a private ballot, free from intimidation and coercion. By contrast, the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' would take away that right and make every employee's vote completely and utterly public to everyone. A private ballot insures that no one knows who you voted, not your colleagues, not your employer, and not the union organizer. This is a fundamental democratic right our constituents enjoyed last November, and it is a fundamental democratic right that Americans have come to expect. That right should never be taken away from them, whether at a polling place, in a congressional election, or in the workplace. Polls of union members confirm that they agree that the fairest way to decide to unionize is through a secret ballot election. For example, according to a poll conducted a few years ago, 71 percent of union members agreed that the current secret ballot process is fair. And 78 percent of union members said that Congress should keep the existing secret ballot election process in place and not replace it with another process. And earlier this year, another poll was released demonstrating the same type of strong support for secret ballot elections among all Americans. 87 percent of those polled agree that ``every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union.'' And as a result, 79 percent oppose the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' The Supreme Court also agrees that a secret ballot is the best way to determine support for a union in the workplace. The 1969 Gissel Packing decision states a secret ballot election is the ``most satisfactory, indeed, preferred method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.'' Unions agree too. In fact, they have passionately insisted on a secret ballot election in decertification elections. In those instances, they called the secret ballot a ``solemn'' occasion, imperative to preserving ``privacy and independence.'' And yes, even some sponsors of the underlying bill agree, according to their now infamous 2001 letter to Mexican labor officials. In that letter, they stated very plainly that the ``secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure workers are not intimidated.'' And I couldn't agree more. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment is offered in exactly that spirit, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield at this time 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our minority whip.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the former Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, might I inquire as to the time.