Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, my colleague from the other side said that every American is guaranteed the right to organize, and that is what this legislation is about. You have a guaranteed right to organize, but when you do, very often what you find out is you do not get the right to organize on behalf of better wages or a pension plan, or holding onto your health care benefits, or the hours that you get paid at work, or the tension between your family life and work, the kinds of things that people organize for.

In many workplaces, when you exercise your right to organize, you get fired, you get intimidated, you get harassed, you get followed home, your kids get followed to school, people park their cars outside your house. Your work shift has changed, you are on the graveyard shift instead of the daytime shift. That is what you get.

What we are here about today is to redeem what has been in the law for almost 70 years, and that is the law that gives you the right to organize. It says you can either choose to go through an NLRB election or you can choose to have a majority sign-up. But then they inserted in the law many years later the right of the employer to veto that right to majority sign-up.

So what the Republicans are suggesting in their opposition to this bill is that we should take away the choice from those workers that has been in the law for 70 years. So that those people, when a majority of people in a workplace decide that they need to organize their workplace to protect their jobs, to protect their salaries, to protect their pensions, to protect their health care, that they will be able to have that organization come into being.

Today, you get harassed, you get intimidated, you get an election, and after the election, you get appeals. And you get endless bargaining that in our

own State of California, people have been waiting 7, 8, 9 years for a union that they won in an election. Apparently the secret ballot isn't enough to win your full share of democracy, and has not been enough for millions of workers across this country.

So this legislation is very simple, it is only eight pages long. It says the worker gets to choose. That is the basis of American labor law. It is up to the employees to choose their organization and to choose how they want to arrive at that organization. They can choose an NLRB election or they can choose a card check majority sign-up. And we are simply saying, let the law work. Let the employees have the choice. And stop the illegal intimidation of workers.

This last year, 30,000 workers had their pay restored to them because illegal actions were taken against them by employers because those workers did nothing else than exercise what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle spoke to, the right in America to organize. But 30,000 workers lost pay, lost hours at work, got fired. All of those things happened to them. And the year before it was 20,000, 20,000 and 20,000.

This has gone on far too long. It is time to empower the employees to make this choice about their workplace.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate.

At a time when the middle class standard of living in America for millions of Americans is at greater risk than at any time in recent history, at a time when people see employers arbitrarily terminating their pensions, freezing their pensions, shifting the cost of their health insurance, cutting the benefits under health insurance; at a time when they see that they have no new money to take home in their wages, that their wages have been flat;

at a time when CEOs are awarding themselves golden handshakes, golden parachutes, and golden hellos, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, at that time at that moment we have an opportunity here to redeem a provision of the law which has been in the law for 70 years to simply give the workers a choice. They can choose an NLRB election, or they can choose a majority signoff.

That is a simple choice that these adults in the workplace can make. It is a choice that was given to them 70 years ago, and it was a choice that later was taken away by a veto of the employer.

Imagine, a majority of the Americans get together and they do something and one person gets to veto it. One person gets to veto it in the workplace. Think of what the relationship is between that employer and those employees. Think about how those employees must have felt that they needed to organize in the workplace, because employees know that they do if they are going to stop the trend and the bleeding that they see today, against the benefits that they have at their workplace, against their salaries, against their hours at work, against their right to a retirement nest egg that means something.

Every day you pick up the business journals of this country and you read where again another employer has terminated a pension, has restricted the pension, won't pay into the pension, puts the pensions into bankruptcy. You want to know why people need card checks? People need card checks so they can have the freedom of choice to choose do they want an election, do they want a card check. It is in the National Labor Relations Act today, it is the law, but for the veto, the veto of the employer.

How more arbitrary can you possibly get that a single employer could override the desires of a majority of the employees in its workplace? How more arbitrary can you get? It is the same arbitrariness those employers show when they cut your health care benefits and your pensions and your retirements without any say by the employees, without any negotiations. That is why millions of Americans want representation at work, so that they can have a voice in that workplace, they can have a voice in their future, they can have a voice in whether or not they are going to be able to buy a home, buy a car, educate their children, have a health care policy that they can afford that will be there when they need it.

That is what this is really about. This is about whether or not we are going to strengthen and help maintain and grow the middle class in this country. Because it is not happening under the arbitrary policies that are imposed on workers today by their employers. This Employee Free Choice Act gives the workers that choice, the choice that is currently in the law.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation when it comes time for passage. Again, I thank all my colleagues for participating in this debate, I thank the Chair for the courtesy they have shown both sides.

Madam Chairman, We all know that workers in the U.S. are among the most productive workers in the world. Yet for far too long, they have not been reaping the benefits of their hard work.

For years and years now, many workers have found themselves working harder and harder just to stay in place. And many more have been losing ground financially despite their work.

This is troubling enough on its own. But what makes it even more troubling is that, over the last several years, our economy has been growing. The stock market is doing well. Corporate profits are high.

Consider the facts.

Since 2001, median household income has fallen by $1,300. Wages and salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades.

The number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 million since 2001, to 46.6 million, a shocking record high.

The number of Fortune 1000 companies that have frozen or terminated their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001.

Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 4 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the poor since 2001.

And meanwhile, corporate profits make up their largest share of the economy since the 1960s.

Madam Chairman, there are a lot of explanations for the growing inequality in our economy. Congress' failure to raise the minimum wage for 10 long years is an obvious example. But perhaps the most significant explanation is that workers' rights to join together and bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been severely undermined.

Today, when workers want to form a union, their employers can force them to undergo a National Labor Relations Board election process. That process is broken, because it allows irresponsible employers to harass, coerce, intimidate, reassign, and even fire workers who support a union.

Take the example of Ivo Camilo. Mr. Camilo is from Sacramento, not far from my district. For 35 years, he worked at a Blue Diamond Growers plant in Sacramento. In 2004, he and several dozen coworkers sought to form a union. For that, Mr. Camilo was fired. After 35 years of service, Blue Diamond tossed Mr. Camilo out on the street, just because he wanted a union.

The same thing happened to Keith Ludlum when he supported union representation for him and his coworkers at a Smithfield foods plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Mr. Ludlum, a veteran of the first Gulf War, was fired in 1994 because he wanted a union. It took him 12 years of litigation to get his job back.

What happened to Mr. Camilo and Mr. Ludlum happens with distressing frequency in this country. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were receiving back pay from employers that had committed unfair labor violations.

Earlier this year, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that employers fire one in five workers who actively advocate for a union. A December 2005 study by American Rights at Work found that 49 percent of employers studied had threatened to close or relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a union.

And Human Rights Watch has said, ``[F]reedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.''

Corporate executives routinely negotiate lavish compensation packages on their own behalfs, but then they deny their own employees the ability to bargain for a better life.

This debate is about restoring workers' ability to choose for themselves whether or not they want a union. To make that happen, the Employee Free Choice Act does three things.

First, it says that when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, they get a union. The legislation requires the National Labor Relations Board to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.

The legislation does not take away workers' ability to have a National Labor Relations Board election instead of majority sign-up if that's what they want. It gives them the choice. If 30 percent sign cards saying they want a union and petition the Board for an election, they get an election. But, if a majority of workers sign cards saying they want a union and they want recognition now, they get a union.

This majority sign-up is not a new idea. Under current law, when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, then they can have a union if their employer consents to it. But instead of consenting, employers often reject the employees' choice and force them through an NLRB election process that is dramatically tilted in the employer's favor. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take this veto power away from employers. Under current law, it's the employer's choice that matters. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employees' choice that matters.

Majority sign-up has a proven track record for reducing coercion and intimidation. In cases where responsible employers, like Cingular Wireless, have permitted their employees to form a union through majority sign-up, both sides have praised the process for increasing cooperation and decreasing tension.

Second, the legislation increases penalties against employers who fire or discriminate against workers for their efforts to form a union or obtain a first contract.

Under current law the National Labor Relations Board is required to seek a federal court injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act.

Under this legislation, the Board must seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first contract drive. The legislation authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief.

Employers found to have discharged or discriminated against employees during an organizing campaign or first contract drive must pay those workers three times back pay, instead of the simple back pay required under current law. Employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during

an organizing campaign or first contract drive would receive civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation.

Under current law, remedies are limited solely to make whole remedies: back pay (minus any additional interim wages the employee did or should have earned), reinstatement, and notice that the employer will not engage in violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Many employers conclude that, even if caught, it is financially advantageous to violate the law and pay the penalties rather than to comply.

And third, the legislation provides for mediation if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days. After 30 days of mediation the dispute would be referred to binding arbitration. Under current law, employers have a duty to bargain in good faith, but are under no obligation to reach agreement. As a result, a recent study found that 34 percent of union election victories had not resulted in a first contract.

Madam Chairman, we have heard a lot of shamefully misleading claims from the critics of this bill. Those critics claim that they have workers' best interests at heart, and that they are trying to protect democracy.

Yet their claims are belied by the fact that some of the nation's leading workers' rights and prodemocracy organizations support this bill, including Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Worker Justice, and the Drum Major Institute--among many, many others.

These are organizations that are dedicated to the mission of improving the lives of American workers. I can tell you that if this bill would do the kind of harm that its critics claim it would, then these respected organizations would not be supporting it today.

I want to close by just reminding people how much is at stake here.

We can continue on our nation's current path, where our society grows more and more unequal and polarized. If we stay on the same path, then our middle class will keep getting squeezed, and will struggle to pay for just the basic necessities of life, like housing, healthcare, education, and transportation.

We can stay on that path, or we can go in a new direction. We can ensure that every American worker gets his or her fair share of the benefits of a growing economy.

To strengthen America's middle class, we have got to restore workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

After all, union workers earn 30 percent more, on average, than non- union workers. They are much more likely to have retirement and health benefits and paid time off.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 800 so that we can finally start to reverse the middle class squeeze and create an economy that benefits all Americans.

Madam Chairwoman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey has explained this quite correctly. This allows you, because of your membership in a union, to be discriminated against in the employment.

The actions that the gentleman says that he wouldn't like to have take place are actions that are already illegal under the law. You don't get to disrupt the workplace. You don't get to engage in those kinds of activities, and that's the way the law is written.

This is just simply a broad discriminatory practice against the employment, or it allows the nonemployment of individuals who are members of the union. At very best, under the best interpretation, what this employee would buy themselves if they go to seek a job is they would get themselves a lawsuit. They would have to sue for the right to be employed in a workplace.

You know, a job today in America is not a luxury; it is a necessity. This is just part of the harassment of individuals who believe in the organization of the workplace. This is just one more of the harassment, and now they want to put this one into the statutes of the United States.

We should vote against this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and to this rule. The bill we are scheduled to debate today, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, represents what I believe is the worst piece of legislation I have come across in 20-plus years of public service.

What is wrong with it, let me count the ways.

Number one, it undermines the secret ballot process in the workplace, a process all of us in this House rely upon, treasure, and would fight to defend when it comes to our own political careers, but apparently for some, not when it comes to the rights of workers.

Number two, it leaves workers wide open to coercion and intimidation from those seeking to organize in the workplace. In an Education and Labor Subcommittee hearing last month, a former union organizer described such coercion through a practice organizers call a ``blitz.'' In a blitz, organizers go directly to the homes of workers to get them to sign an authorization card. And how do they find out where these workers live? From license plates and other sources that were used to create a master list.

According to this witness: ``Workers usually have no idea that there is a union campaign under way. Organizers are taught to play upon this element of surprise to get `into the door.' ''

Number three, it strips workers of their right to privacy in organizing elections and makes their votes completely and utterly public so their co-workers, their employers, and union officials know exactly how they voted.

Number four, not only does it strip workers of their right to vote in organizing elections, but it also strips away their right to vote on contracts as well. Instead, that right is given to a third-party mediator.

Number five, it levies civil penalties upon employers if they coerce an employee during a card check campaign. However, the bill remains silent on coercion from unions, looking the other way and providing tacit approval for such intimidation.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, I can go on and on. In short, this bill is not only undemocratic; it is dangerous. And I will be proud to manage time in opposition to it in just a short while.

When I think about how important secret ballot is, I remember when I first learned about it in grammar school. When we would elect our class officers, we put our heads down on our desk and raised our hand for the person we were supporting because it was important then, just as it is important now, that when we vote, no one knows how we vote.

From those days in elementary school until now, having been elected many times to office, I prize the importance of that secret ballot. And I prize that secret ballot for the workers that are facing intimidation, the possible intimidation from either side, from labor or from management. They should be free of that, and the only way they can be free of that is secret ballot and that is what we are trying to preserve for them at this time.

Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee in support of several amendments that would have made this debate as fair, open, and robust as possible. While I am pleased that they made in order my substitute amendment, this rule before us still is harsh and one that will stifle debate.

Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to strengthen this debate and address head-on the many flaws of the underlying legislation, but we were denied that opportunity; and as such, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank her for her great work in shepherding this bill along.

I deeply respect the ranking member of the full committee, and I know his intentions are very sincere, but I think the Members of the House deserve a record that is accurate. Let me review the five points that he made and set forth what the bill actually says.

The gentleman says that the bill does away with secret ballots. That is not the case.

If those choosing to organize a union wish to have a secret ballot, they can follow the same procedure that is in the law now: get 30 percent-plus to sign a petition for a secret ballot, and have one.

The gentleman says that the bill legalizes coercion by unions. That is not the case.

Coercion by a union against a worker is and still will be an unfair labor practice. The bill says if a signature is acquired by coercion and is involuntary, it is not presumably going to be a valid signature and therefore does not count.

The gentleman says that the bill takes away the right of privacy from workers. Not so.

The same process essentially by which people sign petitions under the present law, they would sign cards under the new bill. Perhaps the gentleman should be more concerned about the loss of privacy of workers during campaigns by employers to coerce and intimidate people to vote against the union.

The gentleman says the bill takes away the right to vote on contracts. Absolutely not so.

What the bill says is if there is not an agreement for a contract between management and labor, after negotiation, after mediation, then and only then there would be arbitration. It does not take away the right to vote on contracts.

Finally, the gentleman says that penalties are somehow out of balance, but I think the gentleman respectfully misunderstands.

If in a union-organizing drive the unions are found to have coerced people into signing cards, the cards are invalid and it is the death penalty for the union because they lose the organizing drive. That is the most significant penalty there can be.

We are all entitled to our own opinion; we are not entitled to our own facts.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a strong voice for American workers, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Section 6 of the bill makes it clear that if a card is invalid, it will not be counted, and an employee who asks for his or her card back clearly would be an invalid card.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a gentleman who has run a successful small business.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the subcommittee who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of years.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman's point about small business.

The minority was given and has taken advantage of a full substitute here. If the minority had chosen to include the provision in the substitute, it was in their prerogative. They failed to do so.

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a strong voice for working people in this country.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a new Member of Congress who speaks with authority on this issue and many others.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure at this time to yield to someone who has walked in the shoes of the people who will be best helped by this act, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to an individual who has turned the direction of this institution and the country towards the forgotten middle class, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, this bill has the potential, I believe, to do great good for the working people in this country. I believe it has the potential to reenergize the middle class of our country. But I believe the opponents of the bill have grossly overstated the severity and magnitude of the changes that are proposed.

We repeatedly hear the phrase that we are ``doing away with the secret ballot.'' This is false. The bill sets up two mechanisms for people to organize and join a union. The first is to get a majority of those eligible in the bargaining unit to sign a card, at which time there will be an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. It will determine the validity or invalidity of the cards. If the board determines that a majority of the bargaining unit has signed a valid card, then there is a union recognized.

There is one key difference between this provision in the bill and the law under which we have lived for the last 6 decades-plus. We have had the majority sign-up procedure for more than 60 years, but present law says even if a majority sign valid cards, the employer can arbitrarily veto that choice of a majority. This bill transfers the power from the employer's veto to the employees' majority.

Secondly, if the employees instead wish to organize by pursuing the election path, by getting at least 30 percent to manifest their intention to have an election, then there is an election. It is very important, and we have heard different points about who the union leadership is.

In my district, I will tell you who the union leadership is. They coach baseball teams. They read the epistle at mass. They volunteer in fire companies. They sign up and recruit people for the United Way. They are the first people to show up if there is a fire or a flood. They are the hardworking, basic core of this country.

I know there have been instances of intimidation on both sides, but it is important we look at the record. A group that is strongly opposed to this bill scoured over 60 years of court cases, and in those 60 years, they could find only 42 examples which they chose to highlight where there was a finding of coercion by a union person in an organizing job.

By contrast, in 2005, more than 31,000 workers in 1 year were awarded back pay because it was found that their rights had been violated. Yes, there is coercion on both sides, but the record shows that the coercion has been disproportionately on the management side. That is why this leveling of the playing field is needed.

This bill replaces the employer's arbitrary veto with a valid expression of majority will. It does not eliminate the secret ballot. It eliminates the systemic coercion under which we live today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, since we have only one speaker at this point, I would reserve my time. I will tell my friend that the majority leader is en route to the floor. We are waiting for him as well, but we simply have the majority leader and the chairman of the full committee left on our side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I will yield to the majority leader, yes.

Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House who has brought this consequential legislation to the floor, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very proactive Member from Texas, my friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

I am pleased to yield at this time to the new Member from Ohio who knows these issues very well, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Wilson) 1 minute.

With the indulgence of the minority, which we appreciate, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee whose expertise is matched only by her passion in this area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to someone whose diligent efforts are about to pay off with a victory on this vote, the chairman of our committee, the author of the bill, our friend from California, Mr. Miller.

Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Chair, can the gentleman reserve the balance of his time?

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I oppose the amendment. First of all, let's make it very clear that salting, the practice the gentleman addresses, is legal. What is not legal are disruptive practices if one is working for an employer, as they should be illegal.

The gentleman's amendment frankly offers a breathtaking introduction of a discriminatory practice in the statutes of the country. If I read the amendment correctly, an employer could refuse to hire someone simply because someone is in a union. So let's think about the facts that would be involved here.

Let's say a person works part-time for a grocery store, and as a part-time worker they become a member of the union at the grocery store.

Then they go to apply for a job at a telecommunications company. As I read the amendment, the telecommunications company could refuse to hire the individual who worked in the grocery store, who is a member of the union, simply because the person was a member of a union.

This is a remarkable precedent. It basically suggests that by being a member of an organization, you subject yourself to discrimination. I think if the gentleman would think about someone else's ox being gored, he would understand what's wrong with this.

If an employer said we won't hire someone because you have been in the chamber of commerce, you have a pro-business attitude, we would be offended by that. If someone said we are not going to hire you because you have been in the National Rifle Association, we think there is something wrong with that, I think we would be offended by that.

There is no functional difference between what the gentleman is proposing and those discriminatory scenarios. The purpose of our law is to prohibit discrimination, not sanctify it. I believe that this would be a breathtaking departure from the tradition of American law where we discourage discrimination rather than make it a part of our statutes.

Salting is legal. Disruptive behavior is illegal. It stays ``illegal'' under the bill before us. But if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, discrimination against someone simply because the organization he or she is a part of, would become legal. That is a very, very unwise policy.

I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from Indiana, I would ask if I have in any way misstated the amendment, that what I say about the amendment, is it accurate or inaccurate?

Madam Chairwoman, I yield to my friend from Indiana if he cares to answer. Is my characterization accurate?

I am yielding to the gentleman from Indiana who made the point.

I think my characterization is accurate.

Madam Chairwoman, we reserve the balance of our time.

I would ask the gentleman if he has further speakers. We will reserve our right to close debate on the amendment.

We would continue to reserve our time.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. It is unfair, and I believe it is unconstitutional, and it should be opposed.

If there are practices where union employees are coercing workers to sign cards or sign a petition, those practices are illegal and will remain illegal after this bill is passed. Under section 6 of this bill, if there are circumstances where union organizers are coercing or intimidating people to try to get them to sign a card or cards, the labor board would presumably find those efforts to be invalid, and the card would be invalid, so the amendment is unnecessary.

It is unfair in this respect. It is rather remarkable, the ranking member of the full committee just talked about adults being able to protect themselves against certain circumstances. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from going to one-on-one meetings with their supervisors. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from being forced to attend captive meetings where their employer has all the say and the union has none of the say.

I see no amendment that indicates there would be a strengthening of protection against firing people during an organizing drive for which there is a strong record that this is happening on a regular basis.

I further believe the amendment is probably unconstitutional. The amendment says that it outlaws efforts to ``communicate with individuals with respect to questions of representation.'' As I read this, if the union took an ad in a newspaper that encouraged people to sign a card and join a union, that is an attempt to communicate with an individual about the question of union representation.

We have a principle and constitutional interpretation in this country, where overly broad prohibitions against speech are presumptively invalid. This is an overly broad, and, I believe, presumptively invalid prohibition against free speech.

The amendment is unnecessary, it is unfair, it is unconstitutional. It should be defeated.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and, once again, point out that a group that is opposed to this bill has scoured the record and over 60 years of history has found only 42 instances of illegal behavior by union organizers.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the amendment to the chairman of the committee.

Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished manager and I thank the distinguished speaker, and as well, George Miller, the chairman of the Education Committee, for his statement he made just a few weeks ago, how he had seen an absence of recognition of middle class workers in America being addressed in his committee and he was going to address it.

I want my friends to know that the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of association. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act does in H.R. 800.

Let me thank the president of my local union AFL-CIO, Mr. Wortham, the Secretary/Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Shaw and SEIU because I want them to know that my presence with them in the janitorial organizational effort over the last couple of weeks reinforced the importance of this Employee Free Choice Act.

My standing with the old PACE union in front of energy refineries years ago reinforces the need of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a simple process. All it does is it allows individuals to form unions and to engage in collective bargainig. Without this protection, many union organizers and members would be fired.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I ask that this legislation be supported, because middle-class working America deserves this protection.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support, and as a proud co- sponsor of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). I support this bill because despite several years of economic growth and high corporate profits, middle- and working-class families like the ones I represent in Houston have actually lost ground. They are squeezed between shrinking or stagnating incomes and rising costs for the basic necessities of modern life such as education, health care, transportation, food, and housing. One of the most effective and practical ways of reversing this undesirable trend is to restore the freedom of workers to join together to bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Madam Chairman, on average, workers who belong to a union earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. Members of unions, on average, receive 15 days of paid vacation annually, which is almost 50 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Union members also fare better when it comes to health care: 80 percent of union members have employer-provided health care; only 49 percent of non-union workers have the same benefit. And, perhaps most important of all, workers who belong to a union earn on average 30 percent more than nonunion workers.

Madam Chairman, no group or association deserves more credit than organized labor and the trade union movement for the creation and rise of the American middle class, the 5-day work week, the 40-hour work week, the existence of employee pension plans, and many of the other employment benefits which we take for granted today.

The right to form a union is a fundamental human right and an essential element of a free and democratic society. But today, the right to organize and bargain collectively, protections that the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 to protect, have been so weakened that immediate action is needed to restore them.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935 to protect the rights of workers to join unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. Unfortunately, over the years these rights have been dramatically eroded because of aggressive and intimidating employer anti-union campaigns, ineffective NLRA penalties for employers who violate worker rights, and lengthy employer appeals of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases in the courts. As a result, it is now increasingly uncommon for workers to successfully organize by going through an NLRB-conducted election. When workers do choose to be represented by a union, moreover, employers use a variety of legal and illegal tactics to keep the union from obtaining a first contract.

H.R. 800 will help restore the worker protections in the NLRA by: (1) requiring employers to bargain with a union when a majority of workers sign valid authorization cards; (2) providing for mediation and arbitration for a first contract; and (3) increasing penalties for employer violations of the NLRA. I support each of these provisions.

Majority sign-up

Madam Chairman, a large and growing percentage of employers either take advantage of loopholes in the NLRA or simply violate the NLRA to spy on, harass, threaten, intimidate, suspend, fire, deport, and otherwise victimize workers who attempt to exercise their right to act collectively through a union. According to a highly respected Cornell University survey, 36 percent of workers who vote ``no'' in union representation elections explain their vote as a response to employer pressure.

This statistic is not surprising given the intensity of employer anti-union campaigns. According to the Cornell survey, employers illegally fire at least one worker in 25 percent of all organizing campaigns. And 92 percent of employers make their employees attend ``captive audience'' meetings, where they are required to sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations. (Union supporters are given no opportunity to speak.) Also, 78 percent of employers hold repeated closed-door, ``one-on-one'' meetings with workers, which are very intimidating to most employees. In the manufacturing sector, over 75 percent of companies threaten or ``predict'' the workplace will close or move if workers vote for the union.

EFCA requires employers to recognize and bargain with unions when a majority of workers have signed valid authorization cards. With majority sign-up, workers are able to decide for themselves whether they want to form a union, free from the assault of an intimidating employer anti-union campaign, which is generally triggered at the moment a union files a representation petition with the NLRB.

Mediation and arbitration

Madam Chairman, when workers do manage to get over the obstacles to forming a union, they often face employer resistance to negotiating a first contract. With the use of anti-union consultants, delay, and the inadequacies of the NLRA, many employers drag out negotiations for a first contract until one year passes, at which time employees who were active in the ``vote no'' committee file a petition to decertify the union. In fact, 32 percent of workers who demonstrate majority support for union representation lack a collective bargaining agreement one year later. Without a contract as a bar, the decertification often goes forward and the union--seen as weak and ineffective--is frequently voted out.

EFCA provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute is referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration are binding on the parties for 2 years. The time limits may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.

Stiffer penalties for Employer Violations

Madam Chairman, the NLRA has woefully inadequate remedies for employer violations. There are no punitive damages. There are no provisions for repeat violators, as there are under the Occupational Safety and Health Act or the Environmental Protection Act. And the limited back pay penalty is so weak that it is in the economic interest of most employers to fire key union supporters to chill an organizing drive.

To rectify this situation, the third prong of EFCA would strengthen the penalties for certain employer violations of the NLRA during an organizing drive or negotiations for a first contract. Specifically, it would: (1) require the NLRB to seek a federal court injunction whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has illegally discharged an employee or otherwise engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights; (2) provide for triple back pay when an employee is illegally discharged or discriminated against, and (3) provide for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights.

Madam Chairman, these are modest and reasonable but necessary protections if the fundamental right to organize is to be preserved. It is difficult to understand how anyone could be opposed to such sensible legislation. But opponents of H.R. 800 have launched a major campaign to derail the bill. As discussed below, there is little or no merit to any of the major claims being raised to scare and intimidate supporters of the bill.

The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board's ``secret ballot'' election process. That process will still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply provides an alternative means for workers to form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice--whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up--a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.

The Employee Free Choice Act will not result in intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers. Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drops when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. But more importantly, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study covering a period of more than 60 years, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases involving allegations of union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. A careful examination of those cases, however, revealed that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.

Contrary to the claims of opponents, the Employee Free Choice Act does not require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union. Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.

The Employee Free Choice Act does not require ``public'' union card signings. Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law.

The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity.

Madam Chairman, opponents of H.R. 800 claim the bill is hypocritical because some of its sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States. This is a short horse soon curried. Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers there were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with a real, independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this; it requires an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing--particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union.

All in all, Madam Chairman, H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, is good for working- and middle-class families and that means it is good for America. Adopting this legislation is another step in the right direction for our country. A new and better direction is what Americans voted for last November. By supporting H.R. 800, as I do strongly, we are delivering on our promise to the American people.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for consideration of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, under a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I am so honored to be here to talk about this rule and this bill. There is no fear quite like the fear of losing your job. It is paralyzing, because to fear for your job is to fear for your family, for their well-being and for your ability to provide for them.

I know this fear because I have seen it on the faces of the people who help to make our world turn, the workers who struggle every day to do the jobs we could not live without.

Before I was elected to Congress, I had the honor to serve as an attorney representing many of those workers. And Madam Speaker, when you work as a labor lawyer, unfortunately, often you see people with that fear in their eyes. They come to you because their jobs are being threatened, or worse, because they have been wrongfully terminated because they were attempting to organize a union or promote union activity to improve their lives and the lives of their coworkers.

But it doesn't have to be this way. In this country, employees who actively promote union organizing have a 1-in-5 chance of getting fired for their activities. Every 23 minutes, a United States worker is retaliated against for their support of a union.

In 1958, about 1,000 workers received back-pay awards because their employers violated labor organizing laws. In 2005, over 31,000 workers received back-pay awards.

It is a common tactic of those who oppose workers' rights to cast those who support them as relics of another era. They speak of unions as entities

that were necessary remedies for abuses of a different time, and then they point to the dwindling union membership as evidence that organizing is no longer needed.

But smaller union rolls are a symptom of a larger disease, not evidence of a cure.

The quality of life we know in this Nation was built on the back of the American labor movement. More than half of the United States workforce says they would join a union right now if they could, yet only 12 percent of them are in one.

Less people are joining labor unions, not because less people want to be a part of them; less people are joining labor unions because far too often irresponsible employers have perfected coercive tactics to fight their creation.

Imagine if tomorrow you are taken into a room with your supervisor who sits you down and tells you, if you support organizing a union and the union wins, your business will close down. And then your boss tells you, if the union doesn't win, you will be fired anyway.

The situation is not hypothetical. Research shows us that these threats and intimidation tactics are used to inhibit union organization. It sure may be illegal to fire an employee for voting in support of a union, but it is done anyway. And as things stand today, there are no real repercussions for doing so, because there are no fines or civil penalties for breaking the law.

Let me tell you about a journeyman welder from Northeast Ohio and what he and his family have endured, all because he and others where he worked tried to form a union. His name is Dave, and the company he worked for was intent on keeping the union out. And as you will learn, the company was willing to go to extraordinary and egregious lengths to do it.

So what happened to Dave? Since he began his efforts to help organize, he has been relegated to picking up cigarette butts at company headquarters instead of plying his skill in the field in an attempt to humiliate him.

He has been singled out at captive audience meetings with verbal abuse by his employer that was so bad that Dave feared it would get violent. He has had supervisors make physically threatening remarks to him while he was in inherently vulnerable positions working in the field. And in a particularly reprehensible action, Dave's wife has been targeted for harassment that escalated to such a point that she was hospitalized, all to keep the union out.

There is one thing that is clear, these tactics work. They are effective in suppressing the creation of unions, but they are not acceptable and they must stop.

The Employee Free Choice Act establishes real penalties for employee intimidation by increasing the back-pay award when a worker is fired or illegally discriminated against. It also provides for civil penalties for willful or repeated violations. It will act as a disincentive for such egregious behavior.

Furthermore, this legislation allows employees to unionize when a majority of workers sign cards in support of organizing, and forces the NLRB to recognize that union as a bargaining entity without giving the employer the opportunity to unilaterally veto that decision and demand an election that offers an opportunity for coercion and manipulation.

This bill also continues to give employees the choice to form a union through a traditional secret ballot election as current law does.

Now, let's be clear. It does not eliminate the opportunity for employees to have a secret ballot election. It simply eliminates the opportunity for an employer to require an election by secret ballot after employees have already voted for union representation through their chosen route of card check.

Another important aspect of this bill is that it requires the NLRB to step in and stop illegal behavior when it is happening.

And finally, and equally important, this legislation provides a path towards binding arbitration for first contracts. Right now, in 34 percent of cases a first contract is not reached, they are dragged out with the hopes of employees giving up and disbanding the union.

This law pushes both sides to bargain in good faith. And that is really where we should be going; a world where both employers and employees approach the table with an intention to make a good faith attempt to come to an agreement.

The old paradigms do not need to exist as they once did. I have witnessed partnerships between giants of industry and the workers on the line that have enabled businesses to thrive.

Lessons can be learned from situations where employers have respected their employees' stated desire to form a union through the majority card signing method. Companies like Kaiser Permanente and Cingular. Veering away from anti-union tactics, these employers have focused on and enjoyed success working with their employees, not against them.

Cingular has not stood in the way of its employees forming unions, and the model they have committed to has not stopped them from becoming the Nation's top cell phone carrier.

It doesn't have to be an either/or process, but it does have to be a fair process. And that is what this bill will accomplish.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield, I would like to remind the gentleman from Texas that this does not eliminate the right of employees to have a secret ballot. They still have that choice. It simply eliminates the practice of employers superseding the employees' will by requiring them to submit to a secret ballot election.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman, the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the honorable gentleman from Texas, I would just like to point out to my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee that the sanctity of the secret ballot is preserved in this bill. We have said it before, but the option for employees to have a secret ballot remains. The difference is just that under this bill, the employees cannot be forced by an employer after they have expressed their desire to form a union to submit to a secret ballot to drag things out.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, we have made it clear this morning why passing this bipartisan Employee Free Choice Act is so vital for workers and their families all across this Nation.

Let me add that it is also important to the working families like the one I come from in Lorain, Akron, Barberton and other communities in my congressional district and all across Ohio.

I stand before you as a person who practiced labor law but I also stand before you as a person, a daughter of a man who worked in the boilermaker factory his whole life, the wife of a former firefighter, the sister of a teacher, the aunt of a united food and commercial worker, the sister of a steelworker.

This bill is about fairness for those who make the world turn, who provide for their families, who are good citizens that care about their communities.

The EFCA will help end years of discrimination against workers who simply wish to be able to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. We have a moral responsibility to stand up for these workers, and I will not sit idly by while their fundamental rights are being trampled on.

For working families in Ohio and across this Nation, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.