[TIME: 1210]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to address the open-rule situation. Three separate committees held hearings on the markups in this session of Congress and the last session as well. There was ample opportunity for Members to voice their concerns.

The Rules Committee received a total of seven amendments to H.R. 5. Two of those amendments were withdrawn. That leaves five. Two were made in order, and of the remaining three, two were nongermane. The Hayes amendment and the Weldon amendment were not germane to the bill. So, many of the issues raised in the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were addressed in the two amendments that were finally made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].

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

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 195.

H.R. 5, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act, is among the most important bills that this Congress will consider. The disposition of this legislation will have a significant impact upon the rights of American workers. While I will oppose amendments to this legislation, this is a fair rule. It enables the House to consider alternatives to the bill as

reported by committee. This rule also preserves the right of those who oppose the legislation to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, this rule ensures that the House will consider the subject before it, and will not be sidetracked by irrelevant issues that have received no previous considerations, in committee or otherwise.

H.R. 5 restores balance to our labor laws. It ensures Americans will have a meaningful right to strike, not simply a right to be permanently replaced. Far from tipping the scales in favor of workers, this legislation preserves the right of employers to seek to continue operations during labor disputes including the right to hire replacement workers. This legislation does provide, however, that employers may not discriminate against their regular work force, in favor of replacement workers, because a worker has exercised his or her right to honor a picket line.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intent, as the author of this legislation, to restore a degree of economic security to American workers. Contrary to the assertions of opponents, this legislation also improves the economic security of the country as a whole. If this Nation intends to prosper in the future, we can no longer tolerate a policy that both encourages employers to promote labor disputes and turns such disputes into an economic life or death battle for both workers and employers. We must encourage cooperation between labor and management. Such cooperation cannot be bought at gunpoint, but must be based upon a mutual recognition of and respect for the common interests of both labor and management. The permanent replacement of striking workers is the equivalent of a nuclear first strike. One side is encouraged to believe that it will prevail by wiping out the other side. In fact, both sides lose. It is time to end this insane practice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this legislation without further amendment.

[Page: H3521]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, simply to respond to the statement of Chairman Moakley by saying that, yes, it is true that there are alternatives that are allowed for consideration under this rule. But the fact of the matter is, as I said in my opening statement, that there are 435 Members of this House. There are three committees that were involved in this process. It seems to me that there are other Members who would like to have a chance to have their ideas considered here on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL, Mr. Goss, one of the hardest-working members of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.

This rule will allow consideration of H.R. 5, legislation that is variously known as auto-strike or the pushbutton strike bill. Quite frankly, this legislation is a blatant bid to increase union membership at the expense of American business. I find it ironic that this legislation--newly titled the `Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act'--comes to the floor of the House not 1 week after an Arizona jury found the United Farm Workers guilty of using illegal tactics during a boycott of a grower. The Arizona jury took less than a day to award the plaintiff almost $3 million in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

H.R. 5 will prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacement workers in the event of an economic strike. I find it very hard to reconcile the administration's statement that this bill `will stimulate productivity and international competitiveness' with the fact that business suffers from a loss of productivity whether it hires temporary or permanent replacement workers. Yesterday, proponents of this legislation were unable to give specifics about benefits the business community will enjoy.

On the contrary, H.R. 5 is yet another signal that American business can expect decreased productivity, smaller profits and more strikes. This legislation would tip the delicate scales of labor-management relations in favor of labor. For the past 53 years, the workers of this country have improved their status immensely, hastening the decline of unions. Union membership has reached an all-time low. In 1992, only 11.5 percent of the private sector and 36.7 percent of the public sector were unionized.

While organized labor would have you believe that the United States is the only industrialized nation that allows the use of permanent replacement workers, this is false. Seven countries, including Hong Kong, clearly permit the use of permanent replacements. Canada and Germany, two countries with traditionally prounion labor laws, impose restrictions to protect businesses from being crippled.

H.R. 5 would effectively eliminate any incentive a worker has not to strike. In fact, this legislation would reverse the incentives, workers will increase their demands and the negotiation process will be less attractive.

American business is strong, but we are hitting our productivity broadside. The private sector is being bombarded by Congress--first the Family and Medical Leave Act, now the strikebreaker replacement bill, and next--health care reform. Market investments are getting riskier and riskier and it is American prosperity that ends up losing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this legislation. There are other options. We heard them in the Rules Committee. There are other choices that have not been made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule and a `no' vote on the legislation.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the defender of the workingman in the Congress.

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

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, under current law, a company could be downright un-American and unreasonable, with the direct intent being to rile its work force, force them to go out on strike, and then replace them permanently.

I want to commend Chairman Clay and the committee for taking a look at the last and only weapon an American worker has in our society. It is a word we fear, but it is a most important term dealing with rights. It is called strike. When you take away a worker's right to strike, you take away that worker's right, under our Constitution, to participate in the fabric place of America.

[TIME: 1220]

My colleagues, H.R. 5 does not stop companies from hiring replacement workers. H.R. 5 says if they have come to an impasse and, in fact, a worker exercises that severe tool, right they have, that they can still go on, they can still function.

But what H.R. 5 says is, they cannot intimidate, coerce, pressure people to go on strike for the purpose of getting rid of them permanently.

If Congress does anything today to help the American worker, they will insulate the only right they have in our workplace. This is a bigger bill than many Members have talked about. Again, I commend the committee, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]. I would hope that we would support the bill.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Bradenton, FL, Mr. Miller, a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and our debate that we will go through this afternoon will indicate the problems with this bill. I have advocated its defeat.

This is a direct effort to gut right-to-work State laws and increase union membership, because the numbers are vanishing. Union membership has dropped to only 11 percent of the work force.

There are currently 21 States that have right-to-work laws. This means it should be an easy vote for those from right-to-work States, because Members will have their choice to either vote for their constituents or vote for special interests.

I keep hearing it is going to be a difficult vote. I do not understand why, but I think I do know why. If we look at these special interests and how Members vote and how their campaign contributions and support came from the labor PAC's, this bill is going to be a great indication of why we need campaign finance reform, because special interests are going to win out.

Eleven percent of the people belong to unions. This is a union bill, and the 21 States that have right-to-work laws do not need this type of legislation.

So tomorrow, when we analyze the vote, we are going to analyze the vote. And I think the media will be doing the same thing, analyzing it with respect to the amount of contributions and support PAC's are giving.

We need campaign finance reform, and we do not need this bill.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding time to me.

I ask for support not only of H.R. 5 but also for the rule.

Over the last few months, we witnessed a massive campaign to derail this bill. My own office has received a great number of letters from businesses who feel like this would put them at a disadvantage during a collective-bargaining disagreement.

I do not feel the balance between business and labor would be tilted to one side or the other. In fact, this bill would actually level the playing field. That is why I was cosponsoring this bill and asking for support today.

The facts are simple. Terminating an employee for striking is illegal, but to permanently replace them is only to terminate by another name. This bill will clarify our intentions on the ability of a worker to bargain collectively and strike, if necessary, as a last resort.

In my experience, as both a union member and a manager of a plant that had a union contract, I found that a strike is a last resort. The economic realities facing our workers today, who live from paycheck to paycheck, prohibit the type of increased striking businesses seem to fear.

This is a fairness to the worker. Our workers compete with every industrialized nation in the world. Yet all we are asking for is the same protection as other industrialized nations.

I heard one of the earlier speakers compare our workers with Hong Kong, which is not actually fair. Let us compare them with West Germany or Germany or Japan and other industrialized nations.

The use of permanent replacements has only served to increase the animosity between labor and management. I believe it's time we start working together and level that playing field.

[Page: H3522]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our revered Republican leader, the gentleman from Peoria, IL, Mr. Michel.

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

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This is yet another restrictive rule that makes in order only 2 of 7 amendments that had been submitted to the Committee on Rules. It seems to me this is not the time to be considering a bill that would overturn 50 years of established law and unnecessarily change the delicate balance that exists in labor-management negotiations.

The primary reason that this is not the time for consideration of this bill is that the policy embodied in this measure could lead to wholesale job loss here in the United States. What I hear from my constituents back home is that they want us to be working on policies that not only preserve good jobs here at home but that

create or at least improve the environment here for the creation of more jobs for Americans.

H.R. 5 would prohibit an employer from hiring permanent replacements in the case of a purely economic strike, where workers are seeking higher wages or improved benefits.

Employers have always been prohibited from hiring permanent replacements, when there was a strike over an unfair labor practice. And that distinction between the two types of strikes was drawn very clearly, judicially, by the Supreme Court in the MacKay case in 1938.

Now, under current law, employees have the right to strike for higher wages and better benefits. An employer has the right to remain in business by hiring replacement workers. This is the balance that has been in place for over 50 years. It is a balance that would be destroyed by H.R. 5.

The proponents of this legislation will argue that permanent replacements have become standard practice in labor disputes. A recent GAO report proves that to be absolutely false. Only 4 percent of striking workers were permanently replaced in 1989.

Yes, there have been some high profile situations, even one in my district where Caterpillar announced that it intended to hire permanent replacements after a 5-month work stoppage in Peoria and around the country. In the Caterpillar situation, the employees decided, quite frankly, to return to work. The reason for that was that the last offer by the company was a pretty healthy one.

When it looked like they might be replacing workers, there were over 30,000 phone calls per hour from around the country in the first day. Why not? When the average wage of the worker would rise from $42,000 to $52,000, when they had 6 years job security for every individual employee by name, 100 percent fully

funded health care plan that ranks in the 96 percentile in the entire country, and other fringe benefits. And the general public said, `And you would strike or prolong a work stoppage over these kinds of working conditions?'

The union lost the public elections battle from the very beginning on that score, and the company was right in threatening at least the possibility of replacement workers, when the union did not give consideration to the last offer that ranks among the very best in the country.

So the crux of the debate should not focus on the emotional issue of whether striking workers can be replaced but should also focus on the fact that business in the United States must now compete in a global marketplace. We must think differently and think anew. Organized labor cannot operate the way they did 30 years ago. They have got to update their thinking.

In order to preserve jobs in the United States, companies must ensure that they can compete worldwide, not only domestically; they can no longer be tied to union pattern bargaining which only looks at domestic industries.

Each company must have the ability to negotiate with its employees on individual terms to determine what will keep the business competitive and what will keep those jobs here in the United States. Otherwise, those companies might well decide it is in their economic interest to move offshore.

I made the point last night in a special order, that better than 50 percent of the people employed by Caterpillar are there because the company exports more than 50 percent of what it produces at home. Caterpillar would like to preserve their U.S. manufacturing base. We, in Congress, should not make the economic climate so uncompetitive that U.S. companies have to move abroad.

Caterpillar's biggest competitors are in Europe and Japan. We have got the best and we ought to preserve it. We have got blinders on if we seek to pacify a few who frankly are out of step with the times of the 1990's.

I hope we will reject this rule. Give Members an opportunity to offer more amendments. Let those amendments rise or fall on their merits by either an affirmative or negative vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

[TIME: 1230]

(Mrs. MEEK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of H.R. 5 as well, as reported from the committee. It is time to pass this bill and restore balance to the collective bargaining process. This bill is about fair play. Since the 1930's, the fundamental principal of labor-management relations has been to allow an equivalence between both sides so that one cannot dominate the other. Over the past 12 years that balance has been lost and now bargaining power has been grossly tilted to one side. I remember the demise of the air controllers union. I remember the demise of labor workers throughout this country. I remember the death of Eastern Airlines. All of this was brought about by the many ill-begotten kinds of things that happened during the last 12 years.

As we debate this bill, the mineworkers are on a selective strike. These Americans who have one of the most dangerous jobs there is need our help. On June 4, the management of a Peabody mine at Waverly, KY, called in two shifts to give their version of the issues under negotiation. Do these workers need protection? I say `yes.' Pass this rule. These American workers voiced their opinion of the management views vigorously during the meeting. In retaliation for this verbal expression of dissent, Peabody management on the spot attempted to fire both shits and bring in replacement workers. This is outrageous.

It is time to lift the jackboots of the corporate neanderthals from the necks of the American working people. Let's pass this bill and restore freedom.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 mintues to the gentleman from Aston, PA [Mr. Weldon], a victim of the Committee on Rules, someone whose amendment was denied up there.

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

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I ask my colleagues on the other side for some legislative fairness in dealing with the workplace fairness issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as someone who in fact agrees and feels there is a need to do something in this area in terms of perhaps practices over the last 10 to 15 years where the National Labor Relations Board has not been as aggressive and has not been fair in dealing with labor's concerns.

In fact, I have taken those concerns directly to former President Bush in the Oval Office the last time this bill came on the floor in the last session. I said, `Mr. President, we have to deal with this issue of 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year time periods for the National Labor Relations Board to bring back rulings,' when in most cases it is irrelevant because the situation has in fact resolved itself and workers have been hurt.

We know that this legislation will pass the House, but it is not going to pass the Senate. We know that the votes are not there to pass the legislation in its current form, and we are only kidding ourselves if we say otherwise.

Therefore, I have tried to reach out, as some of my colleagues have done, to try to find a compromise, much as we did with the Family and Medical Leave Act, when we knew that was not going to have the votes necessary on both sides of the aisle to pass this body.

However, the Members on this side have denied us the opportunity. There were amendments that could have been offered today that I think would have brought more people into the process to allow us to fully deal with this issue, and find a way to truly bring fairness to the process. I do not want to tilt the balance in either direction, either.

I would have offered an amendment today that would have made neither side happy. Neither labor nor management would have been happy with an amendment that would have called for an expedited process from the NLRB, among other things. I am not being given the opportunity to offer that amendment today. Likewise, there are other amendments that would have been offered which could have received the support of a number of our colleagues.

I am very happy that the Committee on Rules did see fit to allow the Ridge, Holden, and Olympia Snowe amendment, because that merits our consideration. We need to look at this issue, not to see who can score the most political points with organized labor, but who can find a solution to the problem. That is what I am all about, and that is what we should be all about.

This rule denies us that process. It does not allow us the opportunity to try to find that balance, to try to find that compromise. As someone who voted for this bill in the last session, because I want to move this process forward, I am offended at that. I wish the other side would allow us to work together on these issues where we have common agreement. Unfortunately. that is not the case here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.

[Page: H3523]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in unreserved support of the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. I would like to first commend the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Bill Ford, and the chairman of the Labor-Management Relations subcommittee, Pat Williams, for their strong efforts this year, and in years past, to respond aggressively to the threat to our Nation's workers posed by the practice of permanently replacing striking workers.

One of the first actions I took as a Member of Congress was to cosponsor this bill, H.R. 5. Countless times during my campaign, I was approached about this bill by men and women who were victims of striker replacement, and I was deeply touched by their stories. These hard workers and their families have suffered terribly for the simple fact that they exercised their legal right to strike--a basic right that all workers must retain in any democracy.

I find the actions of those employers who permanently replace strikers to be reprehensible. Labor negotiations are an essential tool for both sides in the bargaining process. As a former human resources manager, I know that employers who treat workers fairly, provide safe work environments, and living wages for their employees are rewarded with increased worker productivity--and make our Nation more competitive.

But presently, the negotiations process is being circumvented by many employers who refuse to come to the table and instead choose, for all intents and purposes, to fire striking workers by hiring their permanent replacements.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation affords the protection that these workers deserve. I am wholeheartedly in support of it, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and final passage.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to our hardworking colleague from Casper, WY, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the so-called Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act.

Today, the majority has made time in the agenda but has limited the opportunity to consider legislation which will change labor-management relations. H.R. 5 will make the workplace more divisive and add to the cumulative burden of regulation faced by employers.

What we have here is a fragile economy. And the majority in this Congress keeps piling it on--one regulation, restriction, and economic limitation after another. And then stare in fake innocence at the public and wonder why the economy doesn't work. Today we face a bill that will set the economy back with new vengeance. And I will tell the Members, pass this and we will not get to blame the economy on the past 12 years. A faltering economy aggravated by a slew of strikes and manufacturing shutdowns will be all your own making, your own design, and your responsibility.

Tampering with the economic balance of labor relations to extract the risk is foolish. It is that risk that is the essence of the balance between labor and management. This bill seeks to take the risk out of strikes, to take the risk out of bargaining for one side and one side alone. There is no fairness. There is no incentive to settle without risk.

The American public is deeply concerned about the economy and the majority of Americans--apparently quite different than the majority in the House--oppose this legislation.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. I commend the chairmen, the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Ford and Mr. Dingell and the gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta for their commitment to this legislation and this Nation's workers.

Mr. Speaker, the Cesar Chavez

Workplace Fairness Act seeks to restore the fair balance between labor and management, to improve the standard of living for American workers and American competitiveness. This legislation amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for workers in an economic strike. It prohibits employers from giving any employment advantage to a striking worker who crosses the picket line to return to work before the end of a strike. It is important to note that this measure does not apply to non-union workers. It thereby protects employers against undisciplined work stoppages by employees who have no identified representative authorized to settle or negotiate their differences.

In the last 10 years, the use of permanent replacements has increased. In fact, a GAO study showed that employers hired permanent replacements in approximately 17 percent of the strikes reported in 1985 and 1989. In about one-third of the strikes, employers threatened to hire permanent replacements.

In point of fact, there is no need for permanent replacements because employers can operate their businesses without replacing strikers. Management has a host of other options to utilize during a strike. They can hire temporary workers. They can use supervisory or management personnel. They can transfer or subcontract. Most important, they can negotiate.

If our trading partners and competitors can do it, so can we. Japan, Germany, Canada, and France all prohibit the use of permanent replacements for striking workers. So should we. The United States is falling behind in quality and productivity. Not only have real wages for American workers declined but so too has our competitive edge. The establishment of a stable labor-management relationship by our trading partners has allowed them to become more competitive in the world market. It has also enabled them to become more competitive in ours. The economies of our foreign partners have high wages and trade surpluses. As we know, we face falling wages and an overall trade deficit. This legislation is the first step in our return to a competitive position in the world economy.

For example, in my own district in 1986, employees of Colt Firearms struck after working for almost a year without a contract. Management replaced striking workers immediately. After much negotiation, many issues were close to being settled--except the issue of the permanent replacement workers. The economic liability favored the company with respect to the replacement workers. Over 3 years later the strike ended--not when negotiations were completed--but when the employees who struck successfully bid to purchase the division. Similar long-term strikes have occurred in Connecticut. But this particular strike was the longest in Connecticut's history. And needless to say, it was devastating.

Management systems that encourage worker involvement are essential to increasing opportunity for success, from the smallest of companies to the largest of corporations. Promoting cooperation in industry--as a Nation--we enhance our efforts to compete globally.

In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act was created. It promised workers a fair opportunity to engage in collective bargaining. We need to strengthen the balance between labor and management so that employers and employees work together rather than continue to watch the balance erode in favor of management which may in turn no longer bargain in good faith. Collective bargaining is an integral part of the maintenance of labor-management relations. This system was established to treat both employer and employee as fairly and as equitably as possible. H.R. 5 reestablishes that fair treatment and that balance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act.

[Page: H3524]

[TIME: 1240]

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, the striker replacement bill is a step backward in management-labor relations. It is a throwback to previous generations.

For 50 years there has been a carefully crafted balance in the bargaining power of business and labor. As long as this balance exists, strikes are rare, and amicable labor relations are common.

This bill would radically change that balance in labor law by leading to more confrontation rather than cooperation.

The dynamic and successful companies of today, and those who will prosper tomorrow are those who are moving toward full participation in management and production decisions. Employers and employees have moved well beyond the politics of envy and confrontation and are immersed in an era of cooperation and teamwork.

H.R. 5 is an effort to kill the right to work laws in my State, South Carolina, and 20 other States. Let us keep U.S. companies competitive while maintaining the highest quality of living for our people. Let us fight this unfair and dangerous bill and keep American workers and companies moving forward in the spirit of cooperation.

The day we pass H.R. 5 is the day we lose even more jobs to companies who will move overseas.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Blackwell].

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

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend the rule and to support this bill because of the fact that to belong to a labor union is as American as mother's apple pie and the American flag.

In the last 12 years we have had nothing but union busting in America, and now they say that they want to take us back to the days where we had to work 24 hours a day with no pay, and if you did not like it, go home.

This bill will protect the American worker similar to the way we protect the American business person in this country.

Unions do not want to strike. They do not want special privileges. They want the same treatment that everyone else gets.

I have been a labor leader for some 30 years, and never have I seen the kind of treatment that labor is getting in the United States of America at this point in time. No country in the world treats their workers like the workers are being treated in America today. No country in the world. They have protections.

People always like to equate us with Japan. I only wish that management would treat the American worker like Japan treats its worker. Give us that kind of security on our job, we do a good job, that they give the Japanese, and we would have no need for strikes.

But no one, no one should interfere when American workers and management are having a dispute, because that is unfair. It should be unconstitutional, and we should change it today.

There are some people who want it both ways. The American worker just wants the same thing that management wants. They want the American dream. But we have some people who want to give them the American nightmare. They want to make all of the money while the workers who do the work get nothing. We are sending our kids to college while the American workers' kids do not get that chance. We want to live on a tree-lined street, while the American worker does not enjoy the same thing.

That is what it is all about. Some people want special privileges to the detriment of the people who built this country. Labor built this country. They have a right to stay in business, and they have a right to be treated fairly, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to see that it happens.

The American people are crying for fairness, and that is what this bill speaks to.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge], a hardworking member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs whose amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the Rules Committee for giving me the opportunity to offer the substitute on behalf of my colleagues, Amo Houghton, Olympia Snowe, and Steve Gunderson and myself. I thank you all for that.

I would appeal at this time to my Republican and Democratic colleagues to look carefully at our substitute, take a careful look at our approach. It is consistent with our belief in a free market, capitalistic economy. It is consistent with the history of labor law reform in that it promotes the resolution of disputes in the marketplace, and it is consistent with the need to find equilibrium, a very important ingredient, to find equilibrium in the relationship between labor and management.

Collective bargaining is governed by old laws, 40 or 50 years old and older. The world has changed dramatically, dramatically since then. Competition is much tougher, and competition is worldwide. Trade laws are not equitably enforced. Health care costs squeeze both sides in these disputes. The prolonged recession squeezes both parties even further.

Management is trying to stay competitive and productive and keep people working, and workers themselves are struggling day to day to keep their jobs. Negotiations are tougher, and on occasion there appears a business type who seeks to destroy rather than to negotiate.

If Members believe as I do that the status quo is unacceptable, is fraught with problems, then they have to take a look at our substitute. And I say that to my Republican and Democratic colleagues.

It is in the best interest of all to encourage dispute resolution. It is in the best interest of all to encourage the parties to get together, and we do that. We have a 10-week waiting period, a cooling-off period before the worker that is hired can become a permanent worker, a permanent replacement worker. We give those in organized labor a right to secret ballot to strike. We encourage, we encourage, not mandate, but we encourage the use of the Federal mediation and conciliation service.

We want to put people back together. We want to resolve disputes. The history of labor law to encourage reform that does anything but promote the resolution of disputes is taking reform in the wrong direction.

For many of my colleagues, this has been and continues to be an academic exercise in the intricacies of industrial relations policies. For many it is deeply personal. Many have seen the despair and hopelessness in the eyes of workers who have lost their jobs to replacement workers. They were not victims of their own greed. They were failed by the system that no longer serves as the honest broker in a free-market economy. They deserve better.

Today we have an opportunity to restore equilibrium to the system and provide some degree of hope to many workers who have long since abandoned their faith in the system.

I point out again to my colleagues, workers have their right to strike; management has its right to hire replacement workers. But in that interim after the strike vote is called, after a secret ballot, and before workers can become permanent replacement workers, we would provide for that 10-week waiting period, encouraging the parties to get back to the negotiation table, to use the collective-bargaining process for which it was intended, and that is the resolution of the disputes between labor and management.

We think it is a fair and balanced approach. It brings equilibrium back to the relationship between labor and management, and we encourage our colleagues to support it.

[Page: H3525]

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in support of H.R. 5, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. I support this bill not because of politics but on principles, it is the right thing to do. The right to strike always has been the ultimate leverage available to workers should negotiations or arbitration fail to resolve their differences with management.

For over 50 years, the Federal Government has ensured the right of private-sector workers to resort to a strike if they could not otherwise gain their economic objectives, and prohibited employers from firing workers for exercising their right to strike.

During the past 12 years, there have been a number of strikes in which management permanently replaced strikers and this action has led the working people of this country to feel that they have been abandoned by the Federal Government in favor of management. Many workers believe that unless this bill is passed, the right to strike will have little to no effect as a bargaining tool with management.

I urge you to support H.R. 5, the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. This legislation will restore fairness between labor and management and will improve the living standards of all Americans as well as add to the competitiveness of America's products.

[TIME: 1250]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let us take the mystery out of what is going on.

I rise to support this rule. This rule gives both sides the opportunity to have some input about H.R. 5.

But let us, indeed, take the mystery out of the debate. This is simply about whether or not workers are going to have the right to strike, workers oftentimes who have been in the workplace, 10, 15, 20 years. They want to bargain in good faith. Management may not bargain in good faith. Management comes to the table, not to fight about how much the increase, but to cut wages as they have been doing over the past 10 years, reduce benefits, take away hospitalization and other kinds of guarantees workers thought they had in the workplace.

If, in fact, workers cannot reach an agreement, they are being treated unfairly. Government guaranteed them the right to strike. Now we are finding management is spending millions of dollars hiring sophisticated lawyers, hiring corporations to go out and break the backs of the strikers, hiring permanent replacements.

In this legislation, we are saying, `You cannot do that. Workers who have been on the job, who have given of their lives to the workplace, should not be treated in that fashion.' We have seen what has happened with the air traffic controllers. We allowed their backs to be broken. Many of them have never worked again a day in their lives. Workers deserve better.

We have Members coming to this floor talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. People in this country deserve the right to work, and they deserve the right to earn a decent living.

We have seen wages reduced dramatically as we have exported jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor, to Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil. Now we have families that are working at entry-level wages, not able to pay a mortgage, not able to guarantee their children's future and pay for an education.

It is time for us to say, `Corporations, we cannot continue to give you a tax break and tax incentives as we have done in the past, 1981, 1986, the selling of tax credits.' Companies such as General Electric, not only did they not pay any taxes that year, they got a tax refund, but they took our jobs and they exported them to Third World countries for cheap labor.

We are now saying, `Corporations, in addition to the tax incentives, in addition to the tax breaks, you can break the backs of workers who have been in that workplace for years. You can say, `Your jobs are going. We are going to hire people to replace you, and we are going to pay them less money.'

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. If you are concerned about jobs, if you are concerned about the American worker, if you really believe what you say about what you want this President to do, job creation, you will vote for H.R. 5, and you will vote for the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern over this issue of openness, and I know that the issue was raised by Chairman Moakley when he referred to the fact that several other committees have already had a chance to have input here.

But it seems to me that this restrictive rule does jeopardize the rights of many Members here who would like to be heard on this issue, and we are trying to address the issue of workplace fairness.

Now, just today we received in our office a legislative alert from the AFL-CIO, and it is dealing with some legislation that is due to come before us later this week. But they specifically, in this letter, talk about the ultimate closed rule, and so I can only surmise that the AFL-CIO would be inclined to be consistent, at least this week, by joining us in opposing this restrictive rule which does prevent Members the right to be heard on this particular issue.

We are dealing with someone who has recently passed away, from my home State of California, Cesar Chavez, as we named this legislation. It is called the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we should be trying to do is to pursue a rule under which we consider this legislation which should aptly be called the Cesar Chavez House workplace fairness rule.

We should do everything that we possibly can to defeat this rule, come back with our House workplace fairness rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on this rule.

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

[Page: H3526]

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.

My colleagues, let us support this rule and get this bill up for consideration and debate. That, of course, is all this rule does, just allows the bill to come to the floor.

This is a bill that has been in the Congress now for 5 years. The bill is not about the right to strike. It is not even about encouraging strikes. I do not believe that folks want to actually encourage strikes.

This bill is simply about people's right to withhold their labor, a cherished American tradition, and when they determine to do that, this bill would reserve their jobs for them so that they could return to it when the strike is over.

Is it really fair to say to an American worker who conducts a legal strike, `If you do that, you are going to lose your health care, you are going to lose your salary, you are going to lose your job'? This bill says, `No, that is not right. Let us at least preserve their jobs for them.'

Of course, they are not paid when they are on strike. Workers understand that, and so most of them do not want to go on strike, and most of them do not.

By the way, the bill is limited to members of organized labor or to those shops where 50 percent or more of the people have said, `We want to join a union, and we are going to vote soon to do so.' It would also preserve their jobs. No other worker in America would have their job preserved if they decided to go on strike. So just among this limited group of people would this bill even have any effect at all.

This bill is not about good guys and bad guys; black hats and white hats; big labor or big business. It is about little working people and trying to reserve and protect their jobs.

But let me say, simply because there has been some accusation about big labor and bad people and black hats, let me just say that if this bill is about black hats, it is about those people who used the 1980's through junk-bond mania, leveraged buyouts, and corporate mergers to lay off Americans by the millions, bust their unions, and send those jobs overseas. Those are the Americans who wear the black hat in today's economy.

If this bill is about anybody wearing a black hat, it is about those people who do not understand world competition and the fact that for the first time since the Great Depression America's labor law is not as progressive as is the labor law of competing nations. It is about the fact that for the first time since the Great Depression American workers are no longer the best-paid workers in the world, making, for example, 40 percent less than their German counterparts.

[TIME: 1300]

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, nays 176, not voting 13, as follows:

Roll No. 221

[Roll No. 221]
YEAS--244

NAYS--176

On this vote:

[Page: H3527]
Mr. Engel for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from `yea' to `nay.'

Mr. VALENTINE changed his vote from `nay' to `yea.'

So the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.