House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Today the Subcommittee will examine legislation that would, for the first time, interject the federal government into the labor relations of state- and local- governments, and one segment of their public employees, namely, firefighter, police, and public safety personnel.

I think it is important to remember as we begin this debate today that the question is not whether firefighters, police, and other specified public-sector employees should have the right to join unions, or whether a unionized firefighter or police force is better than a non-union one.  Rather, the question simply is whether the federal government should be making that decision for each of the fifty states or whether these states and localities should maintain that right – as they have for nearly 70 years – for themselves.

To that end, I do have concern – and I recognize that this is an issue on which my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can and will, in good conscience, disagree – that H.R. 980 represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s power into the labor relations of states, cities, and towns with their public safety workforces.  H.R. 980 sets forth a list of “minimum standards” that state labor laws must meet, and charges a federal agency in Washington DC with determining in the first instance whether state laws “pass muster” under these new federal standards.  If they do not, a state has one of two choices:  Either change its law to meet the federal standard, or submit to the burden of federal regulation.  To my mind, that is a variation on “heads you lose, tails I win” – whether directly or indirectly, the federal government will be the one setting the standards for state and local labor relations in the public safety arena.

I expect that we’ll hear today from bill supporters that this bill is only a modest proposal, and that many states already have laws that they believe meet federal standards.  I take that suggestion in good faith, but respectfully suggest that on its face, none of us can be sure that it is true.  What we do know is that at a minimum, within 180 days of this bill becoming law, each and every of the fifty states must submit their state labor laws for review by a federal agency, which alone is charged with determining whether they meet the new federal standard. 

Both from a practical standpoint and as a matter of principle, this raises real concern to me.  In essence, we are substituting our judgment for maybe one, maybe twenty, or maybe fifty state legislatures – in doing so, we are stepping on the right of states and localities to tailor these laws, via the democratic process, to meet their needs. 

Moreover, as a practical matter, I have real questions as to how this bill will work – if a state law is found to meet the federal standard 100%, it appears that the state is free of federal regulation.  What if the state’s law meets 95% of the test?  As I read this bill, if a state is unable or unwilling to make slight changes to their laws to accommodate that 5% variance, the federal government steps in and assumes regulation of the state’s public safety workforce.  That may be many things, but it is certainly not a modest, limited proposal.

Finally, I expect we’ll hear from witnesses on both sides as to whether or not H.R.980 would be found to be constitutional, or whether it unconstitutionally extends the powers of the federal government and abrogates states’ sovereign rights.  I doubt that the issue will be resolved today – nor do I argue that the absence of a definitive answer should prevent us from looking closely at the substance of the legislation – but I do think if we are to engage in the process of legislating in a serious and meaningful way that we need to be made aware of all the potential issues.

Mindful of the hour and the full slates of witnesses before us, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time and look forward to our witness’s testimony.

#####