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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you and your staff – along with Mr. Andrews and his staff – for your openness to Republican suggestions for improving the measure we will pass out of Committee later today.  It is my understanding that Mr. Kildee soon will introduce a substitute amendment which will make this measure incrementally better than the bill considered in a hearing of one of our subcommittees two weeks ago. 

Even with these slight improvements, however, I am not convinced that this substitute will fully address concerns raised by some Members and a witness at that subcommittee hearing held earlier this month.  They argued – and I would agree – that H.R. 980 raises serious questions with respect to federalism, states’ rights, and the imposition of unfunded mandates upon states. 

The bill before us does not address – and is not meant to address – whether or not firefighters, police, and other public-sector safety employees should have the right to join unions.  Instead, it addresses the question of whether the federal government should be making that decision for each of the fifty states or whether states and localities should maintain that right – as they have for nearly 70 years – for themselves.  Such a dramatic shift gives me pause, and indeed, it should do the same for all of us.  In short, the measure before us 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. 

This concern was echoed by the National League of Cities in a recent letter sent to Congress, in which the organization affirmed that the federal government “should not undermine municipal autonomy with respect to making fundamental employment decisions by mandating specific working conditions, including collective bargaining.”  Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to ask for this letter to be entered into the record.

Like the National League of Cities, I am hopeful that this legislation will be modified during the legislative process to strike a more appropriate balance on behalf of public safety officials and the states and local communities they so ably serve.  With that in mind, I do not plan to oppose the measure today, as it is marginally better than the bill introduced earlier in this Congress.  And should it continue to be improved along the way, I may be able to provide a more vigorous endorsement.  I cannot do so right now, however; but in the interest of moving the process forward and in light of the Chairman’s willingness to make thoughtful adjustments to the legislation, I will support the measure advancing for consideration by the full House.

# # # # #