not the farfetched definition that the board just adopted in bfi, or browning ferris. the touch stone of the national labor relations act is the right of employees as a group to decide if they want union representation to act on their behalf collectively or if they want to deal directly with their employer on an individual basis. in order for them to exercise that right and indeed for employers to know what their rights and obligations under this law are, it is of fundamental importance to be able to identify who is the employer of any particular group of employees. yet the board has limited who can be defined as an employer, in fact congress has limited who can be defined as an employer to just one employer of a particular unit. that can be two companies acting together as an employer, but it can only be one employer. because it is so important for employees and employers to know their rights and the limits of this act, defining who is a joint employer is necessary. the board, however, failed to define what a joint employer was or provide any clear standards until 198

the majority of nlrb members made clear that the bfi decision was not an isolated one. the board wrote, we have decided to restate the board's legal standard for joint employer determinations and make clear how that standard is to be applied going forward. all businesses covered by the nlrb act and their business partners may face liability under the board's new joint employer doctrine. second, there can be no question that the joint employer standard makes small business unsafe. no one here can assure me that my business will not run afoul of a nebulous incorrect control standard. the expansion of joint employer liability from direct control to both direct and indirect leaves small businesses facing serious uncertainty. mr. chairman, i plead for the use of common sense. the joint employer standard that has existed for decades works and protects small business. why change it. if s-2015 is not enacted, why would i continue to grow knowing that i have the risk and that i'm liable for other employers' workers? senator alexander has put forth a proposal today to protect ent

the majority of nlrb members made clear that the bfi decision was not an isolated one. the board wrote, we have decided to restate the board's legal standard for joint employer determinations and make clear how that standard is to be applied going forward. all businesses covered by the nlrb act and their business partners may face liability under the board's new joint employer doctrine. second, there could be no question that the joint employer standard makes small business unsafe. no one here can assure me my business will not run afoul of an indirect control standard. it leaves small businesses facing serious uncertainty. mr. chairman, i plead for the use of common sense. the joint employer standard that has existed for decades works and protects small business. why change it? if s-2015 is not enacted, why would i continue to grow knowing i have the risk and i'm liable for other employers' workers? senator alexander has put forward a proposal today to protect entrepreneurs and small business. i urge all members of this committee to support locally owned businesses in

bfi eventually clicked more than three and 60,000 files on gays and lesbians support in 1962, he outedsenator vandenberg, republican, eventually committed suicide in the senate office because what they're brought out about his son and what they're doing to destroy him. j. edgar hoover was a man who does reflect the good people of the fbi or reflect which he and the fbi are trying to do today. the fbi's own website declared that going tell program has rightly criticized by congress and the american people for a bridging first richmond -- -- yet his impending is to grow on fbi building which agree his neighbors not want to find people today try to bring about justice in our country? >> i'm sorry? his name speak with yes, sir spend on not falling the question. >> i sang does it not reflect the quality that the fbi individuals and the fbi did they have been pursuing justice and being fair and not using tactics to attack minorities in this country? >> thank you, i'm sorry. the fbi today is vastly different than it was under its first director. in some of the ways you mentioned and in lots o