Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)

[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H879-H928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ACT OF 2019

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act of 2019.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 833 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2474.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1536

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2474) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes, with Mr. Blumenauer in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate will be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chair, throughout their history, America's labor unions have
enabled millions of American workers to secure their place in the
middle class and receive their fair share of the profits they produce.
When workers have the power to stand together and negotiate with their
employer, they have higher pay, better benefits, and safer working
conditions.
Unions not only benefit union members, but also nonunion members
benefit from the higher wages that union members enjoy. And even the
children of union members also do better. And under union contracts,
pay gaps disappear because union members get equal pay for equal work.
But union membership, which peaked at around 30 percent of the
workforce during the 1950s, is just at 10 percent today. That is the
lowest level since just after the National Labor Relations Act was
enacted in 1935. It is not a coincidence that as union membership has
decreased, income inequality has increased.
This decline in union membership is not a function of workers'
choices. A recent study found that nearly half of nonunion workers
would join a union if given the chance. The gap between worker
preferences and union membership is the product of intensified
antiworker attacks and labor laws that fail to address unfair labor
practices.
The lesson from the last 40 years is clear: That it is our current
labor laws that are too weak to defend workers' rights to join a union
and to collectively bargain with their employer.
H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act,
is the most significant upgrade in U.S. labor laws in 80 years. This
comprehensive proposal makes sensible reforms to protect and strengthen
workers' rights.
The PRO Act would put teeth in the Nation's labor laws by authorizing
the NLRB to assess meaningful civil penalties when companies violate
their workers' rights to organize and bargain.
It will close loopholes that the corporations use to misclassify
workers as independent contractors instead of employees; thereby
evading their obligation to bargain, as well as evading their
obligation to pay minimum wage and overtime; provide Worker's
Compensation, unemployment compensation, and employee benefits.
It ensures that workers can decide whether to form a union without
interference. Democracy in the workplace should be a right, not a
fight.
Too many Americans are now working too hard for too little. And while
corporations are enjoying record-level profits, workers and their
families are struggling to keep pace with rising costs of housing,
childcare, education, and other essentials.
So I urge my colleagues to support the PRO Act, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to
Organize Act of 2019.
Big Labor is in a panic over plummeting union membership. Union
bosses could self-correct and increase transparency and accountability
to serve workers better, or dedicate more resources to union
organizing, rather than attempting to organize less than one-tenth of 1
percent of eligible employees, as they did in 2018.
Instead, the largest federation of labor unions in America spends
more than three times as much money on political activities as it does
on its stated purpose of organizing and representing workers. And they
are resorting to their usual arm-twisting and intimidation tactics by
demanding Democrats pass the PRO Act.
Before I get into the many, many failings of this bill, I want to
correct the Democrats' false narrative that the decline in union
membership is hurting workers.
Americans are benefiting from a booming economy, thanks to Republican
tax and regulatory reforms. Despite Democrats' false claims, wages are
rising fastest for lower- and middle-income workers. Unemployment is at
a 50-year low, and millions of jobs have been created since President
Trump took office.
In fact, millions of poor Americans continue to move into the middle
class, and millions in the middle class are moving into the ranks of
the wealthy. The substantial economic mobility many Americans are
experiencing should be celebrated.
Instead, Democrats are trying to claim falsely that the economy isn't
working for average Americans, and the only way to fix it is to expand
enforced unionism through coercive, socialist schemes like the PRO Act.
Let's also remember that Federal law already protects the rights of
employees to organize, and Republicans respect that right. Any reforms
to U.S. labor laws should help workers, not union bosses.
The PRO Act will require employers to hand over workers' private,
personal information to union organizers, without workers having any
say in the matter. This would make it even easier for union organizers
to target, harass and intimidate workers.
It would also overturn all State right-to-work laws. These are laws
that allow workers to decide for themselves whether to join a union and
pay dues. If the PRO Act becomes law, workers will be forced to take
money from their paychecks and give it to labor unions, even if they
don't want to be represented by a union.
This provision is astonishing since we know that from 2010 to 2018,
unions spent $1.6 billion in members' dues on hundreds of left-wing
groups, without first receiving consent from workers to do so.
The PRO Act will also undermine workers' rights to vote by secret
ballot. This is hypocrisy at its worst, or best. House Democrats elect
their own leaders by secret ballot, and Democrats held up the USMCA
trade deal to guarantee workers in Mexico had the right to a secret
ballot. Yet, they are willing to deprive American workers of that same
protection.
Among the PRO Act's most harmful provisions is the incorporation of
California's newly-enacted, overly broad, and confusing definition of
employee, which will deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity
to work independently and start their own businesses.
Bottom line, there are over 50 harmful provisions in this bill that
are bad for workers, job creators, and the U.S. economy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H880]]

{time} 1545

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, low-income workers are being
better paid because of State minimum wage laws that most Republicans
opposed. And jobs created in the 35 months of the Trump administration
are fewer than the jobs created in the last 35 months of the Obama
administration.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), chair
of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize
Act, or the great PRO Act. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions, which I am privileged to chair, conducted three
long, riveting hearings in the 116th Congress. During these hearings,
we assessed a multitude of legal obstacles workers face in securing
union recognition and winning collective bargaining agreements.
Some facts are indisputable. Collective bargaining gives America's
workers an economic ladder and safer working conditions. There are so
many unsafe working conditions all over America.
During our first hearing, we heard testimony from Cynthia Harper, who
suffered a severe injury in an Ohio assembly plant. Even though Cynthia
was hurt, she did not give up. She fought for her rights. Cynthia was
fired from her plant for organizing a union to win safer working
conditions for herself and her coworkers.
Incredibly, the National Labor Relations Act has no civil penalties
that deter employers from violating workers' rights. Importantly, the
PRO Act addresses this by establishing meaningful penalties for
companies that violate their employees' rights. This important
legislation cements into law the principle that workers deserve the
right to negotiate for a fair share of the wealth, wealth that their
hard work, sweat, and tears helps to create for this Nation.
This bill makes every American man's, woman's, and child's life
better. Make no mistake, anyone who has gotten a livable wage, equal
pay for equal work, and a safe working environment should thank unions
and support the PRO Act. Anyone who grew up in a middle-class home and
is fighting to build a middle-class home for their own children should
thank unions and support the PRO Act. Anyone who believes in growing
wages, providing healthcare for all people, and protecting workers'
rights should thank unions and support the PRO Act. Anyone who knows we
should protect the right to organize and institute financial penalties
on companies that interfere should thank unions and support the PRO
Act.
Every single Member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate, represents working people, and this is a working people's bill.
Simply put, if you claim to fight for and support the interests of
working people, you must support the PRO Act.
I ask all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support the
working people of America and support the PRO Act.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chair, today, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2474, the PRO
Act. In fact, the more you learn about this legislation, the more the
name fits. It is prounion boss. It is proshadiness. It is
prounemployment. It is prohibitive. You know what it is not? It is not
proworker.
By repealing right-to-work laws, this legislation fails to protect
workers from being forced into paying hefty union dues. With
unemployment hitting record lows and wages hitting record highs, our
workers should be able to keep their paychecks, not hand them over to
corrupt union bosses.
By changing the classification of the majority of independent
contractors to employees--that is important--this legislation will
restrict workers, create confusion, reduce opportunity, and then
increase costs. It also dramatically expands the joint employer
standard, trying to force businesses to restructure their entire
business models.
What might seem like an insignificant or a small change would
actually result in the labor union mafia taking our booming economy in
a one-way ride. In fact, this legislation is estimated to cost
employers and workers more than $47 billion--with a B--$47 billion
annually.
For a party that likes to talk about the right to choose when it
comes to our most essential rights, why are House Democrats trying to
restrict the power of choice for an entire industry of workers, and in
doing so, forcing middle-income workers to hand over their earnings?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this blatant effort to reinstate a mob
boss rule and vote against H.R. 2474.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee
on Civil Rights and Human Services.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Income inequality is challenging our communities and our future. In
northwest Oregon and across the country, the labor movement has helped
fight income inequality, raise wages, improve working conditions, and
expand benefits.
More workers would join a union if given a choice, but many feel
retaliation for supporting or engaging in organizing efforts. Under
current law, tactics to intimidate, coerce, or fire workers involved in
union organizing are illegal, but the penalties aren't strong enough to
deter employers.
I helped ban captive audience meetings when I served in the Oregon
legislature, but these rights should be protected for every worker in
the country. We should be making it easier, not harder, for workers to
form unions and collectively bargain.
I am an original cosponsor of Chairman Scott's Protecting the Right
to Organize Act. Under this bill, employers who break the rules will
finally be held accountable.
Today, by supporting the bipartisan PRO Act, we can support workers,
restore fairness, and help to make sure our economy works for everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I insert in the Record letters in support of the PRO
Act from the BlueGreen Alliance and more than 70 environmental groups.

BlueGreen Alliance, January 31, 2020.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: As a coalition of
some of the nation's largest labor unions and environmental
organizations, collectively representing millions of members
and supporters, we write to express the BlueGreen Alliance's
support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of
2019, H.R. 2474.
In the United States, we face a critical juncture for the
rights of employees to organize. As Supreme Court cases and
anti-union legislators and their financial backers seek to
strip workers of their rights, we need a strong law on the
books to ensure that workers are not penalized for organizing
and demanding collective bargaining for higher wages, safer
working conditions, and better benefits.
Union membership has fallen dramatically from 33 percent in
1956 to ten percent in 2018, due in large part to
exploitation by employers of labor laws that have been made
toothless. As it stands, no meaningful penalties exist for
corporations using illegal tactics to eliminate the option to
organize.
Additionally, workers now are facing record wage
inequality, and we know based on the National Bureau of
Economic Research's statistics that unions consistently
provide working Americans with ten to twenty percent higher
wages than non-unionized workers. Empowering workers to band
together to negotiate better wages and safer working
conditions is the best path forward to protecting our workers
and rebuilding America's middle class.
Organizing does not just affect job quality, though:
unionized workers are better equipped to handle potentially
hazardous workplace situations, and have more freedom to blow
the whistle in dangerous situations. This can avert
industrial accidents and result in safer communities, as well
as cleaner air and water. Many unions also take firm
positions on environmental issues because they understand the
impact that clean air and water have on workers. Unions have
supported the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other
actions designed to both reduce the carbon pollution driving
climate change and grow good-paying jobs in the clean
economy.
The PRO Act empowers employees by strengthening workers'
rights to bargain and to organize. It does so by ending
prohibitions

[[Page H881]]

on collective and class-action litigation, prohibiting
employers from permanently replacing striking employees,
amending how employees are defined so that no one is
misclassified as an independent contractor, strengthening
remedies and enforcement for employees who are exercising
their rights, creating a mediation and arbitration process
for new unions, protecting against coercive captive audience
meetings, and streamlining the National Labor Relations
Board's procedures.
The PRO Act would take tangible steps to stem the tide of
continued violations of the rights of working people to
organize and would provide real consequences for those who
violate the rights of workers. We must restore fairness to
our economy so that workers no longer get a raw deal, and
strengthen the right of workers all over the country to
unionize and bargain for better working conditions.
For these reasons, the BlueGreen Alliance urges you to vote
yes on the PRO Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason Walsh,
Executive Director, BlueGreen Alliance.
____

5 February 2020.
Dear Representative: As organizations dedicated to a
sustainable future, we believe that such a future must
include fair treatment for the people and communities working
to build a clean and thriving economy. For that reason, we
support H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO)
Act, and urge you to vote in favor of the bill when it comes
before the House this week.
Since 1970, global carbon dioxide emissions have nearly
doubled, spiking the frequency and intensity of natural
disasters, increasing the risk of drought, and putting the
future of our entire planet at risk. Over that same period,
income and wealth inequality have exploded in the United
States and elsewhere--incomes have risen by 229% in the U.S.
for the top 1% of earners since 1979, while the bottom 90% of
households have seen income growth of just 46%, or 1% on an
annual basis. These parallel trends reflect an economy built
to serve the interests of a small group of the extremely
wealthy and powerful, not people or the planet.
One key element of fixing our broken economic system is
ensuring that working people have a voice in the economy and
earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Workers are
often unable to have their voices heard or to earn fair pay,
a function of weak labor laws that have made it virtually
impossible for workers to organize and form unions in the
face of unrelenting, aggressive corporate opposition.
The PRO Act would make common-sense changes to existing law
to enable workers who want to organize and form unions to do
so. It would penalize corporations that break the law, limit
tactics used to intimidate workers, help workers who organize
secure timely collective bargaining agreements, and institute
a number of changes to better enable workers to act in
solidarity with one another.
Remaking our economy and environment to address climate
change and rising inequality will require substantial
investment and transition, across many sectors. This is an
opportunity to create millions of good jobs with family-
sustaining wages and strong worker protections. We need
strong, common-sense worker protections like those in the PRO
Act to ensure that a sustainable economy reverses rather than
reinforces rising inequity. There is no way to build a
greener, more inclusive economy without strong, thriving
labor unions.
Our planet and our communities are under enormous threat.
We must act urgently to confront the dangers imposed by
climate change, including by ensuring that working people are
treated fairly and helping lead the transition to a fair,
green economy. The PRO Act would help advance that goal and
help us rebuild our economy to function for both people and
the planet. Therefore, we urge you to vote in favor of the
PRO Act.
Sincerely,
ActionAid USA, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments,
Already Devalued & Devastated Homeowners of Parsippany, Asian
Pacific Planning & Policy Council Environmental Justice
Committee, Athens County Future Action Network, Beyond
Extreme Energy, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for
Climate Change & Health, Center for International
Environmental Law, Citizens For Water.
Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two, Climate Action Rhode
Island, Climate Hawks Vote, Climate Mobilization Project,
Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipeline NJ, Damascus Citizens for
Sustainability, The Democracy Collaborative, Earthworks,
Faithful America, Food & Water Action.
Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice, Franciscan Action
Network, Friends of Buckingham, Friends of the Earth, Great
Lakes Water Protectors, Green America, Green For All,
Greenpeace USA, Harford County Climate Action, Idle No More
SF Bay.
Institute for Policy Studies Climate Policy Program, Jewish
Climate Action Network--Massachusetts, League of Conservation
Voters, Long Beach 350, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Louisiana
Rise, Miami Climate Alliance, Mothers Out Front.
Natural Resources Defense Council, North Country 350
Alliance, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, NYH2O, Oil
Change International, Organic Consumers Association, Peoples
Climate Movement--New York, Physicians for Social
Responsibility Pennsylvania.
Plymouth Friends of Clean Water, Public Citizen, Safe
Climate Campaign, Safe Energy Rights Group, Save the Pine
Bush, Seeding Sovereignty, Sierra Club, SoCal 350 Climate
Action.
Stand.earth, Sunflower Alliance, Sunrise Bay Area, Sunrise
Movement, Toxics Action Center, Unitarian Universalist Mass
Action, Washtenaw350, Wendell State Forest Alliance.
350.org, 350 Colorado, 350 DC, 350 Deschutes, 350
Kishwaukee, 350 Loudon, 350 Merced, 350 New Hampshire, 350
Wenatchee, 350 West Sound Climate Action.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Scott for his
leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
This week, in this very Chamber, we heard from President Trump about
the great American comeback. Our booming economy is a result of
proworker, progrowth, and pro-American policies passed during the 115th
Congress and enacted by President Trump.
Wages are rising. Jobs are being created. And Americans from all
different backgrounds are getting back to work, including workers
without high school diplomas, who are experiencing the lowest
unemployment rate recorded in U.S. history.
This body must build on this success, not go backward. The radical
PRO Act will undoubtedly hurt the economy and force Americans out of
work. In fact, a report from the American Action Forum found employers
could face more than $47 billion in new annual costs if the PRO Act
becomes law.
As a small business owner, I know firsthand the PRO Act would harm
both employers and employees. The PRO Act contains numerous poison
pills, from outrageous privacy violations to forced union dues.
This bill would outright ban the right-to-work laws that have been
successful in States like my home State of Georgia, which has been
named the best State to do business in now 7 years in a row.
Without right-to-work laws, workers are forced to pay for
representation and political activities that they may not even agree
with. From 2010 to 2018, unions spent more than $1.6 billion in member
dues to hundreds of leftwing groups. Those include Planned Parenthood
and the Clinton Foundation.
That is why I offered an amendment, which I hope everyone will
support, to strike that provision and protect States' right-to-work
laws. The Federal Government should not restrict American workers'
First Amendment rights by forcing them to pay union dues.
The PRO Act will restrict our booming economy and infringe on the
rights of workers and employers. The American worker deserves fairness,
and he deserves choice.
My colleagues have a choice before them. They can stand with
Americans and President Trump to keep America great and free by voting
``no'' on the PRO Act, or they can join the radicals who have seized
the Democratic Party and put America on a path of socialism. I will
always stand with liberty and President Trump and will proudly vote
``no'' on the PRO Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Progressive
Caucus.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a letter from the AFL-
CIO.

AFL-CIO,

January 30, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you
to support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, H.
R. 2474, and to oppose weakening amendments and any Motion to
Recommit when the House of Representatives considers the bill
next week. The PRO Act will restore the original intent of
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which was to give
working people a voice on the job so they can negotiate for
higher wages, better benefits, a more secure retirement and a
safer workplace.
For too long, employers have been able to violate the NLRA
with impunity, routinely denying workers their basic right to
join with coworkers for fairness on the job. As a result, the
collective strength of workers to negotiate for better pay
and benefits has eroded and income inequality has reached
levels that predate the Great Depression. (Please see the
attached summary of recent research on unions, inequality and
the economy).
The PRO Act would modernize the NLRA by bringing its
remedies in line with other

[[Page H882]]

workplace laws. In addition to imposing financial penalties
on companies and individual corporate officers who violate
the law, the bill would give workers the option of bringing
their case to federal court. The bill would make elections
fairer by prohibiting employers from requiring their
employees to attend ``captive audience'' meetings whose sole
purpose is to convince workers to vote against the union.
Under the bill, once workers vote to form a union, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would be authorized to
order that the employer commence bargaining a first contract.
These orders would be enforced in district courts to ensure
swift justice. In addition, the bill would ensure that
employees are not deprived of their right to a union because
their employer hides behind a subcontractor or other
intermediary, or deliberately misclassifies them as
supervisors or independent contractors.
Too often, when workers choose to form a union, employers
stall the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement.
The PRO Act would establish a process for mediation and
arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract.
This important change would make the freedom to negotiate a
reality for countless workers who form unions but never get
to enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement.
The PRO Act recognizes that employees need the freedom to
picket or withhold our labor in order to push for the
workplace changes we seek. The bill protects employees' right
to strike by preventing employers from hiring permanent
replacement workers. It also allows unrepresented employees
to engage in collective action or class action lawsuits to
enforce basic workplace rights, rather than being forced to
arbitrate such claims alone.
Finally, the bill would eliminate state right to work laws.
These laws have been promoted by a network of billionaires
and special interest groups to give more power to
corporations at the expense of workers, and have had the
effect of lowering wages and eroding pensions and health care
coverage in states where they have been adopted.
Restoring our middle class is dependent on strengthening
the collective power of workers to negotiate for better pay
and working conditions. That is why public support for unions
is the highest it has been in decades. We urge you to support
the PRO Act and help us build an economy that works for all
working families.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, as one of the few union members in Congress,
let me tell you that the benefits that workers and families earn from
being in a union are significant.
Workers in a union make almost $10,000 more per year, and 70 percent
of workers in a union have a pension plan compared to just 13 percent
of nonunion workers.
The problem is there have been decades-long coordinated attacks on
workers' rights to join or form a union. It is time to make it easier
for workers to have a voice in their workplace, and we have got some
work to do.
There are laws that make it harder to organize, and employees
involved in organizing face barriers, including a one-in-five chance of
getting fired. Even when workers do form a union, employers refuse to
bargain, and more than half of the unions don't get a collective
bargaining agreement within a year.
If you vote to form a union, you should have one and get a contract.
If you are an employee, you shouldn't be misclassified as an
independent contractor. And if an employer violates your labor rights,
they shouldn't be let off the hook.
I am proud to support workers' rights, and I am proud to support the
Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons).
Mr. TIMMONS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the PRO
Act.
Our economy is booming. The unemployment rate is at a record low. The
PRO Act would interfere with this historic progress by adding more
Federal regulations on the very businesses that have been responsible
for this growth.
Employers and businesses could face more than $47 billion in new
annual costs if this bill becomes law. This bill would force employees
to take a public vote on whether they would want to be a part of a
union, a rule that the House Democrats do not even follow themselves.
Democrats even held up the USMCA vote to guarantee the right to a
secret ballot, yet they are depriving the American worker of that same
protection in the PRO Act. Over half of the States in this country have
passed their own right-to-work laws, including my home State of South
Carolina.
The PRO Act would effectively invalidate those laws by forcing
workers to pay union dues in order to keep their jobs. This is a gross
overreach of the Federal Government and something we need less of not
more of throughout this country.
The PRO Act is yet another example of Democratic partisanship and a
flagrant power grab and is, as many other things we have done this
year, not going to get a hearing in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act, which is a pro-middle-class measure that, if
enacted, would increase incomes, improve benefits, and promote better
working conditions for tens of millions of Americans.
The bill essentially debugs all the outdated gaps and loopholes that
a cottage industry of unscrupulous lawyers and consultants have
exploited over the last 50 years to delay and deny Americans their
right to organize for a better standard of living.
The data is crystal clear. The decline of unions since the 1970s has
coincided with wage stagnation for the middle class and the
skyrocketing wealth of Americans in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, re-
creating our new gilded age of outrageous income inequality.
The rights this bill will secure have been internationally recognized
as basic human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by
the United Nations Charter in the wake of World War II and the Vatican
in Pope Leo XII's encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. The right to
organize ``is the natural right,'' Leo wrote, ``and the state has for
its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them.''
Passage of this bill will protect those rights. Please vote ``yes''
for the PRO Act.
Mr. Chairman, I insert in the Record a letter from 2 million members
of the Service Employees International Union, signed by its president,
Mary Kay Henry, in support of this legislation.

SEIU,

May 8, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of
the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), we
write to endorse the Protecting the Right to Organize
(``PRO'') Act of 2019. This important bill would strengthen
working Americans' rights to join together in unions and
bargain for higher wages and better working conditions to
help create balanced, inclusive growth.
In today's economy, too many people are working longer
hours for lower wages, even as corporate profits soar. Unions
are the best solution to leveling the playing field. But
because of a concerted effort to undermine unions in America
over the past forty years, just 6% of private sector working
people have a say in the decisions that affect them at work,
in their communities and in our economy. Too many
unscrupulous employers take advantage of America's outdated
labor laws to stifle the ability of working people to join
together in unions to improve their jobs and build a better
future for their families.
The PRO Act would reinvigorate labor law to help build an
economy that works better for the millions of people who work
for a living--not just those at the top. We applaud the
bill's joint employer provision, which would ensure that
workers can meaningfully bargain with all companies that
actually control their employment. We also endorse the bill's
new standard to stop employers from misclassifying their
workers as independent contractors or supervisors to escape
their responsibilities. These changes would make it harder
for companies to circumvent basic worker protections through
subcontracting arrangements or other evasions.
We also strongly support the PRO Act's reforms banning
anti-worker state laws that supersede collective bargaining
agreements. These so-called Right-to Work laws weaken
workers' voice at the workplace, drive down wages, and
threaten the economic security of all workers--union and
nonunion alike. Working people subject to these laws earn
$1,558 less per year than those who are not. The PRO Act
permits companies and workers to decide for themselves
whether to negotiate fair share agreements in collective
bargaining.
In addition, we are pleased to see PRO Act provisions that
would deter employer misconduct by making remedies
meaningful, penalizing the most egregious violations,
limiting interference in union elections, and facilitating
first contracts with newly formed unions. The bill rightfully
removes restraints on workers' solidarity actions across
different workplaces.
Working people around the country urgently need new laws
like the PRO Act to

[[Page H883]]

make it easier for people to join unions and hold companies
accountable. The PRO Act's much-needed reforms will help
level the playing field for people like Jim Staus who
testified in support of the PRO Act before House Education
and Labor Committee, Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
Subcommittee on May 8, 2019. Although the federal government
twice found that University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
(UPMC) illegally fired Jim for trying to form a union, six
years later he still has not returned to work at UPMC, nor
has he seen a penny of back-pay. If the PRO Act were law, Jim
and so many other working people around the country would not
have to risk everything to organize their unions to have a
seat at the table in determining their families and
community's future, the same way their bosses and
corporations do.
SEIU members are proud to support the PRO Act. We will add
any future votes on this legislation to our legislative
scorecard.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.

{time} 1600

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from North Carolina
for yielding.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2474, but not necessarily
because of some of the reasons that I have heard, though questionable,
from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
As the son of a machinist tool and die maker and a former union
steelworker myself, I value the time-honored role unions play in our
workforce.
I can remember some of the arguments that my dad made for the unions
in the steel mills' machine shops where he worked. I also remember many
of the arguments he made for unions going above and beyond, in the
sense of going too far, for their own protection and not that of the
employees.
But any reforms we make to Federal labor laws should put workers
first, not union leaders first. When we fail to do that, it opens the
door to extravagant abuses of power. Just look at what is happening in
Michigan, sadly, with the corruption scandal at the top levels of the
UAW.
How can we even entertain a transformational labor law at a time when
members of the UAW leadership are under an ongoing Federal
investigation for using members' dues to pay for UAW leadership's
lavish trips to California featuring poolside villas, top-shelf liquor,
fine cigars, golf, and even a $1,200 bill at a Hollywood salon. In our
ethics investigations, we would certainly put those to the top of our
concerns.
This corruption scandal has already yielded 11 convictions. Two
previous UAW presidents have been formally implicated as members of a
racketeering enterprise within the union--I hate hearing those words,
because those impact union membership and their dues--and the current
president, who took over because of the corruption allegations against
the former presidents, has come under Federal investigation as well.
We should, instead, be looking into these abuses as our committee
rather than turning a blind eye and passing legislation that will,
instead, consolidate special interest power to coerce workers by
undermining their right to privacy.
Clearly, this bill sends exactly the wrong message at the wrong time.
It is not speaking for the hardworking families we represent, the
hardworking union members we represent. They deserve better, and that
is what this legislation doesn't offer.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Pocan). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr chair, I yield an additional 10
seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I simply cannot, in good faith, support a
bill that undermines basic freedoms for workers and takes our labor
laws backwards. Instead, let's put workers' interests first by focusing
on protecting and expanding workers' rights within their union.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, before I begin, I enter into
the Record letters in support of the PRO Act from the American
Federation of Musicians and the International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees.

American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada,
New York, NY, February 4, 2020.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of 80,000 members of the
American Federation of Musicians, I write urging your support
of H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (``PRO
Act'') and ask that you oppose any amendments or any
offensive motions that may be offered during House
deliberations.
The PRO Act strengthens the National Labor Relations Act by
supporting the ability of working people to have a voice on
the job. The bill would update the National Labor Relations
Act to allow workers to have a greater say in such important
workplace issues as higher wages and retirement security.
Once workers vote to form a union, the National Labor
Relations Board could seek enforcement and relief in federal
court allowing for swifter justice. In addition, the bill
would prohibit employers from forcing workers to attend
captive audience meetings designed to encourage workers from
voting against the union. Companies and corporate officers
would be confronted with stiff financial penalties for
violating the law.
The PRO act also establishes a mediation and arbitration
process to prevent employers from avoiding the completion of
a first contract. Historically, many employers attempt to
stall first-contract negotiations in an effort to frustrate
and in some cases stop the collective bargaining process,
often after union organizers and negotiators have worked for
years to finalize a first contract.
The bill also supports workers' right to picket or withhold
their labor in order to push for workplace changes. It also
protects employees' right to strike and prevents an employer
from hiring permanent replacement workers and allows
unrepresented workers to participate in collective action and
class action lawsuits against unscrupulous employers.
Finally, HR 2474 eliminates state right to work laws which
over the years have given more power to billionaires and
special interest groups at the expense of lowering worker
wages, eroding pensions and healthcare coverages in states
where such laws have been enacted.
We urge you to support the PRO Act. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Raymond M. Hair, Jr.,
International President,
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada.
____

New York, NY, February 3, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the approximately 125,000
American members of the International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees (IATSE), I urge you to support the Protecting
the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, H.R. 2474, and to oppose
weakening amendments and any Motion to Recommit when the
House of Representatives considers the bill. The PRO Act will
restore fairness to the economy by strengthening the federal
laws that give working people a voice on the job so they can
negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, a more secure
retirement and a safer workplace.
Too often, when workers choose to form a union, employers
stall the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement--
as evidenced by riggers in the Pacific Northwest employed by
Rhino Staging Northwest who voted in 2015 to be represented
by Local 15 of the IATSE, but today still don't have a
contract.
These riggers--who work high above stages, on scaffolding
or catwalks, installing complex lighting and audio
equipment--followed state and federal labor laws, and over
many years organized themselves. Fed up with low pay, no
employer-funded healthcare, and unsafe working conditions
they voted to unionize.
Yet, after these workers voted for the union, Rhino refused
to bargain in good faith as required by federal labor law.
Rhino challenged the union before the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) and in federal court. It lost. It has
stalled and delayed and still today has not entered into a
contract.
This is just one example of how some employers have been
able to violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with
impunity, routinely denying workers their basic right to join
with coworkers for fairness on the job. Time after time,
employers get away with it.
The PRO Act would establish a process for mediation and
arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract.
This important change would make the freedom to negotiate a
reality for countless workers who form unions but never get
to enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement.
The PRO Act would modernize the NLRA by bringing its
remedies in line with other workplace laws. In addition to
imposing financial penalties on companies and individual
corporate officers who violate the law, the bill would give
workers the option of bringing their case to federal court.
Under the bill, once workers vote to form a union, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would be authorized to
order that the employer commence bargaining a first contract.
These orders would be enforced in district courts to ensure
swift justice. In addition, the bill would ensure that
employees are not deprived of their right to a union because
their employer hides behind a subcontractor or other
intermediary, or deliberately misclassifies them as
supervisors or independent contractors.

[[Page H884]]

The bill would also eliminate ``right to work'' laws;
prohibit mandatory ``captive audience'' meetings; and protect
the right to strike, among other provisions.
The PRO Act is a top priority for the IATSE, we urge you to
support this bill and help us build an economy that works for
all working families.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Loeb,
International President.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, when I was a young college
professor in the Los Angeles Community College District, the board of
trustees passed a measure that would lay off over 100 of us, even
though we had tenure.
It was my union, the American Federation of Teachers, that organized
the protests and stood up for us. The union saved my job.
Yet, today, we see that there is a decline in union membership. It is
not because workers don't want to be in a union. It is because
employers have been allowed to use antiunion tactics, such as paying
millions of dollars to professional union busters who come into the
workplace to intimidate workers in captive audience meetings.
Even when workers vote to approve a union, more than half of them
still do not have a collective bargaining agreement 1 year later. That
is because employers face few penalties for bargaining in bad faith,
while employees can be fired for striking and exercising their rights.
The PRO Act is the best way to protect the right to organize and to
help workers have the quality of life they deserve.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
As a Virginian, I am proud that my State is currently one of the 27
that protects the fundamental right to work. Because of Virginia's pro-
business and pro-employer stance, it has once again been ranked the
number one State in which to do business by CNBC.
Unfortunately, this is being threatened both at the State level in
the Virginia General Assembly and now at the Federal level through this
bill, the PRO Act.
Every American should have the right to get a job or keep a job
without being required to join a labor union. This bill would
inappropriately preempt and prohibit that right, while concurrently
violating the privacy of workers by forcing the sharing of their
personal contact information with union organizers, even when this has
been shown to enable harassment and intimidation of those very workers.
This is unacceptable.
The PRO Act would have grave impacts on workers and businesses at a
great cost to the fabric of our workforce.
Founding Father and fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson said: ``To
compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.''
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
to stand for the freedoms and success that our Founding Fathers
believed in.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
I rise in support of unions and millions of workers fighting for higher
wages, better benefits, and safe working conditions.
For years, Republicans and corporate interests have been chipping
away at the rights of workers in America. Employers are aggressively
waging a campaign against unions and against the best interests of
their workers.
It is illegal for employers to intimidate workers who want to join
unions, but it is still happening, because these union-busting bosses
are not being held responsible. The PRO Act will ensure that penalties
are enforced to help put an end to these antiunion activities.
American workers are putting in the work; they should also be reaping
the rewards of their labor. The PRO Act will help workers stand
together to demand their fair share and to make their bosses listen.
Mr. Chair, I enter into the Record a letter from the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union in support of the PRO Act.
International Longshore &

Warehouse Union,

San Francisco, California, February 3, 2020.
Dear Representative: As President of the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), I urge you to support
the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize Act, H.R. 2474)
when debated on the House Floor this week. The ILWU further
urges you to oppose amendments that would weaken this
important legislation.
The ILWU is committed to organizing the unorganized. We
recently celebrated the first union contract for workers at
Anchor Steam Brewing Co. in San Francisco, California. We
have organized other workers into our great union, but have
been unsuccessful in achieving a fair contract due to bad
faith bargaining. The truth is that every day workers are
intimidated, threatened, and coerced simply because they
aspire to join a union and achieve a better life. Our current
labor law allows this immoral corporate behavior without
meaningful consequences.
The United States gave Americans the right to organize
labor unions under the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA).
The increase in unionization encouraged by the law
significantly diminished income inequality over the next
forty years. American workers prospered as a result of having
a voice in the workplace.
However, over time, corporations and their political allies
have gutted organizing rights, and diminished unions, which
has caused great economic disparities. The decline in union
density accounts for one third of the rise in income
inequality among men and one fifth among women according to
the Economic Policy Institute.
The time is now to restore workers' potential to organize.
The PRO Act restores the balance of power we desperately need
between workers and management. This bill authorizes the NLRB
to assess monetary penalties for each violation in which a
workers is wrongfully terminated or suffers serious economic
harm. The bill importantly imposes personal liability on
corporate directors and officers who participate in
violations of workers' rights or have knowledge of and fail
to prevent such violations.
The PRO Act also gives workers the right to override so-
called ``right to work'' laws that prevent unions from
collecting dues from the people they represent. The bill
would give employers and unions the right to enter into a
contract that allows unions to collect fair share fees that
cover the costs of collective bargaining and administering
the contract. It is simply unfair and divisive for some non-
dues paying workers to get a free ride off the backs of their
fellow dues paying workers.
Further, the Act protects First Amendment rights by
removing prohibitions on workers acting in solidarity with
workers at other companies. The bill also prohibits companies
from permanently replacing striking workers.
A critical part of the legislation seeks to facilitate
initial collective bargaining agreements. Even when workers
succeed in forming a union, nearly half of newly formed
unions fail to ever reach a contract with the employer. The
bill facilitates first contracts between companies and newly
certified unions by requiring mediation and arbitration to
settle disputes.
The ILWU fully supports the PRO Act and we urge you to
actively support this important legislation to benefit the
organized labor and those workers who seek to join a union.
It is time to restore the right to organize to American
workers.
Sincerely,
William Adams,
President.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the PRO
Act.
Today's egregious legislation really is mislabeled. It is called the
Protecting the Right to Organize Act, but it really should be renamed
the Unfair to American Workers, or the UAW, Act.
I strongly agree that our constitutionally guaranteed rights, like
the freedom of association, should be protected, but this bill doesn't
strengthen protections for all Americans. This bill upsets the balance
between the right of employees to form a union and the right of
individuals to refrain from joining a union.
H.R. 2474 deliberately speeds up the union election process so that
employees do not have the time to fully vet the pros and cons of
joining a union.
This bill also strips away critical privacy rights by forcing
employers to hand over sensitive private employee information, such as
where an employee lives, what work shifts they work, and more.
Why do they want this information? So union leaders can stalk and
harass employees until they agree to sign up.

[[Page H885]]

The PRO Act, in fact, leaves no corner of labor law untouched. This
bill will disrupt the franchise model to eliminate a franchisee's
ability to operate their business as their own, and it even decimates
the sharing economy by codifying California's ABC test.
What is worse, this bill repeals every right-to-work law in the
Nation, forcing millions of Americans to contribute to a union that
they don't need or that they don't want.
I offered a commonsense amendment to this bill that would require
unions to seek employee consent when using dues for political purposes,
but my amendment was blocked by Democrats from being even debated on
the House floor.
My colleagues on the left will claim that economic inequality has
resulted because of declining union membership, but we know this isn't
true. The economic success that we are seeing today, particularly for
minority groups who have historically faced the most inequality, is
changing thanks to policies put in place by a Republican Congress and
by President Trump. Wage growth is rising faster today for minorities
and individuals most impacted by economic inequality than for any other
group.
Rather than innovating to become more attractive to employees so they
want to join, unions are trying to change Federal law to stack the deck
against hardworking Americans.
Americans aren't rejecting union membership because current labor law
acts as a barrier to forming one. They are declining to join because
they are sick of seeing union leaders harass and coerce their
colleagues; line their own pockets with dues, as we have seen exhibited
in the recent racketeering acts committed by former UAW leaders; and
use employee dues to support political platforms that don't align with
an individual's views.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful power grab.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, I rise today on an issue very personal to me
and to American workers: the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or
the PRO Act.
I am a member of the IBEW for over 40 years and a lifelong labor
leader, a proud labor leader. I can attest to the importance of giving
workers a voice by protecting them from unfair labor practices.
I saw, firsthand, as workers were unjustly fired, lost their wages,
their job, because they dared to speak up about unionization; workers
with families back home, living paycheck to paycheck, who couldn't
afford to be out of work, but they understood how important this was.
Companies have the money. They hire the $1,000-an-hour lawyers. They
delay, they delay, they delay. They would make an example out of one
person, as unjust as that is. They put the life of that worker on hold.
Currently, the NLRA has no penalties for employers that do this, that
violate the law. If workers are fired, there is no current recourse.
I would just ask that we support the PRO Act.
Mr. Chair, I enter into the Record letters of support from the IBEW,
the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the International
Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers.
International Brotherhood

of Electrical Workers,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2020.
To: All Members of the United States House of
Representatives.
Re Protecting the Right to Organize Act.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the 775,000 active
members and retirees of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW), I urge you to vote in support of
H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act,
when it is considered by the full U.S. House of
Representatives this week and to oppose weakening amendments
and any Motion to Recommit. The PRO Act would restore the
original intent of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to
protect workers' right to organize a union and negotiate
higher wages and better benefits.
The right to organize and collectively bargain is a
fundamental right of all Americans and the bedrock of a
capitalist society that allows the benefits of a growing
economy to be shared broadly between workers and employers.
These fundamental rights, however, have been steadily
undermined in recent decades. As a result, union membership
has dropped precipitously from over 20 percent in 1983 to
just 10 percent in 2018. During the same period, incomes for
the bottom half of income earners in the United States have
grown by just one percent between 1980 and 2014, while income
for the top one percent increased by 205 percent. Today,
income inequality has reached levels that predate the Great
Depression.
The reason membership in labor unions is declining is not
due to eroding interest in family-sustaining wages and
benefits--it is because employers have the upper hand.
Workers attempting to unionize often face a hostile legal
environment and are commonly intimidated by aggressive anti-
union employers. Outdated labor laws have failed to provide
Americans with protection from this anti-worker onslaught
against collective bargaining.
The Economic Policy Institute published a report in
December 2019 that found 41.5 percent of all employers in a
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sponsored election were
charged with violating federal labor law. The PRO Act would
help even this vastly tilted playing field by invoking
stronger remedies for violating the law. Currently, there are
no penalties on employers who illegally fire or retaliate
against workers attempting to form a union. This legislation
establishes compensatory damages for workers and penalties
against employers when they fire or retaliate against
workers. In addition, the PRO Act streamlines the NLRB
process so workers can petition to form a union and get a
timely vote without their employer interfering or delaying
the vote. It would also prohibit companies from forcing
workers to attend mandatory captive audience meetings as a
condition of continued employment.
Even if workers do vote for union representation, more than
half do not have a collective bargaining agreement a year
later. The PRO Act would establish a process for reaching a
first agreement when workers organize.
Employers often misclassify workers as supervisors or
independent contractors to deprive them of their rights under
the NLRA while allowing management to skirt minimum wage,
Social Security and workers' compensation laws. The PRO Act
tightens the definitions of independent contractor and
supervisor to crack down on misclassification and extend NLRA
protections to more eligible workers.
Unions provide skills training and continuing education to
their membership, as well as a more stable and safer
workforce. A worker covered by a union contract earns more
than 13 percent more in wages than a peer with similar
education, occupation and experience in a non-union workplace
in the same sector. Where unions are strong, wages are higher
for typical workers--union and nonunion members alike.
Research shows that workers want unions, evidenced by the
large gap between the share of workers with union
representation--about 12 percent--and the share of workers
that would like to have a voice on the job--48 percent. The
PRO Act would take a major step forward toward closing that
gap.
There is no better path to the middle class than a union
job with the security it provides in salary, health benefits
and retirement income. Family sustaining middle class jobs
are the route to economic security, providing the crucial
financial cushion that protect so many families on the edge
of economic disaster once a job loss or a medical emergency
hits a family. Unions provide economic independence and self-
sufficiency, and an expanding middle class is good for the
economy and the country.
The IBEW urges all members of the United States House of
Representatives to stand with working Americans in every
state and community and vote in favor of the PRO Act.
Sincerely yours,
Lonnie R. Stephenson,
International President.
____

International Union of

Operating Engineers,

Washington, DC, January 31, 2020.
Dear Representative: The International Union of Operating
Engineers requests your support for the Protecting the Right
to Organize (PRO) Act, H.R. 2474, and to oppose any weakening
amendments and any Motion to Recommit when the House of
Representatives considers the bill. The PRO Act will repair
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to protect workers
and strengthen the fundamental rights of Operating Engineers
across the nation.
The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) is
one of North America's leading construction unions,
representing nearly 400,000 hardworking men and women in the
United States and Canada. Most members of the IUOE work in
the construction sector, operating and maintaining heavy
equipment, in addition to other occupations in the industry.
We represent heavy equipment operators, mechanics, surveyors,
and other occupations in the sector, and, building the
nation's public works is the bread and butter of the skilled,
proud members of the Operating Engineers union.
The PRO Act would reinforce the federal laws that protect
workers' right to organize a union and bargain for better
wages, benefits, and conditions at their workplaces. For
decades, working families could depend on unions to represent
their collective interests and, by encouraging collective
bargaining, the NLRA offered protection and empowered workers
to seek fairness on the job.

[[Page H886]]

Over the past 50 years, unethical employers have exploited
labor laws and routinely denied workers their basic rights.
While the collective strength of workers has eroded over
time, income inequality has reached levels that predate the
Great Depression. It is imperative that Congress protect the
rights of workers in order to guarantee a healthy economy.
This legislation addresses several major problems with the
current law and tries to level a playing field that is
currently stacked against workers. It will penalize employers
for interfering in the workers' right to form a union,
conduct organizing campaigns, and hold fair elections. It
will strengthen their ability to negotiate first contract
agreements and notably overrides so-called ``right-to-work''
laws by establishing a ``fair share'' clause. It will ensure
workers have a voice on the job by prohibiting employers from
permanently replacing strikers and repealing the prohibition
on secondary boycotts. In addition, it will protect workers
against misclassification--an egregious tactic used in the
construction industry to dodge wage and hour standards. The
PRO Act would ensure employers are not able to skirt their
responsibilities for pay, benefits, and other working
conditions.
This legislation will close loopholes in federal laws and
increase transparency in labormanagement relations. Without
these essential protections, the playing field will remain
heavily stacked against workers. Strengthening the collective
power of workers will strengthen our economy and restore the
American middle class. We urge you to support the PRO Act to
defend the dignity of work for all working families.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James T. Callahan,
General President.
____

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers,
Washington, DC, January 31, 2020.
Dear House Members: On behalf of the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (BAC), I am writing to
express our strong support for the Protecting the Right to
Organize (PRO) Act, H.R. 2474. The PRO Act is historic
legislation that will help level the playing field and help
give workers the opportunity to exercise their right to
organize a union.
BAC is proud of the relationship that we share with our
signatory employers across the United States to provide vital
building and construction services to the communities we live
in. However, our members, and just as importantly the
contractors that hire them, are under assault by unscrupulous
corporations and employers that abuse and deny their workers
from having a meaningful voice in the workplace. The PRO Act
would help address these abuses and provide workers a fair
shot at forming a union of their choice to bargain for better
wages, benefits, and conditions in the workplace.
Too often, employers intentionally violate the law during
organizing campaigns because some of the penalties are so
weak that low road employers just view them as a small cost
of doing the business of union busting. The PRO act
strengthens penalties for such behavior in order to deter
employers from interfering with workers' rights.
The PRO Act also clarifies the definition of independent
contractor and supervisor to help prevent the
misclassification of workers. Misclassification is far too
common in construction and other industries and it prevents
workers from exercising their rights, getting the pay and
benefits they deserve, and deprives communities of much-
needed revenue through tax evasion.
Our economy is out of balance and it is time for Congress
to step up to protect working class families and restore
economic stability. We urge you to support the PRO Act and
oppose any weakening amendments when the House of
Representatives considers the bill.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Driscoll,
President.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx) for yielding.
I rise today in opposition to the PRO Act.
I have heard some things from the other side of the aisle about how
workers earn more in States that are not right-to-work.
Of the right-to-work States, according to the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7 of the top 10 States in wage
increases are right-to-work States. The highest right-to-work State,
number one, saw an increase in wages over the period of time from 2001
to 2019 of 20 percentage points, which is 20 percentage points more
than the closest right-to-work State.
This is not a bill about helping workers. This is a bill about
getting in the way of the relationship between the employee and
employer.

{time} 1615

This is just another Democrat messaging bill that is nothing short of
a special interest giveaway. The PRO Act needlessly inserts more
government control into the employee-employer relationships.
At a roundtable I held with businessowners in Pennsylvania's 12th
Congressional District, I heard firsthand how legislation like this
would negatively impact their ability to grow and raise wages.
One of the many onerous provisions in this legislation is the
allowance for intermittent strikes and banning permanent replacements.
I am offering an amendment today to remove the intermittent striking
provisions of this bill.
Intermittent striking would cripple the ability of job creators to do
business and raise prices on consumers. Even if this amendment were
adopted, I still have significant reservations about the bill. That is
because the PRO Act is also terrible for employees.
Cloaked in the language of employee protection, the real result of
the PRO Act is providing workers with fewer choices, fewer rights, and
the inability to speak for themselves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from
Pennsylvania an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. KELLER. Strikingly, the PRO Act would destroy employee privacy
rights by requiring employers to give away employee identifying
information to union bosses.
If Congress really cares about jobs, the economy, and workers'
rights, it should say ``no'' to the PRO Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor who knows that union members make
more than nonunion members.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for
yielding and for his steady leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday evening, the American people were treated to
a number of fairy-tale promises. But none was more preposterous than
the claim that the administration's agenda has been ``relentlessly
proworker.''
It has been relentless, all right. Relentlessly hostile to our
unions, particularly those seeking redress from the NLRB; relentless in
favoring corporate interests over working people, such as those
deliberately misclassified as contractors; and relentless in its
opposition to permitting employees the right to have their day in court
when their rights are violated.
The PRO Act is what a real proworker agenda looks like: It levels the
playing field for workers in organizing drives. It reorients the NLRB
to defend workers who are unfairly targeted. It blocks worker
misclassifications, and it demands real penalties for violations of
workers' rights.
I am pleased that the PRO Act includes my amendment to ban offensive
lockouts, a cruel technique designed to bring workers to their knees
rather than the negotiating table in good faith. The steelworkers in my
home State of Massachusetts know that cruel tactic all too well.
Mr. Chairman, as the daughter of a union ironworker and the
granddaughter of a union carpenter, I have experienced firsthand why
unions are the foundation of America's middle class. I have lived the
benefits that unions and organized labor bring to families across
Massachusetts and the United States.
I wouldn't be standing here today without them. And it is perfectly
clear why our unions must have their rights restored. Income inequality
has risen as union membership has declined. It is time to reverse that
trend.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice organization which endorses the PRO Act.

Network Lobby for Catholic

Social Justice,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2020.
Dear Representative: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social
Justice urges you to vote YES on the Protecting the Right to
Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 2474). In the spirit of the Gospel,
we promote a just society which ensures that all people are
able to live dignified lives. According to Catholic Social
Justice, labor ``maintains the fabric of the world.'' We are
called to recognize the value of people's human labor,
thereby honoring

[[Page H887]]

the dignity of work as a path to growth, human development,
and personal fulfillment. The PRO Act does just that by
restoring workers' rights to collectively bargain, empowering
them to negotiate for fair wages, benefits, retirement
security, and protection from discrimination and harassment.
We urge a YES vote on the PRO Act to achieve fairness and
justice for disenfranchised working people.
Labor union participation has fallen precipitously over the
years: from a third of wage and salaried workers in the
United States to just 10.7 percent, as of 2017. Protecting
the right to freely associate and organize at the workplace
has been proven to help settle workplace disputes by
restoring the balance of bargaining power between employers
and employees. Workers and employers alike benefit from the
institution of labor protections through unions. Disputes can
be settled unfairly when the power differential between the
employer and employee goes unchecked. Without the power of
collective bargaining, workers' voices go unheard and
workers' concerns go unheeded. When Congress passed the
National Labor Relations Act in 1953, they knew this.
However, nearly every amendment to the law since has
undermined its spirit--making it harder for working people to
form unions, chipping away at workers's rights, and harming
the economy. The PRO Act would expand the full force of
protections once offered by the NRLA.
The PRO Act would: shield workers from retaliation when
they exercise their right to form a union, end mandatory
arbritration in contracting, and apply a clear, fair standard
of protection nationwide which ``right to work'' laws
currently sidestep.
The PRO Act would also: prevent further erosion of the law
by penalizing employers that don't comply, and apply simple
tests to end misclassification of employees.
The PRO Act is a historic proposal that faithfully restores
dignity to workers and rightly appraises their value as full
participants in the workplace and in the economy. We urge you
to vote YES to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act
(H.R. 2474).

Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, it is time to pass the PRO Act.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the misnamed Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
The American economy is thriving by almost any economic measure, and
it seems as though an important job of Congress would be to continue to
support the workers, the employers, and the jobs that have been
powering this, the longest economic expansion in American history.
What we shouldn't do is act to restrict State flexibility, worker
flexibility, and worker choice. Unfortunately, the PRO Act eliminates
the State's ability to decide that they want to be a right-to-work
State; and unfortunately, the PRO Act hurts the franchise sector by
imposing an aggressive new joint employer rule; and unfortunately, the
PRO Act hurts workers who are involved in the gig economy by enacting
unreasonable restrictions on who can be an independent contractor, and
how they can work.
Now, let's make no mistake about it. The impact of these changes
will, indeed, mean less freedom, less flexibility, and over time, it
will mean less prosperity. As a result, Mr. Chairman, I am voting
``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the co-chair of the
Progressive Caucus and distinguished member of the Committee on
Education and Labor, and a lady who knows, by every measure, that
economic progress was better under Obama than President Trump.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support today of the PRO
Act. I talk to people every day who take tremendous pride in the work
that they do, and, yet, many of these workers are facing terrible
injustices on the job; poorly paid; inadequately insured; harassed; and
often in workshops that are dangerous and discriminatory.
Mr. Chairman, no one should have to go to work and face injustice and
be afraid to speak up. That is just not right.
The PRO Act makes it clear that we are putting power back into the
hands of workers; and that we are ensuring and expanding workers'
rights to organize. Let's be clear that that benefits everybody.
Unionized women earn wages that are 23 percent higher. Black workers'
wages are 14 percent higher, and Latinx workers' wages are 21 percent
higher than in nonunionized workplaces.
Young unionized workers more often have health insurance, higher pay,
and a retirement plan. That is why workers' approval for unions keeps
rising.
Mr. Chairman, every worker deserves a fair and safe workplace, and
that is what the PRO Act does.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a petition signed by over 63,000
community members in support of the PRO Act.

February 4, 2020.
Re Delivery of signatures regarding the U.S. House of
Representatives' floor vote on the Protecting the Right
to Organize Act.

Chairman Bobby Scott,
House Education and Labor Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bobby Scott: Please accept over 63,000
signatures from community members across the country on
behalf of a coalition of 11 advocacy, climate, labor, and
trade organizations advocating for the passage of the
Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. We ask that your
office enter this letter and the accompanying signatures into
the public record. We thank you, Chairman Scott, for your
introduction and support of this historic legislation.
Our coalition believes that working class and middle class
families in the United States deserve income security and
should be able to organize their co-workers to demand living
wages and healthy working conditions.
In a time when the richest Americans' wealth growth has
increased by over 200 percent while wages remain stagnant for
the rest of us, we urge the U.S. House of Representatives to
pass the PRO Act.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA),
Climate Hawks Vote, Courage Campaign, CREDO Action, Daily
Kos, Economic Policy Institute Policy Center, Friends of the
Earth Action, National Employment Law Project, People For the
American Way, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from
the CWA on how unions reduce income inequality.

Communications Workers of America,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the officers and 700,000
members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am
writing to urge you to vote for H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize (PRO) Act, when it comes before the House
this week and to oppose any amendments that would weaken the
bill. For CWA, this is the most important vote that has come
before the House of Representatives in years and our members
are watching it closely.
The huge surge in economic inequality over the past
quarter-century is related directly to many workers' lack of
a strong voice on the job. Over that time, wages have
stagnated for workers across the economy, while income has
skyrocketed for CEOs and the wealthiest 1%. By 2012, the
wealthiest 1% made 22.5% of national income, while the bottom
90% of families made less than half of national income--just
49.6%.
During that same time period, union density has declined
substantially. Since the early 1980s, the overall
unionization rate has been cut in half. This harms workers
who are unable to form unions directly, but it also hurts
other workers, as research by the Economic Policy Institute
shows that higher union density increases wages for all
workers.
Moreover, the harm to workers caused by the lack of an
organized voice on the job is not limited simply to
compensation. Workers who form unions have stronger
protections against discrimination and retaliation, enhanced
job security, better retirement benefits, and more effective
ways of combating practices that jeopardize their health and
safety on the job.
Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does
not currently include protections strong enough to ensure
that workers are able to effectively exercise their right to
organize, bargain collectively, and have a strong voice on
the job. The NLRA's penalties are ineffective and
insufficient, amounting to little more than a vague threat of
a slap on the wrist to employers who violate the NLRA. As a
result, workers are routinely illegally disciplined or even
fired for exercising their NLRA rights, with little to no
consequence for the bad actors.
Just as concerning is what is actually permitted under the
NLRA. Employers can hold ``captive audience'' meetings, in
which executives can and do force workers to attend hours-
long meetings in which management berates and intimidates
workers who want to organize. Employers can and do also fail
to negotiate fair first contracts, preventing workers who
form unions from ever securing a collective bargaining
agreement. As a result, many workers are deterred from
fighting to exercise their rights in the first place.
The PRO Act would strengthen the NLRA and, in so doing,
empower workers across the country. The PRO Act would:
Strengthen remedies for workers who face illegal
retaliation, including swift temporary reinstatement for
workers who are illegally

[[Page H888]]

suspended or fired, real financial penalties, and the
clarification of their ability to have their day in court;
Clarify coverage of the NLRA to prevent the
misclassification of workers as independent contractors;
Protect the integrity of union elections against coercive
captive audience meetings;
Ensure that the National Labor Relations Board's orders are
enforced in a timely manner;
Protect workers' right to strike for basic workplace
improvements;
Ensure that workers and employers are able to reach fair
deals for a first contract by establishing mediation and
arbitration procedures;
Strengthen the ability of workers and companies to
negotiate contracts that include fair share fees that cover
the basic costs of representation and bargaining;
Safeguard the rights of all workers to engage in
employment-related class action litigation.
The PRO Act would ensure that workers' right to a voice on
the job would be protected. In doing so, it would help combat
skyrocketing economic inequality and strengthen the middle
class. Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote for the PRO
Act. CWA will include votes on this bill and any amendments
that would undermine the bill in our Congressional Scorecard
and this is the single highest priority vote for CWA and our
members of the 116th Congress.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Dan Mauer,

Director of Government Affairs,
Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
bill today.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking
member, for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there is one reason we are here today and one reason
alone. It is not to protect American workers. No, it is to protect big
labor and their bosses.
There is so much real work to be done. We should be working to
empower American workers, to modernize our employment laws, and to meet
the demands of the 21st century economy. Instead, with this
legislation, my friends on the other side want to turn back the clock
and try to force power back into the hands of union bosses.
Make no mistake, this bill is a massive job killer. It will wipe out
right-to-work laws which have now been adopted in a majority of States
in this country. It will close small businesses. It will allow union
bosses the freedom to coerce American workers, and it will force
millions to pay union dues against their consent.
For some reason, my friends on the other side refuse to see the
results of the proworker Trump agenda. When government gets out of the
way, when we put down the regulatory pen, when we let the American
economy work, American ingenuity will lead the world.
At a time of record prosperity, they propose we bring back many of
the failed policies of the Obama administration, the very policies that
led to so many years of stagnation.
My message to my friends on the other side is clear: Do not betray
the American worker. Do not turn back the clock. Vote ``no'' on the PRO
Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have not been on the floor to hear all of the debate, but it is
interesting to hear how proworker the debate is from a party that has
been responsible for opposing workers' protections, workers' wages,
minimum wages, and almost every other thing that lifted workers up.
I will remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the best
times for the middle class were when the unions had the largest number
of members. Why? Because employers could not just tell them: You are
going to get this. No, there had to be a bargaining saying: Look, we
are making a lot of profits. We want to share in those profits because
we enabled those profits.
So, yes, we are for giving workers the right to organize. We are for
everybody who benefits from that, paying part of the taxes for that.
There are a lot of people who don't like the policies we pursue. But
they have to pay taxes because the majority decides that that is what
we are going to do. And that is the policy of the United States. And
you can't say: Well, I don't like the policy, so I am not going to pay.
I rise in very strong support of this bill. This is a bill about the
middle class. This is a bill about working people. You talk a lot about
working people. This is what lifts up working people, giving them some
ability to negotiate on somewhat of an equal plane.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which will
protect workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. That
right is at the heart of American opportunity. Furthermore, I would
suggest there is not a robust democracy in the world that does not have
a trade union movement. It is what made prosperity possible for
generations of working people and their families.
This administration and Republicans in Congress have been working to
undermine that right and erode the protections won by the workers'
rights movement. Today, I am proud to bring this legislation to the
floor to make it clear that Democrats will not allow that to happen.
We stand with the men and women of organized labor, and all workers
who benefit through their efforts, and we will fight on their behalf to
protect workers' rights.
I want to thank Chairman Bobby Scott of the Education and Labor
Committee for introducing this legislation and shepherding it through
the committee where Members helped strengthen it and ensure broad
support across our caucus.
In addition to banning employers from forcing workers to participate
in anti-union activities--perhaps my friends in the House who believe
in freedom think maybe that is wrong. I don't know. We will see--the
PRO Act ends the practice of management misclassifying workers in order
to deny them benefits and fair pay. I challenge anybody to get up and
say that doesn't happen.
It puts the National Labor Relations Board back on the side of
workers, stopping the Trump administration's use of that board to
subvert workers' rights. When they say ``deregulation,'' regulation is
making sure workplaces are safe; making sure that products that are
sold are safe--that is regulation--making sure that automobiles are
safe to be on the road. That is regulation.
By the way, we all know about regulations. We watch a football game.
It is a regulation that you can't cross the line until the ball is
hiked. That is regulation. It makes the game fair. This bill
strengthens unions' hands in negotiations by prohibiting employers from
hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. In other words, do
it my way, kid, or get out.
That is the way it used to be before the 1930s where some people died
walking lines. They were trying to picket or trying to make the case
for their employees. Yes, some people died, and some people bled so
that other workers would have a fair shot, fair pay, safe workplace,
and some long-term security.
In short, the PRO Act is the workers' rights legislation our Nation
has been waiting for. If we are for the middle class, we need to make
sure that the middle class has some bargaining power. It is the
legislation our country needs to confront the assault of unorganized
labor that has been ramped up under this antiworker President.

{time} 1630

When we have strong unions, workers--even those not in unions--end up
with higher wages, better healthcare, more secure retirement benefits,
and safer workplaces.
They had to fight for that, and as I said, some people died for that.
That is why we need legislation like the PRO Act.
When the Democratic-led House passes this bill, it will join other
proworker legislation waiting for action in the Senate. These include
the Raise the Wage Act to bring the Federal minimum wage up to $15.
There is not one of us who could live on $15 an hour, but we have kept,
over the 12 years that the Republicans were in the majority, $7.25 as
the minimum wage. I challenge anybody in this House to live on $7.25 an
hour for 40 hours.
We ensured equal pay for women in the Equality Act, which bans
discrimination against LGBT workers. Martin

[[Page H889]]

Luther King said to judge on the content of character and effort, not
on some extraneous character trait that may have nothing to do with
whether you can perform the job.
We also passed the Butch Lewis Act to protect multiemployer pension
funds, as well as the SECURE Act to help more workers save for a secure
retirement.
Let's not forget we passed legislation protecting coverage for
Americans with preexisting conditions. The President said he was for
preexisting conditions, but he wanted to repeal the Affordable Care
Act. They tried, and they had a big celebration down at the White House
right after they passed it from the House to the Senate.
Guess what happened 2 weeks later? The President said: That is a mean
bill.
Check the Record, Mr. Chairman. All of these bills are sitting on
Senator Mitch McConnell's desk. I call on Senator McConnell to restore
democracy and let Senators vote.
I urge my colleagues to send the PRO Act to the Senate with strong
support. This is proworker, pro-middle class, profamily, and pro-
American. Vote ``yes.''
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I have to say that saying that
this is the most antiworker President ever in the country is just
pretty far off the mark. And we are, on our side of the aisle, I
believe, the most proworker people in the Congress.
American workers have the right to organize, and Republicans support
that right. This bill is not needed to protect those rights.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member, who has fought hard on this legislation that I want to talk to
you about today.
It is very interesting to stand here and listen to my colleagues and
me talk about refereeing and talking about regulations. Sometimes,
refereeing doesn't get it right when it comes to sporting events, and
it is disappointing today because I stand here as somebody who has
worked with, supported, and been supported by many members of organized
labor, my friends in the building trades and my friends the airline
pilots and the air traffic controllers. I would use the rest of my time
if I talked about all the men and women in organized labor whom we have
worked with to try to come up with bipartisan solutions.
Despite my strong record of supporting Davis-Bacon, PLAs, and
ensuring workers have the means to unionize, I have to oppose this
bill.
The Democrat majority has brought to the floor another bill that has
no chance of becoming law. It is a messaging bill, and it has a couple
of provisions that I really have to highlight.
Last year, the Democrat majority proposed in H.R. 1 that every single
member of the Democratic majority who voted for that had public
financing of their own congressional campaigns with corporate fines.
The corporate fine provision in this bill could create a circumstance
where a business commits an unfair labor practice and the civil
penalties get directed to Members of Congress' campaigns, not to
victims. This is irresponsible.
The joint employer standard that is codified in this law is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, reconsider this legislation. Let's work together to
actually come up with solutions.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who is the co-chair of
the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the PRO Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
The right to organize in this country has become a fundamental right.
It is one of the core pillars of the American middle class.
Nowhere do we understand that better than in my home area of
northeastern Pennsylvania, where we remember that, almost 100 years
ago, anthracite coal miners went out on strike to protest unsafe
working conditions, children in the mines, terrible wages, and bad
conditions generally. They have made fair wages and safe workplaces.
They wove them into the fabric of American law.
This is all because they had the right to organize, and that is what
we are here to do. Today, we strengthen and preserve the right to
organize through the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. Let's vote
``yes'' on it.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for the opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, if the majority believed its own rhetoric surrounding
this legislation, it would have been a day one priority. Instead, they
brought this legislation up in the shadow of impeachment to conceal the
harm it would impose on working-class Americans.
This legislation explicitly eliminates the employer as a party in the
election process determining whether the workplace is unionized,
limiting the ability of workers to understand the full implications of
any decision at hand.

Worse, it requires the employer to hand over the workers' private,
personal information to organizers, including their home addresses,
listed phone numbers, personal email addresses, et cetera, without the
consent of the employee or the ability for employees to opt-out.
This information sharing subjects every single employee to the well-
documented tactics of harassment, intimidation, and deception by union
organizers. Just consider the presentment in the recent Pennsylvanian
case that included The Helpful Union Guys. That is an acronym. Figure
it out. There were charges of racketeering, assault, and arson.
Making matters worse, the bill vastly restricts the right to secret
ballot elections in favor of the organization by card-check process,
providing the union leaders with access to a list of all employees who
did not support organization efforts and all of their contact
information.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle held up the USMCA deal
to ensure the right to secret ballot union elections for Mexican
workers but, just weeks later, are voting to strip those same rights
away from American workers. What is good for Mexican workers is not
good for American workers, apparently.
This bill rewrites the definition of ``employee'' and ``employer'' so
that they completely eliminate the gig economy, independent
contractors, and the franchise model, and it will disproportionately
impact small businesses.
The estimated combined cost of the provisions in this bill is $47
billion annually on employers, necessarily resulting in loss of jobs,
reduction of wages, and higher consumer costs.
Yet again, the majority is placing special interests of union bosses
above the American people.
Mr. Chairman, as a person who went to vocational and technical school
and worked manual labor jobs, I urge a ``no'' vote for this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She is someone who has read the
bill and knows that civil fines in the bill are paid to the U.S.
Treasury, not to the unions victimized by unfair labor practices.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank Chairman
Scott for yielding, but also for his tremendous leadership on behalf of
American workers.
I rise in strong support today of the PRO Act. This bill protects the
basic right to join a union by giving millions of workers protections
to organize, negotiate better pay, and a strong voice on the job.
Unions are vital to the health of our economy and our community. They
help reduce racial and economic inequality, boost pay, and increase
benefits for workers.
Unfortunately, antiworker attacks have seriously weakened our unions
and our middle class. Union membership is at an all-time low, and
workers are scared even to organize or join a union. That is so
shameful.
We must protect workers' rights to organize and improve the quality
of life for themselves and their families. That is why this bill is so
important. The PRO Act strengthens the power of

[[Page H890]]

all workers to join a union and hold wealthy corporations accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters from labor groups
in support of this PRO Act. These letters are from the Department for
Professional Employees, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Equal Rights
Advocates, National Employment Law Project, National Partnership for
Women and Families, National Taskforce on Tradeswomen's Issues,
National Women's Law Center, and UltraViolet.
Department for Professional

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, February 4, 2020.
Re H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 24 national unions in
the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE), I
urge you to support H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to
Organize (PRO) Act, and to oppose any weakening amendments
and any Motion to Recommit when the House of Representatives
considers this bill. The PRO Act will ensure that
professionals can exercise their right to join together in
union and negotiate collectively with their employers by
restoring the original intent of the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA).
DPE knows from our 2016 national survey of nonunion
professionals that a majority of professionals want to join
together in union. Unfortunately, in too many instances,
employers are able to violate the NLRA and deny professionals
their right to form a union with their colleagues.
The PRO Act will help ensure all professionals can achieve
their right to join together in union and negotiate
collectively with their employers to improve their lives and
their workplaces. The legislation modernizes the NLRA so that
it has remedies consistent with other workplace laws, ending
the perverse incentive that exists currently for employers to
break the law. Companies and individual corporate officers
will be subject to financial penalties if they violate the
NLRA, and professionals will have the ability to bring their
cases to federal court. Further, the PRO Act will provide for
fair union elections. The bill will also stop employers from
hiding behind a subcontractor or other intermediary, or
deliberately misclassifying professional employees as
supervisors or independent contractors to evade their
employer responsibilities.
Recognizing that professionals can only fully realize the
value of joining together in union when they have a written
contract, the PRO Act will also put a stop to employers using
tactics that prevent employees from achieving a union
contract. The legislation establishes a process for mediation
and arbitration to assist employers and their employees with
reaching agreement on a first contract. A written contract--
just like CEOs have--is how union professionals can guarantee
pay and benefits, ensure a voice in decisions affecting them
at work, and secure pathways to sustain their careers.
The PRO Act also recognizes that professionals must be able
to picket or withhold their labor in order to have the power
necessary to improve their workplaces. The legislation will
prevent employers from hiring permanent replacement workers
in instances when professionals decide they have no choice
but to go on strike. In addition, nonunion professionals will
be able to engage in collective action to enforce basic
workplace rights, instead of being required to pursue justice
on their own through employer-favored arbitration
proceedings.
Lastly, the PRO Act would eliminate state right to work
laws. Secretive special interest groups and their billionaire
funders push these laws in an effort to give corporations
more power at the expense of everyday professionals. We must
learn from the experience of the past seven decades, which
has shown that people in states with right to work laws have
lower wages and reduced access to quality health care and
retirement security.
The experience of the more than four million professional,
technical, and other highly skilled workers who make up DPE's
24 national unions demonstrates that working people do better
when they can negotiate collectively for better pay and
improved working conditions. That is why a majority of
nonunion professionals want to join together with their
colleagues and negotiate with their own employers. And it is
why I urge you to support the PRO Act when it comes before
you for a vote on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Dorning,
President.
____

February 6, 2020.
Re Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 2474).

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations write in
support of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act
(H.R. 2474) and in opposition to any amendment that would
deny the bill's protections to the approximately 9.2 million
working people in franchise employment in the United States.
The PRO Act is an important measure that will improve the
lives of millions of working people and their families by
streamlining the process for forming a union, ensuring that
new unions are able to negotiate a first collective
bargaining agreement, and holding employers accountable when
they violate workers' rights. These rights are especially
critical for women, who not only disproportionately benefit
from union representation, but who make up 6 out of 10 low-
paid workers in the United States toiling in jobs that are in
desperate need of union protections.
Of the 9.2 million people who work in franchise employment,
the largest share by far works in the restaurant and fast
food industry--approximately 5 million people. The
consequences of shielding these corporate franchisors from
taking responsibility for employees they jointly control
would be felt by some of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid
working people. Over half of employees in the U.S. fast food
industry are women, and around one-quarter are raising
children. The fast-food industry is notorious for workplace
abuse: according to one recent survey, for example, over 40
percent of women in the fast-food industry face sexual
harassment on the job, which can lead to negative physical
and mental health impacts, job insecurity, and major life
disruption. Carving franchise employment out of the
protections of the PRO Act would allow franchisors to
continue to shirk their responsibilities to these working
people. For collective bargaining to be most meaningful and
effective, every entity with control over workers' jobs must
be at the bargaining table.
For instance, the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU,
Fight for $15 and others are supporting courageous McDonald's
workers who are speaking out about the sexual harassment they
face working at corporate and franchise-run stores. These
allegations include vile verbal abuse, groping, stalking, and
assault, including of teenagers, as well as swift retaliation
for workers who speak out about harassment. In its public
responses, McDonald's continues to distance itself from
responsibility for the sexual harassment in its franchise-run
stores. When announcing new policies to respond to sexual
harassment, McDonald's has carefully noted that the new plans
apply only to corporate-owned stores; franchise-run stores
were encouraged, but not required, to have similar policies.
At the same time, McDonald's sets policies for its franchise-
run stores that determine so many details of the work--down
to the kind of pickles on a hamburger--precisely so that any
difference between corporate and franchise stores is
undetectable. In fact, McDonald's corporate identity is so
intertwined with franchise operations that many workers do
not even realize they are working in a franchise-run store--
just as customers do not notice any difference, either.
McDonald's wants it both ways: to closely control the product
and reap the benefits of its brand in franchise-run stores
but not to have any of the liability when workers whose day-
to-day work is dictated by this corporate control are
harassed.
The McDonald's workers who have come forward to make their
industry better for millions of other women deserve the
chance to improve their lives using the tools that the PRO
Act provides, and so do all working people employed at
franchise establishments. Unions can help create a safe and
healthy workplace for all working people. Working people with
a union may be better able to raise harassment concerns
because collective bargaining agreements can provide
increased protection from firing and retaliation than are
available to most non-union workers--and if harassment or
retaliation does occur, individuals may have more mechanisms
to challenge unjust employer actions.
The PRO Act is critical for women and their families
because collective bargaining increases women's equality at
work. Women in unions are more likely than their non-union
counterparts to receive higher and more equal pay, better
health care and pension benefits, and greater protections
against discrimination on the job.
We urge you to support the PRO Act and reject attempts to
weaken this bill by changing the joint employer standard to
leave behind millions of franchise workers.
Sincerely,
Coalition of Labor Union Women, Equal Rights Advocates,
National Employment Law Project, National Partnership for
Women & Families, National Taskforce on Tradeswomen Issues,
National Women's Law Center, UltraViolet.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote for our
workers and a ``yes'' vote for this bill.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, among the PRO Act's most harmful provisions is the ABC
test to determine employee status. Like many of the Democrats' worst
ideas, the ABC test was enacted in California in a law known as AB5 and
is already causing pain since going into effect on January 1 of this
year.
Last week, hundreds rallied to repeal the law. One worker said: ``I
worked years to gain my skill as an American Sign Language interpreter.
It was my goal since I was 9 years old. After AB5, I lost all three of
my agencies. The dream I worked for is lost. I can't provide for my
family, and thousands of California deaf won't be serviced.''

[[Page H891]]

One artistic director at last week's rally summed it up for the Chico
Enterprise-Record: ``We are not stupid. We do not need to be saved from
ourselves. We can negotiate our own contracts. AB5 is insulting.''
Mr. Chair, this is the reaction of California workers who are being
harmed by a section that will be in this piece of legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time is
remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is a strong supporter of
workers and who hails from one of the majority of States that have an
ABC test.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2474, the Protecting
the Right to Organize Act. As a former--well, I am still an ironworker.
I still pay my dues every single month.
I strapped on a pair of work boots for about 20 years as an
ironworker and eventually worked my way up to become president of
Ironworkers Local 7 in Boston. So I guess that makes me a union boss,
as I have been referred to previously. I am organized labor, I guess.
I have seen firsthand how employers have used intimidation and
threats to punish and deter workers from the right to join a union, to
seek safe conditions at work and fair wages, and to have a voice in the
workplace.
This bill before us takes direct aim at the abusive employer
practices by closing loopholes in existing law, establishing civil
penalties for retaliation, and ensuring new unions get their first
contract.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote in favor of this act.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to address on this bill
something that I assume has been addressed before but, nevertheless, of
all the provisions of the bill I find most offensive.
Under this bill, the employers are required to give the telephone
number, the email, and the address of each employee. I do believe in
the importance of protecting people's privacy, and to say that, by
wanting to have a union election, you have the right to find out where
every possible person lives I think is offensive, not to mention I
think it would be very scary to have somebody come home one night and
they find somebody there waiting for them to talk about the union
election.
You have to wonder what are these people doing here. And then you
are: Oh, they are here to deal with this.
It is hard for me to believe that a party that purports to look out
for women and that sort of thing is going to turn around and pass a
bill saying we are going to hand out everybody's address.

{time} 1645

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who knows that Social Security
numbers are not available under this bill, but the same information
that the Trump NLRB currently provides is in the bill.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Scott.
I am a proud supporter of the hardworking men and women of our
Nation, and no one does more for American workers than organized labor.
Workers standing together and bargaining collectively have been
instrumental in building our country and our middle class for more than
a century. Unions helped bring tens of millions of good-paying jobs to
Americans by working for fair and safe workplaces and better wages and
benefits.
In Chicagoland, we are fortunate to have many labor unions fighting
every day to improve the lives of workers and their families. Across my
district, thousands display a lawn sign created by Chicago Federation
of Labor that reads, ``Proud Union Home.''
But, sadly, some are now trying to hinder collective bargaining and
undermine the National Labor Relations Act just at a time when workers
need greater protection.
Mr. Chair, today, I urge my colleagues to support American workers,
support American prosperity, and vote to pass the PRO Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
Mr. RUIZ. As labor goes, so goes America.
When workers' rights are diminished, our middle class struggles.
This economy has made millions and billions for millionaires and
billionaires, but middle-class families feel left behind. Their wages
fail to keep pace with inflation, and workers struggle for better
conditions.
That is why I urge the House to vote for H.R. 2474, the Protecting
the Right to Organize Act, to strengthen and protect workers' right to
organize so they can negotiate higher wages, fight for better benefits,
and protect themselves from abuse.
It was labor that first stood up for workers' rights; it was labor
that built America's middle class; and it is labor that continues to
fight to bring fairness to our economy and improve the lives of
hardworking middle-class families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support workers across the Nation
by voting ``yes'' on the PRO Act today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters
of support for the PRO Act from the TWU, ATU, and AFSCME.

Transport Workers Union of

America, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 151,000 members
of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), I am writing to urge
you to support the passage of Protecting the Right to
Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 2474), as well as to oppose any
weakening amendments or motion to recommit. As written, his
bill directly addresses the needs of the middle-class in the
21st century and will help ensure that our next generation
economy is one that puts working families first.
Our labor laws are designed to provide access to the time-
tested process of collective bargaining. Under the National
Labor Relations Act, certain workers, through their elected
representatives, negotiate directly with their employer over
the terms of their labor. How often will they work? How much
will they be paid? What benefits will they receive beyond
their salary? Through collective bargaining, these questions
are answered in a unique way for each work group and at each
company. This is an incredibly flexible process that has
allowed TWU to successfully negotiate contracts for everyone
from flight attendants to mechancis to railroad inspectors to
bus operators to bikeshare workers.
In the nearly 75 years since Congress last took action to
substantially reform our labor laws, our economy has
undergone significant changes. However, the central role that
workers play in generating wealth for our nation has not
changed. While Facebook bikeshare workers (TWU members since
2019) may be employed at a company and in a job that did not
exist in 1947, they still deserve the right to collectively
bargain to improve their compensation and benefits. The
reforms in the PRO Act will ensure that gSains in the 21st
century economy include working families.
The proportion of unionized workers in the U.S. is at a 90-
year low because of structural hurdles which make joining a
new union very difficult. Companies misclassify workers as
independent contractors, engage shell companies to hire
employees, and ignore our labor laws on a daily basis in
order to deny their workers the right to organize and
collectively bargain. Tactics like these have driven down the
percent of unionized workers in the U.S. along with salaries
and benefits for the middle class. Our era of historic income
inequality can only be fixed by reforming our outdated labor
laws and empowering working families.
The PRO Act would directly address these issues and give
workers across the entire economy equal access to the
collective bargaining process. In order ensure workers'
rights keep pace with the new economy, the Transport Workers
Union strongly urges you to to vote for final passage of H.R.
2474 and oppose any weakening amendments.
Sincerely,
John Samuelsen,
International President.
____

Amalgamated Transit Union,

Silver Spring, MD, February 3, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit
Union (ATU), the largest union representing transit workers
in the U.S., I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of the
Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 (H.R. 2474).
Public transit employees work under difficult
circumstances. Bus drivers work long shifts, refraining from
drinking water because they don't get adequate time to use

[[Page H892]]

the restroom. Operators frequently get assaulted by angry
passengers who don't want to pay increased fares for reduced
service. Transit maintenance employees do their jobs under
dangerous conditions, from the garages they work in, to the
tools they use, to the air they breathe.
Often times when low paid transit employees attempt to
improve their standard of living by joining a union, they are
thwarted by ruthless multinational companies which do
everything they can to squash workers' dreams, and current
U.S. Labor Laws authorize and enable them to do so.
Private transit employers regularly violate the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with no consequences. Workers are
forced to attend ``captive audience'' meetings whose sole
purpose is to convince them to vote against the union.
Companies place massive pressure on the shoulders of low
income individuals with families and tell them lies about
what it means to be in a union.
Sometimes, the companies hide behind definitions in the law
to get their way. Last year, in the case of SuperShuttle DFW,
Inc. v. Amalgamated Transit Union 1338, the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that a shuttle company's drivers
were correctly classified as independent contractors, making
it difficult for gig-workers to be classified as employees
under the NLRA because protected bargaining is only granted
to traditional employees.
Moreover, even when workers actually vote to join a union,
the companies still fight, working ruthlessly to decertify
bargaining units and bust unions even before they get a
chance to negotiate a first contract. It never ends, and it
is not a fair fight.
The PRO Act would modernize the NLRA by bringing its
remedies in line with other workplace laws, imposing
appropriate financial penalties on companies that violate the
code. It would also establish a process for mediation and
arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract,
making the freedom to negotiate a reality for countless
workers who form unions but never get to enjoy the benefits
of a collective bargaining agreement. It would generally
provide a more level playing field so that an increased
number of workers could join unions and have a better chance
to successfully fight for their wages, benefits, and working
conditions.
On behalf of the members and potential future members of
the ATU living in your congressional district, we urge you to
support H.R. 2474. Thank you for your consideration of our
views.

AFSCME,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2020.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) strongly supports
passage of the ``Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act''
(H.R. 2474). As the largest public-sector union, our members
believe that all workers, both private and public sector
workers, deserve the right to organize and bargain
collectively to improve their working conditions.
At a time when the economy is strong and unemployment is
low, there are still people who have to work two or three
jobs to make ends meet. Some workers cannot take time off of
work due to a cold or to take care of a sick family member
because they will lose pay and won't be able to cover rent or
buy food. When workers can form or join a union, they can
negotiate a contract that provides livable wages, paid leave,
health insurance and retirement benefits. Workers have
protections if they are retaliated against by their employer.
They can demand safe workplace environments. When workers
have protections and good working conditions, the products
and services that they provide are better. This is good for
the company, consumers and the economy.
According to a study by David Madland at the Center for
American Progress (CAP), there is a direct correlation
between the strength of unions and the middle class. Union
membership rates have fallen over the past 50 years, along
with the share of income that goes to the middle 60 percent
of American households. In 1968, this group of households
brought home 53.2 percent of national income. That same year,
28.2 percent of American workers were union members. As union
membership rates began to slide downward, so too did the
share of income accruing to the middle class. In 2017, just
less than 11 percent of American workers were unionized, and
the middle 60 percent of households now earn just 45.5
percent of national income, barely up from 45.4 percent in
2016, a record low share.
For decades, abusive employers have been able to violate
federal labor laws with relative impunity, making it more
difficult for workers to organize and negotiate for fair pay,
benefits and working conditions. The PRO Act builds upon
collective bargaining rights for private sector workers by
expanding coverage to more employees. It increases penalties
for violations of workers' rights. It strengthens support for
workers who suffer retaliation and it prohibits employers
from interfering in union elections.
AFSCME strongly urges Congress to pass the PRO Act. This
bill will improve the rights of workers, which will make our
country stronger.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. ROSE of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PRO
Act to protect workers against an unprecedented tide of attacks on
hardworking Americans.
Unions are the backbone of our economy, and, for too long, Congress
has watched as unions are trampled on in the name of shareholder value.
Well, no more.
For far too long, the Democratic Party has treated unions as if they
were fully owned subsidiaries, talking to them only during times of
elections. Well, with this Congress, we say that those days are no
more.
For too long, the Democratic Party stood on the sidelines and watched
nonunion members go to war with union members, all in the working class
and the middle class, and we had forgotten that, when the union
movement works well, when the union movement grows, the entire middle
class prospers. Well, that ends today.
With this bill, we reaffirm workers' rights to organize a union and
to negotiate higher wages and better benefits. By passing this bill, we
uphold the bedrock values of this country.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the vice chair of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Scott for his
incredible leadership on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to support the PRO Act. It is an
essential step to restoring the power of the American middle class,
raising wages, improving benefits and working conditions, and tackling
income inequality.
I have spent most of my career helping workers form unions and
bargain collectively, so I know firsthand the power that comes with the
ability to organize.
Union workers make, on average, 13 percent more than their nonunion
counterparts; they are 27 percent more likely to be offered health
insurance through their employers; and they are five times as likely as
nonunion workers to have a real pension.
Working families across this country who are trying to make ends meet
need bigger paychecks, better benefits, and a safe place to work where
they are treated with respect. The PRO Act will get us there, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of other speakers,
but they are not here now, so we are prepared to close.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chair, for nearly 80 years, Federal labor law has struck a
careful balance among the rights of employers, employees, and unions,
resulting in a growing economy and greater prosperity. But the
Democrats are seeking to upend that balance and radically tilt the
playing field in favor of unions and against workers and small
businesses.
We now have additional proof about the motivations of House Democrats
for advancing this radical special interest legislation. It comes from
Democrats' most feared, Big Labor union boss, Richard Trumka, President
of the AFL-CIO, who said the following yesterday:

Those who would oppose, delay, or derail this legislation,
do not ask us, do not ask the labor movement for a dollar or
a door knock. We won't be coming.

That truly says it all. The PRO Act is all about serving the
interests of union bosses at the expense of workers and business
owners.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PRO
Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act is based on a
simple idea that hard work should pay off. Strong labor unions and
collective bargaining rights have long ensured that workers receive a
fair share of the profits that they have produced.
Unfortunately, decades of antiunion attacks have slowly eroded
workers' collective bargaining rights, weakened labor unions, and
contributed to a dramatic rise in income inequality.
When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they

[[Page H893]]

have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The
protecting the Right to Organize Act is an opportunity for all of us to
stand with workers and help build an economy where everyone can
succeed.
Mr. Chair, I recognize the workers and advocates, both here today and
across the country, who have been critical in bringing this legislation
to the floor. In that regard, I include in the Record a letter from 138
unions and civil rights and faith-based organizations in support of
H.R. 2474.

January 31, 2020.
Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations support
the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, as introduced
by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jacky Rosen (D-
Nevada), Representatives Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Frederica
Wilson (D-Fla.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Pramila Jayapal (D-
Wash.), and Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.).
The ability of working people to join together to
collectively bargain for fair pay and working conditions is a
fundamental right. When working people join a union, they
have a voice on the job and the ability to collectively
bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions. Unions
are crucial in fostering a vibrant middle class and reducing
income inequality. When unions are strong, they set wage
standards for entire industries and occupations, they make
wages more equal within occupations, and they help close
racial and gender wage gaps.
For decades, however, that right has been eroding as
employers exploit weaknesses in the current law to interfere
with workers' rights--and face no real consequences for doing
so. The result has been stagnant wages, unsafe workplaces,
and rising inequality.
The PRO Act would go a long way toward restoring workers'
right to organize and bargain collectively by streamlining
the process for forming a union, ensuring that new unions are
able to negotiate a first collective bargaining agreement,
and holding employers accountable when they violate workers'
rights.
This is important because by bringing workers' collective
power to the bargaining table, unions are able to win better
wages and benefits for working people. On average, a worker
covered by a union contract earns 13.2 percent more in wages
than a peer with similar education, occupation, and
experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector.
Moreover, when unions are strong, they set wage standards for
entire industries and occupations, they make wages more equal
within occupations, and they help close racial and gender
wage gaps. Finally, there is a huge gap between the share of
workers with union representation (11.9 percent) and the
share of workers that would like to have a union and a voice
on the job (48 percent). The PRO Act would take a major step
forward in closing that gap.
The PRO Act protects the right to join a union by:
1. Imposing stronger remedies when employers interfere with
workers' rights. Under current law, there are no penalties on
employers nor any compensation awarded to workers when
employers illegally fire or retaliate against workers who are
trying to form a union. The PRO Act would institute civil
penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) and would also require the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) to go to court and get an injunction to
immediately reinstate workers if the NLRB believes the
employer has illegally retaliated against workers for union
activity. Finally, the PRO Act would give workers the right
to go to court on their own to seek relief, bringing labor
law in line with other workplace laws that allow for a
private right of action.
2. Strengthening workers' right to join a union and
collectively bargain over working conditions. Though current
federal law requires employers to bargain in good faith with
the union chosen by their employees to reach a collective
bargaining agreement, employers often drag out the bargaining
process to avoid reaching an agreement. The PRO Act
establishes a process for reaching a first agreement when
workers organize, employing mediation and then, if necessary,
binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first
agreement. The PRO Act would also allow employers and unions
to agree upon a ``fair share'' clause requiring all workers
who are covered by the collective bargaining agreement to
contribute a fair share fee towards the cost of bargaining
and administering the agreement, even in so called ``right-
to-work'' states. Furthermore, the PRO Act will help level
the playing field for workers by repealing the prohibition on
secondary boycotts and prohibiting employers from permanently
replacing strikers.
3. Unrigging the rules that are tilted against workers. Too
often, employers misclassify workers as independent
contractors because only employees have the right to organize
under the NLRA. Similarly, employers will misclassify workers
as supervisors to deprive them of their NLRA rights. The PRO
Act tightens the definitions of independent contractor and
supervisor to crack down on misclassification and make sure
that all eligible workers are able to unionize if they choose
to do so. The PRO Act also makes clear that workers can have
more than one employer, and that both employers need to
engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions
of employment that they control or influence. And in an
effort to create transparency in labor-management relations,
the PRO Act would require employers to post notices that
inform workers of their NRLA rights and to disclose contracts
with consultants hired to persuade workers on how to exercise
their rights.
The time for the PRO Act is long overdue, and we cannot
delay in working toward its passage. We call on Congress to
enact this important piece of legislation as quickly as
possible to ensure working people are paid fairly, treated
with dignity, and have a voice on the job.
Sincerely,
Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project,
1worker1vote, 350.org, 9 to 5, AFL-CIO, Alianza Nacional de
Campesinas, Inc., Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired
Americans, American Association for Justice, American Family
Voices, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, American
Income Life (AIL), American Income Life: Michael Vasu Agency,
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Asian Pacific American
Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Flight Attendants--
CWA, Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network (AWN), Bend the Arc:
Jewish Action.
BlueGreen Alliance, California Reinvestment Coalition,
Campaign for America's Future, Catholic Labor Network, Center
for American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy,
Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Public Policy
Priorities, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Child
Labor Coalition, Claimant Advocacy Program, Metropolitan
Washington Council AFL-CIO, Coalition of Labor Union Women,
Coalition on Human Needs, Colorado Fiscal Institute,
Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, Congregation of
Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces,
CWA, Demos, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals
Project, Economic Opportunity Institute.
Endangered Species Coalition, Equal Rights Advocates, Fair
World Project, Family Values @Work, Farmworker Justice,
Fiscal Policy Institute, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Futures Without Violence,
GoldenHours Consulting, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch,
Indiana Institute for Working Families, Indivisible,
Interfaith Worker Justice, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Association
of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART),
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of
Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE), AFL-CIO,
International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots.
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, IUE-CWA,
Jobs With Justice, Justice in Motion, Kentucky Equal Justice
Center, Labor Project for Working Families in partnership
with FV@W, LAANE, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, League of Conservation Voters, League of United Latin
American Citizens (LULAC), Legal Aid at Work, Legal Aid
Society of MFS, Louisiana Budget Project, Main Street
Alliance, MANA, A National Latina Organization, Maritime
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute, Michigan League for Public Policy, Milwaukee Area
Service & Hospitality Workers Organization, NAACP.
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum,
National Consumers League, National Domestic Workers
Alliance, National Education Association, National Employment
Lawyers Association, National Equality Action Team, National
Immigration Law Center, National LGBTQ Task Force Action
Fund, National Nurses United, National Organization for
Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National
Urban League, National Women's Law Center, National
Workrights Institute, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Policy Perspective, New
Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, Nonprofit
Professional Employees Union.
OPEIU, Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People's
Action, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, Policy
Matters Ohio, PolicyLink, Pride at Work, Progressive
Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Public Citizen, Public Justice
Center, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), Sierra Club, SMART TD,
South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice, Sugar Law Center for
Economic and Social Justice, Transport Workers Union.
UnidosUS Action Fund, Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO,
United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), United Food and Commercial Workers
International Labor Union, United Steelworkers (USW), Verite,
Voices for Progress, VoteVets, Washington State Labor
Council, AFL-CIO, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy,
Women Employed, Workers Defense Project, Workers' Rights
Institute of Georgetown Law Center, Working America, Working
Families Party, Working Partnerships USA, Workplace Fairness,
WV Citizen Action Group.

[[Page H894]]

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I once again urge my colleagues to
support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. This bill will go a
long way in restoring the right to organize for millions of hardworking
Americans while holding employers accountable for practices that
undermine collective efforts to improve the lives of their employees.
Over the past few decades, our country has seen profits for
corporations and executive pay rise exponentially. Sadly, this
prosperity has failed to trickle down to the average worker. This is
due to practices like union busting used by employers and legislation
such as right-to-work laws enacted by business-friendly state
legislators. The lopsided employee--employer relationship that has been
created thanks to these actions has led to the greatest level of income
inequality in my lifetime.
As a dues-paying member of the American Federation of Government
Employees Union, I understand how important unions are to ensure higher
wages, better benefits, and safer work environments for hardworking
Americans. Every worker across the country should have the opportunity
to organize and fight for a bigger paycheck, not just those that are
lucky enough to live in specific states or work in a certain industry.
The PRO Act gives workers the opportunity to hold fair union
elections while also preventing employers from interfering and stacking
the deck against workers. This bill also gives employees a fighting
chance when negotiating collective bargaining agreements with
employers. Loopholes that employers commonly use to exploit workers
would be closed off. And finally, the bill also holds employers
accountable by enacting meaningful penalties on employers that violate
the rights of workers.
Mr. Chair, it is time we restore the middle class and give workers a
fair shot when they fight for better pay and benefits. I urge all my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly support the passage of
H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and oppose any
motion to Recommit or amendment that will weaken this very important
piece of legislation.
In a letter to Members of Congress, Robert Martinez, Jr., the
President of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers writes:

``American workers approve of unions according to a Gallop
poll conducted last year, and if they had the opportunity,
they would choose to have labor representation. However, the
right to freely form a union without the threat of company
intimidation or interference is denied to workers today. The
PRO act expands the enforcement powers of the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) and strengthens protections for
employees that engage in collective action. The bill would
level the playing field by prohibiting employers from
requiring their employees to attend ``captive audience''
meetings whose sole purpose is to convince workers to vote
against the union. In addition to imposing financial
penalties on employers and individual corporate offices who
violate the law, the bill would give workers the option of
bringing their case to federal court.
The PRO Act is a crucially bold piece of legislation that
modernizes federal laws and establishes a process for
mediation and arbitration to help the parties achieve a first
contract. It protects workers' rights to organize a union and
bargain for higher wages and better benefits.
Finally, the PRO Act would eliminate state right to work
laws. These laws are simply designed to give more power to
corporations at the expense of workers and have had the
effects of lowering wages and eroding pensions and healthcare
coverage in states where they have been adopted.
For all the above reasons, I respectfully urge you to
support the PRO Act and vote ``Yes'' when this long overdue
legislation is considered.''
Labor unions are the backbone of our economy. They have played a
vital role in securing worker protections by allowing workers to
collectively bargain for better wages and work environments. We must
ensure the rights of workers are protected, which I why I strongly urge
my colleagues on both sides of a isle to votes yes and pass the PRO
Act.
I include in the Record a copy of Mr. Martinez's letter.

International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

Upper Marlboro, MD, January 30, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, I strongly
urge you to support the swift passage of the Protecting the
Right to Organize (``PRO'') Act (H.R. 2474) and oppose any
Motion to Recommit or amendments that will weaken this very
important legislation.
American workers approve of unions according to a Gallop
poll conducted last year, and if they had the opportunity,
they would choose to have labor representation. However, the
right to freely form a union without the threat of company
intimidation or interference is denied to workers today. The
PRO Act expands the enforcement powers of the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) and strengthens protections for
employees that engage in collective action. The bill would
level the playing field by prohibiting employers from
requiring their employees to attend ``captive audience''
meetings whose sole purpose is to convince workers to vote
against the union. In addition to imposing financial
penalties on employers and individual corporate offices who
violate the law, the bill would give workers the option of
bringing their case to federal court.
The PRO Act is a crucially bold piece of legislation that
modernizes federal laws and establishes a process for
mediation and arbitration to help the parties achieve a first
contract. It protects workers' right to organize a union and
bargain for higher wages and better benefits.
Finally, the PRO Act would eliminate state right to work
laws. These laws are simply designed to give more power to
corporations at the expense of workers, and have had the
effect of lowering wages and eroding pensions and health care
coverage in states where they have been adopted.
For all the above these reasons, I respectfully urge you to
support the PRO Act and vote ``YES'' when this long overdue
legislation is considered. For more information, please
contact Hasan Solomon.
Thank you,
Robert Martinez, Jr.,
International President
____

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2474, the
next in the long line of job-killing legislation that we have
considered this Congress.
Dubbed by the National Retail Federation as ``the worst bill in
Congress'' and referred to by the Chamber of Commerce as a ``major
threat'' to American jobs, the bill's faults are almost too numerous to
count. Repealing state right-to-work laws, codifying harmful and
burdensome Obama-era regulations, and violating employee privacy are
truly just the tip of the iceberg.
Democrats are selling this legislation as pro-worker, but, in fact,
it's the opposite. This bill is anti-worker choice and freedom. They
would like you to believe that while they need secret ballot elections
to choose their own Party leadership, workers do not deserve that same
fundamental American right when voting to unionize.
To see the potential effects of this legislation look no further than
California. AB5 is already wreaking havoc on small business and
independent contractors across the state. Workers are having to
reevaluate their careers and livelihoods. The PRO Act includes all of
AB5's flaws but none of its numerous carveouts.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2474.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I rise today to join my colleagues from the
Education and Labor Committee in speaking in support of the Protecting
the Right to Organize Act--the PRO Act.
The PRO Act is necessary for America's workers because the economy is
simply NOT working for millions of Americans who are struggling to get
by while corporate profits are soaring.
We know now, thanks to a study from Princeton University, that unions
have consistently provided workers with a 10- to 20-percent wage boost
over their non-union counterparts. And the benefits pervade race and
gender lines.
People of color in unions make five times more than people of color
who are NOT in unions. Women union members see the gender pay gap
nearly eliminated.
Unions across our country are fighting to secure better working
conditions and better wages for their members.
In my hometown of Las Vegas, the Culinary Union represents 60,000--
those are 60,000 people who already benefit immensely from fair wages,
job security, and good health benefits.
But we can expand these benefits to ALL Americans.
We must protect the mission and legacy of organizations like the
Culinary Union by passing the PRO Act, and strengthen workers' power to
stand together and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and
safer working conditions.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, today I will be opposing H.R. 2474, the PRO
Act. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues are bringing legislation to
the floor that will continue finding ways to pick winners and losers
between special interests and businesses in America. Additionally, the
legislation puts the heavy hand of government in between the contracts
between workers, unions and their employers.
There are ways that we can build up working families in America,
protect workers in their workplaces, and advance the growing gig
economy in America, but this bill does none of that. Therefore, I
cannot support this legislation.
But I want to be clear, I support America's workers.

[[Page H895]]

Yesterday, as Chairman of the Western Caucus I hosted a job forum
focusing on the creation of hundreds of union jobs in Northern
Minnesota. Union jobs that are strongly opposed by Democrat members
from St. Paul. If you want to fight for more union jobs then join us in
supporting the development of the Twin Metals mine and the hundreds of
Project Labor Agreement Jobs that will be filled as a result of what
could be the largest project in the history of Minnesota.
I support the development of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline which will
bring 2,000 to 4,000 union construction jobs to West Virginia, Virginia
and North Carolina but is strongly opposed by Democrat representatives
and governors up and down the path.
I support the construction of the Appalachia Petrochemical Complex; a
$6 billion ethylene cracking plant being built in Pennsylvania with
union workers. A project made possible only by the development and
advancements of hydraulic fracturing technology and the natural gas
boom made possible by that technology. A technology that Sen. Bernie
Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a parade of other Democrat
presidential candidates want to ban the minute they gain power.
I support the modernization of the ESA and NEPA because we need to
get America back to building large projects in a timely fashion. Right
now, in America, billions of dollars of investment is held up in long
permitting times from Offshore wind in the Atlantic, to mines in
Arizona, to pipelines in New York, Nebraska and Pennsylvania.
If we want to support American workers, we need to free our people to
invest in American jobs and infrastructure. For too long my colleagues
have attempted to promote heavy handed government intervention, like
this legislation, rather than freeing Americans to build pipelines,
mines, create jobs and build economic opportunity. Rather than siding
with radical environmentalists for who no mine anywhere is acceptable
or climate change activists who insist that not a single mile of new
pipe be built. I am choosing to side with America's workers, union and
private.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and Labor, printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 116-392, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an
original bill for purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule,
and shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2474

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Right to
Organize Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

(a) Definitions.--
(1) Joint employer.--Section 2(2) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``Two or more persons shall be employers
with respect to an employee if each such person codetermines
or shares control over the employee's essential terms and
conditions of employment. In determining whether such control
exists, the Board or a court of competent jurisdiction shall
consider as relevant direct control and indirect control over
such terms and conditions, reserved authority to control such
terms and conditions, and control over such terms and
conditions exercised by a person in fact: Provided, That
nothing herein precludes a finding that indirect or reserved
control standing alone can be sufficient given specific facts
and circumstances.''.
(2) Employee.--Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``An individual performing any service shall be
considered an employee (except as provided in the previous
sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless--
``(A) the individual is free from control and direction in
connection with the performance of the service, both under
the contract for the performance of service and in fact;
``(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of
the business of the employer; and
``(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, profession, or
business of the same nature as that involved in the service
performed.''.
(3) Supervisor.--Section 2(11) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(11)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and for a majority of the individual's
worktime'' after ``interest of the employer'';
(B) by striking ``assign,''; and
(C) by striking ``or responsibly to direct them,''.
(b) Reports.--Section 3(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Board'' and inserting ``(1) The
Board''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Effective January 1, 2021, section 3003 of the
Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public
Law 166-44; 31 U.S.C. 1113 note) shall not apply with respect
to reports required under this subsection.
``(3) Each report issued under this subsection shall
include no less detail than reports issued by the Board prior
to the termination of such reports under section 3003 of the
Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public
Law 166-44; 31 U.S.C. 1113 note).''.
(c) Appointment.--Section 4(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 154(a)) is amended by striking ``,
or for economic analysis''.
(d) Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 8 of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``;''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) to promise, threaten, or take any action--
``(A) to permanently replace an employee who participates
in a strike as defined by section 501(2) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2));
``(B) to discriminate against an employee who is working or
has unconditionally offered to return to work for the
employer because the employee supported or participated in
such a strike; or
``(C) to lockout, suspend, or otherwise withold employment
from employees in order to influence the position of such
employees or the representative of such employees in
collective bargaining prior to a strike; and
``(7) to communicate or misrepresent to an employee under
section 2(3) that such employee is excluded from the
definition of employee under section 2(3).'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (4) and (7);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively;
(C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking
``affected;'' and inserting ``affected; and''; and
(D) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking ``;
and'' and inserting a period;
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the period at the end
and inserting the following: ``: Provided, That it shall be
an unfair labor practice under subsection (a)(1) for any
employer to require or coerce an employee to attend or
participate in such employer's campaign activities unrelated
to the employee's job duties, including activities that are
subject to the requirements under section 203(b) of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29
U.S.C. 433(b)).'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
(B) by striking ``For the purposes of this section'' and
inserting ``(1) For purposes of this section'';
(C) by inserting ``and to maintain current wages, hours,
and working conditions pending an agreement'' after ``arising
thereunder'';
(D) by inserting ``: Provided, That an employer's duty to
collectively bargain shall continue absent decertification of
the labor organization following an election conducted
pursuant to section 9'' after ``making of a concession:'';
(E) by inserting ``further'' before ``, That where there is
in effect'';
(F) by striking ``The duties imposed'' and inserting ``(2)
The duties imposed'';
(G) by striking ``by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and
inserting ``by subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of paragraph
(1)'';
(H) by striking ``section 8(d)(1)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)'';
(I) by striking ``section 8(d)(3)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(C)'' in each place it appears;
(J) by striking ``section 8(d)(4)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(D)''; and
(K) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of
establishing an initial collective bargaining agreement
following certification or recognition of a labor
organization, the following shall apply:
``(A) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written
request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor
organization that has been newly recognized or certified as a
representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such
further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall
meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make
every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective
bargaining agreement.
``(B) If after the expiration of the 90-day period
beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or
such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the
parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may
notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the
existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a
request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service
promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and
to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to
bring them to agreement.
``(C) If after the expiration of the 30-day period
beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is
made under subparagraph (B), or such additional period as the
parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the
parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer
the dispute to a tripartite arbitration panel established in
accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the
Service, with one member selected by the labor organization,
one member selected by the employer, and one neutral member
mutually agreed to by the parties. The labor organization and
employer must each select the members of the tripartite
arbitration panel within 14 days of the Service's referral;
if the labor organization or employer fail to

[[Page H896]]

do so, the Service shall designate any members not selected
by the labor organization or the employer. A majority of the
tripartite arbitration panel shall render a decision settling
the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the
parties for a period of two years, unless amended during such
period by written consent of the parties. Such decision shall
be based on--
``(i) the employer's financial status and prospects;
``(ii) the size and type of the employer's operations and
business;
``(iii) the employees' cost of living;
``(iv) the employees' ability to sustain themselves, their
families, and their dependents on the wages and benefits they
earn from the employer; and
``(v) the wages and benefits other employers in the same
business provide their employees.'';
(5) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Notwithstanding chapter 1 of title 9, United States
Code (commonly known as the `Federal Arbitration Act'), or
any other provision of law, it shall be an unfair labor
practice under subsection (a)(1) for any employer--
``(1) to enter into or attempt to enforce any agreement,
express or implied, whereby prior to a dispute to which the
agreement applies, an employee undertakes or promises not to
pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint,
class, or collective claim arising from or relating to the
employment of such employee in any forum that, but for such
agreement, is of competent jurisdiction;
``(2) to coerce an employee into undertaking or promising
not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of
joint, class, or collective claim arising from or relating to
the employment of such employee; or
``(3) to retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an
employee for refusing to undertake or promise not to pursue,
bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class,
or collective claim arising from or relating to the
employment of such employee: Provided, That any agreement
that violates this subsection or results from a violation of
this subsection shall be to such extent unenforceable and
void: Provided further, That this subsection shall not apply
to any agreement embodied in or expressly permitted by a
contract between an employer and a labor organization.'';
(6) in subsection (g), by striking ``clause (B) of the last
sentence of section 8(d) of this Act'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(2)(B)''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) The Board shall promulgate regulations requiring
each employer to post and maintain, in conspicuous places
where notices to employees and applicants for employment are
customarily posted both physically and electronically, a
notice setting forth the rights and protections afforded
employees under this Act. The Board shall make available to
the public the form and text of such notice. The Board shall
promulgate regulations requiring employers to notify each new
employee of the information contained in the notice described
in the preceding two sentences.
``(2) Whenever the Board directs an election under section
9(c) or approves an election agreement, the employer of
employees in the bargaining unit shall, not later than two
business days after the Board directs such election or
approves such election agreement, provide a voter list to a
labor organization that has petitioned to represent such
employees. Such voter list shall include the names of all
employees in the bargaining unit and such employees' home
addresses, work locations, shifts, job classifications, and,
if available to the employer, personal landline and mobile
telephone numbers, and work and personal email addresses; the
voter list must be provided in a searchable electronic format
generally approved by the Board unless the employer certifies
that the employer does not possess the capacity to produce
the list in the required form. Not later than nine months
after the date of enactment of the Protecting the Right to
Organize Act of 2019, the Board shall promulgate regulations
implementing the requirements of this paragraph.
``(i) The rights of an employee under section 7 include the
right to use electronic communication devices and systems
(including computers, laptops, tablets, internet access,
email, cellular telephones, or other company equipment) of
the employer of such employee to engage in activities
protected under section 7 if such employer has given such
employee access to such devices and systems in the course of
the work of such employee, absent a compelling business
rationale.''.
(e) Representatives and Elections.--Section 9 of the
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in
accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the
Board, by an employee or group of employees or any individual
or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a
substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented
for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to
recognize their representative as the representative defined
in section 9(a), or (ii) assert that the individual or labor
organization, which has been certified or is being recognized
by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no
longer a representative as defined in section 9(a), the Board
shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable
cause to believe that a question of representation affecting
commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or
employee of the regional office, who shall not make any
recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon
the record of such hearing that such a question of
representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret
ballot and shall certify the results thereof. The Board shall
find the labor organization's proposed unit to be appropriate
if the employees in the proposed unit share a community of
interest, and if the employees outside the unit do not share
an overwhelming community of interest with employees inside.
At the request of the labor organization, the Board shall
direct that the election be conducted through certified mail,
electronically, at the work location, or at a location other
than one owned or controlled by the employer. No employer
shall have standing as a party or to intervene in any
representation proceeding under this section.'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an economic strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement'' and inserting ``a
strike'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(D) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) If the Board finds that, in an election under
paragraph (1), a majority of the valid votes cast in a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining have been
cast in favor of representation by the labor organization,
the Board shall certify the labor organization as the
representative of the employees in such unit and shall issue
an order requiring the employer of such employees to
collectively bargain with the labor organization in
accordance with section 8(d). This order shall be deemed an
order under section 10(c) of this Act, without need for a
determination of an unfair labor practice.
``(5)(A) If the Board finds that, in an election under
paragraph (1), a majority of the valid votes cast in a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining have not
been cast in favor of representation by the labor
organization, the Board shall dismiss the petition, subject
to subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(B) In any case in which a majority of the valid votes
cast in a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining have not been cast in favor of representation by
the labor organization and the Board determines that the
election should be set aside because the employer has
committed a violation of this Act or otherwise interfered
with a fair election, and the employer has not demonstrated
that the violation or other interference is unlikely to have
affected the outcome of the election, the Board shall,
without ordering a new election, certify the labor
organization as the representative of the employees in such
unit and issue an order requiring the employer to bargain
with the labor organization in accordance with section 8(d)
if, at any time during the period beginning one year
preceding the date of the commencement of the election and
ending on the date upon which the Board makes the
determination of a violation or other interference, a
majority of the employees in the bargaining unit have signed
authorizations designating the labor organization as their
collective bargaining representative.
``(C) In any case where the Board determines that an
election under this paragraph should be set aside, the Board
shall direct a new election with appropriate additional
safeguards necessary to ensure a fair election process,
except in cases where the Board issues a bargaining order
under subparagraph (B).''; and
(E) by inserting after paragraph (7), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(8) Except under extraordinary circumstances--
``(A) a pre-election hearing under this subsection shall
begin not later than eight days after a notice of such
hearing is served on the labor organization; and
``(B) a post-election hearing under this subsection shall
begin not later than 14 days after the filing of objections,
if any.''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(e) or'' and inserting
``(d) or''.
(f) Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is
amended by striking ``suffered by him'' and inserting
``suffered by such employee: Provided further, That if the
Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an
employee in violation of paragraph (3) or (4) of section 8(a)
or has committed a violation of section 8(a) that results in
the discharge of an employee or other serious economic harm
to an employee, the Board shall award the employee back pay
without any reduction (including any reduction based on the
employee's interim earnings or failure to earn interim
earnings), front pay (when appropriate), consequential
damages, and an additional amount as liquidated damages equal
to two times the amount of damages awarded: Provided further,
no relief under this subsection shall be denied on the basis
that the employee is, or was during the time of relevant
employment or during the back pay period, an unauthorized
alien as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)) or any other provision
of Federal law relating to the unlawful employment of
aliens''.
(g) Enforcing Compliance With Orders of the Board.--
(1) In general.--Section 10 of the National Labor Relations
Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is further amended--
(A) by striking subsection (e);
(B) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
(C) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d)(1) Each order of the Board shall take effect upon
issuance of such order, unless otherwise directed by the
Board, and shall remain in effect unless modified by the
Board or unless a court of competent jurisdiction issues a
superseding order.
``(2) Any person who fails or neglects to obey an order of
the Board shall forfeit and pay to the Board a civil penalty
of not more than $10,000 for each violation, which shall
accrue to

[[Page H897]]

the United States and may be recovered in a civil action
brought by the Board to the district court of the United
States in which the unfair labor practice or other subject of
the order occurred, or in which such person or entity resides
or transacts business. No action by the Board under this
paragraph may be made until 30 days following the issuance of
an order. Each separate violation of such an order shall be a
separate offense, except that, in the case of a violation in
which a person fails to obey or neglects to obey a final
order of the Board, each day such failure or neglect
continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
``(3) If, after having provided a person or entity with
notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding a civil
action under subparagraph (2) for the enforcement of an
order, the court determines that the order was regularly made
and duly served, and that the person or entity is in
disobedience of the same, the court shall enforce obedience
to such order by an injunction or other proper process,
mandatory or otherwise, to--
``(A) restrain such person or entity or the officers,
agents, or representatives of such person or entity, from
further disobedience to such order; or
``(B) enjoin such person or entity, officers, agents, or
representatives to obedience to the same.'';
(D) in subsection (f)--
(i) by striking ``proceed in the same manner as in the case
of an application by the Board under subsection (e) of this
section,'' and inserting ``proceed as provided under
paragraph (2) of this subsection'';
(ii) by striking ``Any'' and inserting the following: ``
``(1) Within 30 days of the issuance of an order, any'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No objection that has not been urged before the
Board, its member, agent, or agency shall be considered by a
court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection
shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. The
findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as
a whole shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to
the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shall
show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional
evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds
for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before
the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the court may order
such additional evidence to be taken before the Board, its
member, agent, or agency, and to be made a part of the
record. The Board may modify its findings as to the facts, or
make new findings, by reason of additional evidence so taken
and filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings,
which findings with respect to questions of fact if supported
by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole
shall be conclusive, and shall file its recommendations, if
any, for the modification or setting aside of its original
order. Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction
of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree
shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to
review by the appropriate United States court of appeals if
application was made to the district court, and by the
Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or
certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
States Code.''; and
(E) in subsection (g), by striking ``subsection (e) or (f)
of this section'' and inserting ``subsection (d) or (f)''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 18 of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 168) is amended by striking ``
section 10(e) or (f)'' and inserting ``subsection (d) or (f)
of section 10''.
(h) Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices Involving
Discharge or Other Serious Economic Harm.--Section 10 of the
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended--
(1) in subsection (j)--
(A) by striking ``The Board'' and inserting ``(1) The
Board''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding subsection (m), whenever it is
charged that an employer has engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (3) of
section 8(a) that significantly interferes with, restrains,
or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
under section 7, or involves discharge or other serious
economic harm to an employee, the preliminary investigation
of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority
over all other cases except cases of like character in the
office where it is filed or to which it is referred. If,
after such investigation, the officer or regional attorney to
whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to
believe such charge is true and that a complaint should
issue, such officer or attorney shall bring a petition for
appropriate temporary relief or restraining order as set
forth in paragraph (1). The district court shall grant the
relief requested unless the court concludes that there is no
reasonable likelihood that the Board will succeed on the
merits of the Board's claim.''; and
(2) by repealing subsections (k) and (l).
(i) Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Section 12 of the National Labor Relations
Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--
(A) by striking ``sec. 12. Any person'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.

``(a) Violations for Interference With Board.--Any
person''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Violations for Posting Requirements and Voter List.--
If the Board, or any agent or agency designated by the Board
for such purposes, determines that an employer has violated
section 8(h) or regulations issued thereunder, the Board
shall--
``(1) state the findings of fact supporting such
determination;
``(2) issue and cause to be served on such employer an
order requiring that such employer comply with section 8(h)
or regulations issued thereunder; and
``(3) impose a civil penalty in an amount determined
appropriate by the Board, except that in no case shall the
amount of such penalty exceed $500 for each such violation.
``(c) Civil Penalties for Violations.--
``(1) In general.--Any employer who commits an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of section 8(a) shall, in
addition to any remedy ordered by the Board, be subject to a
civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for each
violation, except that, with respect to an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 8(a) or a violation of section 8(a) that results in
the discharge of an employee or other serious economic harm
to an employee, the Board shall double the amount of such
penalty, to an amount not to exceed $100,000, in any case
where the employer has within the preceding five years
committed another such violation.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining the amount of any
civil penalty under this subsection, the Board shall
consider--
``(A) the gravity of the unfair labor practice;
``(B) the impact of the unfair labor practice on the
charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights
guaranteed by this Act, and on the public interest; and
``(C) the gross income of the employer.
``(3) Director and officer liability.--If the Board
determines, based on the particular facts and circumstances
presented, that a director or officer's personal liability is
warranted, a civil penalty for a violation described in this
subsection may also be assessed against any director or
officer of the employer who directed or committed the
violation, had established a policy that led to such a
violation, or had actual or constructive knowledge of and the
authority to prevent the violation and failed to prevent the
violation.
``(d) Right to Civil Action.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who is injured by reason of a
violation of paragraph (1) or (3) of section 8(a) may, after
60 days following the filing of a charge with the Board
alleging an unfair labor practice, bring a civil action in
the appropriate district court of the United States against
the employer within 90 days after the expiration of the 60-
day period or the date the Board notifies the person that no
complaint shall issue, whichever occurs earlier, provided
that the Board has not filed a petition under section 10(j)
of this Act prior to the expiration of the 60-day period. No
relief under this subsection shall be denied on the basis
that the employee is, or was during the time of relevant
employment or during the back pay period, an unauthorized
alien as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)) or any other provision
of Federal law relating to the unlawful employment of aliens.
``(2) Available relief.--Relief granted in an action under
paragraph (1) may include--
``(A) back pay without any reduction, including any
reduction based on the employee's interim earnings or failure
to earn interim earnings;
``(B) front pay (when appropriate);
``(C) consequential damages;
``(D) an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to
two times the cumulative amount of damages awarded under
subparagraphs (A) through (C);
``(E) in appropriate cases, punitive damages in accordance
with paragraph (4); and
``(F) any other relief authorized by section 706(g) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)) or by section
1977A(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)).
``(3) Attorney's fees.--In any civil action under this
subsection, the court may allow the prevailing party a
reasonable attorney's fee (including expert fees) and other
reasonable costs associated with maintaining the action.
``(4) Punitive damages.--In awarding punitive damages under
paragraph (2)(E), the court shall consider--
``(A) the gravity of the unfair labor practice;
``(B) the impact of the unfair labor practice on the
charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights
guaranteed by this Act, and on the public interest; and
``(C) the gross income of the employer.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``180 days'';
and
(B) by striking ``the six-month period'' and inserting
``the 180-day period''.
(j) Limitations.--Section 13 of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 163) is amended by striking the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``: Provided,
That the duration, scope, frequency, or intermittence of any
strike or strikes shall not render such strike or strikes
unprotected or prohibited.''.
(k) Fair Share Agreements Permitted.--Section 14(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164(b)) is amended by
striking the period at the end and inserting the following:
``: Provided, That collective bargaining agreements providing
that all employees in a bargaining unit shall contribute fees
to a labor organization for the cost of representation,
collective bargaining, contract enforcement, and related
expenditures as a condition of employment shall be valid and
enforceable notwithstanding any State or Territorial law.''.

[[Page H898]]

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947.

The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 is amended--
(1) in section 213(a) (29 U.S.C. 183(a)), by striking
``clause (A) of the last sentence of section 8(d) (which is
required by clause (3) of such section 8(d)), or within 10
days after the notice under clause (B)'' and inserting
``section 8(d)(2)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act
(which is required by section 8(d)(1)(C) of such Act), or
within 10 days after the notice under section 8(d)(2)(B) of
such Act''; and
(2) by repealing section 303 (29 U.S.C. 187).

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND
DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959.

Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 433(c)) is amended by
striking the period at the end and inserting the following
``: Provided, That this subsection shall not exempt from the
requirements of this section any arrangement or part of an
arrangement in which a party agrees, for an object described
in subsection (b)(1), to plan or conduct employee meetings;
train supervisors or employer representatives to conduct
meetings; coordinate or direct activities of supervisors or
employer representatives; establish or facilitate employee
committees; identify employees for disciplinary action,
reward, or other targeting; or draft or revise employer
personnel policies, speeches, presentations, or other
written, recorded, or electronic communications to be
delivered or disseminated to employees.''.

SEC. 5 RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

The amendments made under this Act shall not be construed
to amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1324a).

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including
any amendments made by this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Stevens

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Morelle, and
I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 32, line 8, redesignate section 5 as section 6.
On page 32, after line 7, insert the following:

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

The amendments made under this Act shall not be construed
to affect the definitions of ``employer'' or ``employee''
under the laws of any State that govern the wages, work
hours, workers' compensation, or unemployment insurance of
employees.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very simple and
straightforward amendment. This amendment does not alter the critical
provisions of this legislation, but it does provide clarity about what
the PRO Act will and will not do, as well as recognizes State efforts
when it comes to employee rights and standards.
The PRO Act does not govern in any way the definition of who is an
employee for the workplace protections related to minimum wages,
overtime, or unemployment insurance. Under the PRO Act, the definition
of who is an employee only applies to who is eligible to join a union
and collectively bargain.
If a worker is an employee under the PRO Act, they will have the
right to join or refrain from union representation, engage in
collective bargaining and bargain over the terms and conditions of
their work.
As we know, employment status varies under Federal and State
statutes. Thus, an individual can be an employee under one law and
remain an independent contractor for the purposes of another.
I have a deep respect for State authority and believe that, as we
address Federal NLRA standards, it is important to thoughtfully assess
the 20 States that have taken differing actions currently relying on
some version of the ABC test to determine their own worker protection
eligibility.
This straightforward amendment I am offering today does not end the
discussion on the ABC test but helps clarify the benefits of the PRO
Act and sets our country on a path to support workers.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment as well as the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is little more than an attempt to
protect the few well-connected interests that received a carveout from
the California Democrats' disastrous Assembly Bill 5, but it is a fig
leaf meant to provide cover for vulnerable Democrat Members.
AB-5 redefined California's wage and hour laws to expand the
definition of ``employee'' using the same language found in the PRO
Act, but with dozens of industries exempted from the onerous standard
that has placed tens of thousands of jobs at risk.
If the PRO Act becomes law, workers could find themselves in a
confusing scenario where they are classified differently under State
wage and hour law and Federal labor law.
Democrats will draw a distinction between Federal labor relations law
and State wage and labor laws, but, in reality, the distinction means
little to businesses that will be hit with costly new and confusing
employment regulations and to the workers whose jobs are put at risk as
a result.

{time} 1700

Moreover, once all workers are deemed employees for collective
bargaining purposes, as required by the PRO Act, they will become
subject to union organizing. Once unionized, the collective bargaining
agreement would govern their wages and benefits, even if State law
still considers them an independent contractor.
Essentially, if unions have their way, this fig leaf amendment will
accomplish nothing in the way of preserving a worker's independent
contractor status under State law.
The only winners in this scheme will be the unions and trial lawyers,
whom Democrats always seem to find a way to benefit, no matter the
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment and
also the underlying bill.
As a proud union member myself of Workers United, SEIU, I see the
importance of sticking with my union. Even though I am no longer active
on the job, I want to pay my dues.
Unions have brought us the middle class; they brought us the weekend;
they brought us the benefits that ordinary people have in order to have
a living wage and a successful life.
I also want to say that the amendment clarifies that the ABC test
included in the PRO Act does not preempt any State law governing the
wages, worker hours, et cetera, and so it is a very good amendment.
But I want to say, for three decades, we have seen corporations
trying to undermine workers' rights to gather together for their own
benefit. Finally, today, we are going to pass a bill that gives workers
those rights.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to close out
our debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
It is very interesting that our colleagues have talked about unions
providing the middle class better jobs and benefits. It is very
interesting to look at the declining rate of union membership and see
the increasing salaries, number of jobs being created in the

[[Page H899]]

country, benefits, and all positive things happening, record
unemployment, record wage increases. That is going along with declining
union participation.
Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker, anti-small
business bills to be considered by Congress in decades, and this
amendment makes it worse.
The PRO Act is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and
empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file
workers and small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misleading,
unworkable, and misguided amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Beginning on page 14, line 25, strike ``the names of all
employees'' and all that follows through ``personal email
addresses'' on page 15, line 4, and insert ``the names of all
employees in the bargaining unit and not more than one
additional form of personal contact information for the
employee, (such as a telephone number, an email address, or a
mailing address) chosen by the employee in writing''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Americans have a reasonable
expectation of privacy. In the modern economy, this means deciding for
themselves whether to share their personal information.
At an Education and Labor Committee hearing on this bill last year,
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka testified that unions need workers'
personal information so that they can solicit them anyplace you can get
them, including at their home.
As we know from previous testimony, these are not always friendly
visits. In many instances, they are intended to exert pressure on
workers to support the union.
The PRO Act requires that business owners provide employees' home
addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, personal email
address, and more to union bosses, which will promote union harassment
of employees at home or in public. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
Moreover, there are no safeguards for how workers' personal
information might be used or misused. For one, the information could be
used by unions for unwanted political campaigning, solicitation, or
worse. The PRO Act contains no protections or restrictions on how this
information will be used and no repercussions if unions allow it to
fall into the wrong hands.
We have seen countless examples of private companies and government
agencies subjected to hacks and leaks that allow private, personal
information to fall into the wrong hands. The last thing American
workers need is for self-interested union bosses to have that
information and for hackers and scammers to gain access as well.
Many Members of Congress know firsthand the risks associated with
having their personal information distributed. My amendment provides
basic privacy protections to the workers we represent so that, while
they are free to organize together, they are just as free to protect
their valuable personal information.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the rule this amendment seeks to gut dates
all the way back to 1966, and it has been in operation ever since. It
is the Excelsior Underwear case.
I have done hundreds and hundreds of house visits based on the
information provided by these lists. Now, just because it has been in
operation doesn't mean it has always worked well. For years, when I was
organizing, I was given lists of names and incomplete information
scribbled across scattered sheets of paper, and somehow this complied
with the law.
I am not going to admit how long ago this was, Mr. Chairman, but it
was decades ago.
The PRO Act simply codifies the rule regarding contact information to
make it work better and modernizes it by ensuring that, among other
things, contact information is provided in electronic, searchable
format, this being the 21st century.
Now, my distinguished colleague across the aisle might attempt to
scare you with nightmares about union boogeymen coming to blow your
house down; but, in reality, not one person has ever charged a union
with abusing the voter information list since the NLRB updated its
election procedures to modernize them in 2014, 6 years ago. Not one
charge; it is completely made up.
In fact, when the Trump NLRB, a body not exactly known for being on
the side of workers, recently revamped their election procedure, they
left this rule entirely intact, just as we are attempting to codify it
in the PRO Act.
Ensuring that workers are fully informed about an organizing drive is
paramount to effective labor relations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chair, my amendment addresses just one radical component of the
PRO Act by preserving workers' privacy, ensuring that they can protect
their own personal information and decide for themselves whether they
wish to share it with the union.
Importantly, the amendment does not restrict unions from receiving
any information at all; rather, the workers can decide for themselves
which one piece of contact information they wish to share. And the
union is free to gather the rest directly from workers without the
employer acting as a middleman.
Like with every other provision of the PRO Act, Democrats claim that
invading workers' privacy is about leveling the playing field; but,
time and again, polling has shown that workers prefer choice, privacy,
and control within the unions that claim to represent them.
The PRO Act is an affront to all of these basic concepts, none of its
provisions more so than the requirement that employers share employees'
personal information with union organizers against the employees' will.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense
amendment that will put workers, not union bosses, in control of their
own private, personal information, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that the
gentlewoman's amendment is not about the PRO Act; it is about current
law.
All the PRO Act does on the question of lists and how they are to be
given from the company to the union is codifying current law. So this
is not an argument against the PRO Act; it is an argument against the
structure of our labor relations as they have been for decades.
Mr. Chair, I would offer to the gentlewoman that, if she would like
to join me in writing the law that would allow workers to have access
to union organizers in the workplace, I would be glad to do that with
her, and then we wouldn't need a law that allows workers to gain access
to unions the only way they can under our system, which is at home or
on the phone.

Our country provides workers no right to have access to union staff
in

[[Page H900]]

their workplace. It is pretty unusual among countries. And if the
gentlewoman is serious about feeling like it is better for workers to
interact with the union at work rather than at home, that would be a
wonderful discussion to have for another day.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Norcross

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 15, insert ``and shall continue from day
to day until completed'' after ``organization''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer a simple amendment to
protect the efficiency of the union representation election process by
ensuring that preelection hearings before the NLRB are conducted on a
day-to-day basis.
The PRO Act strengthens workers' rights to a free and fair union
representation election. It does so by preventing unnecessary delays,
which allow employers to engage more time against antiunion campaigns
that are designed to erode support for the union.
In 2014, the NLRB updated its union election procedures by enacting
reasonable deadlines and preventing employers from stalling elections
through frivolous litigation. The PRO Act codifies many of these
requirements, including the timeliness for pre- and post-election
hearings.
One important change in the 2014 election rule was to require that,
whenever the NLRB conducts a preelection hearing, the hearing must be
held from day to day. Prior to 2014, hearings could either be held day
to day or adjourned to a later date. Requiring these hearings to be
held day to day provides more certainty in the preelection hearing
process that codifies this best practice.

{time} 1715

In those cases where the NLRB decides a pre-election hearing is
necessary; this amendment ensures efficiency in the NLRB pre-election
process and prevents employers from seizing upon unnecessary delays.
Unnecessary delays leading up to a representation election enables
employers to have more time to campaign against the union, through
lawful, or many times unlawful means. Once the NLRB receives a petition
for the union election, it must process the election expeditiously in
order for the rights of the workers to be upheld.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this amendment be voted on in the affirmative,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This amendment is designed to short-circuit the union election
process drastically by micromanaging the National Labor Relations
Board.
The goal of this amendment is to rush the election process in order
to deprive workers of the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of
unionization, and employers of the adequate time to prepare for union
election.
Rushing union elections simply tilts the playing field against both
workers, who deserve the benefit of hearing both sides, and
businessowners who should have the right to make their case to their
workforce about unionization.
Unions often begin organizing campaigns weeks, or even months, before
employers are made aware, creating a scenario in which workers are
hearing only one side of the issue prior to a union election.
When an election petition is filed, employers, and particularly small
employers, must seek counsel and attempt to understand complex matters
of labor law within an unreasonably short time period. This amendment
seeks to impose an unfair and unnecessary ambush election scheme
through a change in the law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Back on December 18, the Trump NLRB issued a dramatic rewrite of the
union election procedures, thus undermining the streamlining efficiency
of the original 2014 election rule.
However, even in the NLRB by Trump, the new rule left this
requirement for elections to proceed day by day. They believe in
efficiency. They believe in doing things the correct way. This just
codifies it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and antismall
business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a liberal
Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and
trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small
businesses, and this amendment makes it worse.
The largest federation of unions in America spends more than three
times as much money on politics as it does on its stated purpose of
organizing and representing workers. And unions attempted to organize
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible workers in 2018, so it
should come as no surprise that union membership in the United States
is plummeting.
Yet, rather than correct their own wrongdoing and increase their
ranks by serving workers better, unions are demanding that Congress
enact this sweeping, radical bill that tilts the playing field
aggressively in their favor, against workers and small businesses.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this antiworker, pro-union boss
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Fake news. Don't believe it.
Just ask the people what they want to do. Close to 80 percent of
those in the workplace would vote today to join a union, if they were
allowed to under a fair process. That doesn't happen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 7, line 22, strike ``and''.
Page 8, line 14, strike ``and''.
Page 8, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 8, after line 18, insert the following:
``(7) to recognize or bargain collectively with a labor
organization that has not been selected by a majority of such
employees in a secret ballot conducted by the board in
accordance with section 9.''.
Page 9, beginning line 1, amend subparagraph (D) to read as
follows:
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize
or bargain collectively with a representative of a labor
organization that has not been selected by a majority of such
employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the Board
in accordance with section 9.''.
Page 18, line 3, strike ``(A) If the Board'' and insert
``If the Board''.

[[Page H901]]

Strike page 18, line 9, and all that follows through page
19, line 9.
Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. _. SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS.

(a) Secret Ballot Election.--Section 9(a) of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) is amended by
inserting after ``designated or selected'' the following:
``by a secret ballot election conducted in accordance with
this section''.
(b) Applicability of Certain Amendments.--
(1) In general.--The amendments described in paragraph (2)
shall not apply to collective bargaining relationships in
which a labor organization with majority support was lawfully
recognized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Amendments listed.--The amendments described under this
paragraph are the amendments--
(A) made under subsection (a) of this section;
(B) to subsection (a)(7) of section 8 of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158); and
(C) to subsection (b)(6) of such section of such Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, my commonsense amendment to
the PRO Act is very simple. It would require union elections to be
conducted by a secret ballot, like every election in the country is.
Look, anybody who wants to in this country has the right to belong to
a union. I was raised in a union household. My dad, after World War II,
worked for 30 years in a factory as a union member.
In fact, this is so simple that in April of 2019, over 80 House
Democrats, including 12 on the Committee on Education and Labor, signed
a letter to Ambassador Lighthizer demanding the same protections for
workers in Mexico as part of the USMCA. I happen to agree with that. If
I had been asked, I would have signed this letter.
If House Democrats believe a secret ballot is essential for Mexican
workers, why don't they want the same rights for American workers?
Mr. Chair, 47 years ago I put on a uniform. I left my family, I left
this country to serve in the United States Army in the 2nd Infantry
Division in Korea, about 11 miles south of the DMZ, to guarantee those
rights for every American citizen to vote by a secret ballot.
My wife tells me she votes for me by secret ballot, but I don't know
that for a fact because it is a secret ballot.
Secret ballots are the pillar of our democracy. It is a right that--I
don't care if you are a billionaire or you don't have two wooden
nickels to rub together; you have that power when you go in the voting
booth because no one, no one has the right to intimidate you in a
secret ballot. You are free from any threat of retribution.
Guaranteeing the right of a secret ballot for union representation is
not just the right thing to do, it is also wildly popular on the
political spectrum. According to 2015 polling from Opinion Research
Corporation, 79 percent of union households, 81 percent of Democrats,
and 81 percent of Independents support the right to a secret ballot for
union organizing campaigns.
This amendment eliminates the so-called ``card-check'' automatic
certification in which a union can organize workers by potentially
harassing, intimidating, or misleading them into signing authorization
cards.
Over the years, in our committee, we have heard firsthand testimony
in the Committee on Education and Labor from several witnesses about
being pressured to sign a card check by union organizers. Under the
card check system, the union organizers are free to harass a worker
over email, the telephone, at their homes, in public, into signing the
union authorization card. That is just not right.
Congress is elected, everybody in this body is elected by a secret
ballot. House and Senate Democrats want a Mexican worker to have that
right. I completely agree with that.
So why aren't American workers being granted the exact same freedoms
that are being demanded and granted abroad?
Furthermore, you are going to hear supporters of card check say that
a card check is needed because the election gives employers the ability
to defeat a union organizing drive. That is nonsense. The most recent
data we have from the Center for Union Facts say that unions were able
to win almost 69 percent of the secret ballot elections that were held.
Our constituents deserve the same guarantee of privacy at the ballot
box as Members of Congress. Union leaders are elected that way; and an
opposition to this amendment makes it clear who is putting the
interests of union bosses above the interest of workers.
We should all support the right to a secret ballot for all Americans.
It is the most American thing I can think of, Mr. Chairman, is that
right you have to go in that voting booth and press the button for
whomever you wish to vote for.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, under current law, which has been
in effect since 1935, an employer may voluntarily recognize the union
if a majority of employees have demonstrated support through signed
cards or a petition to organize.
If an employer decides not to recognize the union based on those
signatures, then NLRB will direct a secret ballot election to determine
whether the employees will be represented by the union. The PRO Act
does not alter these requirements which have been in effect since 1935.
This amendment would limit the workers' and employers' option to
enter into voluntary recognition agreements. There is no reason why we
should limit workers' options to an election if the workers and
employers agree to forego it.
But let's be clear. The PRO Act does not require card check in lieu
of elections. Instead, it strengthens current law by requiring an
employer to bargain with a union if the union has demonstrated majority
support and the employer's interference coerced employees into voting
against the union.
The only time the NLRB can order an employer to bargain, absent a
secret ballot, is when the employer interferes with the union election
after a majority have already indicated support through signed
authorization cards or a petition. Again, this is current law, set
forth by the Supreme Court, and it has been in effect since 1969.
In fact, the PRO Act actually strengthens secret ballot elections by
ensuring they are free and fair, both to the workers and to the
employers.
Contrary to the argument that this legislation undermines secret
ballots, the PRO Act does make a change because it expands the use of
secret ballot elections because current law allows employers to
withdraw recognition of a union without an election to decertify the
union if the employer has evidence that the union has lost the majority
support.

The PRO Act just says that union elections are required for
decertification, by secret ballot, that must take place before the
employer can withdraw recognition. So this actually expands secret
ballot elections and, otherwise, pretty much maintains current law that
has been in effect for decades.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
For over 220 years since we have had a Constitution in the United
States of America, one of the most precious rights we have is a secret
ballot. And I wouldn't know why anybody would fear--if you have a great
case to make for the union, fine. Make it.
I think we have a right to be unionized or not be unionized. As I
said, I was raised in a union household.
But I think that is one of the most sacred rights that we have, as
American citizens, as many people do not have. We ask that same right
for our Mexican worker. I think we should treat an American worker the
same way.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time, only to remind the House that the only time the NLRB can order an

[[Page H902]]

employer to bargain with a union, absent a secret ballot, is when the
employer interferes with the union election after the majority has
already indicated support through signed cards or petitions.
If the employer wants to insist on a secret ballot, all they have to
do is not violate the Labor Relations Act.
The other side of it is that if they want to decertify, they have to
have an election. So that is a change. But that is more secret ballot
elections, not fewer.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

{time} 1730

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Wild

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 32, line 8, redesignate section 5 as section 6.
On page 32, after line 7, insert the following:

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

The amendments made under this Act shall not be construed
to affect the privacy of employees with respect to voter
lists provided to labor organizations by employers pursuant
to elections directed by the Board.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer a very simple amendment that I am hopeful will
assuage the concerns of my friend and colleague, Ms. Foxx, regarding
privacy issues. This amendment very simply clarifies a provision in the
PRO Act that deals with the list of voters that employers are to
provide to a union before an election. My amendment provides that the
requirements surrounding this list of voters shall not affect employee
privacy.
For more than 60 years, the NLRB has required employers to provide a
list of names and home addresses of employees who are part of a
potential bargaining unit and who will vote in a union election. This
list has never conscripted workers into a union against their will, and
workers are still free to vote in favor of unionization or against it.
Rather, this procedure is designed to create a modicum of fairness
during a union election because employers already have this information
to reach their employees, whereas unions otherwise would not. It just
puts the employer and the union on equal footing in the lead-up to an
election.
In 2014, the NLRB updated what had to be included in that list,
requiring employers also to include job classifications, telephone and
cell phone numbers, and email contact information that was in the
employer's possession. The PRO Act simply codifies that 2014 election
rule.
According to information the NLRB provided to the Education and Labor
Committee in 2018, no person has ever charged a union with abusing the
voter information list since the new 2014 election rule took effect.
Even the Republican NLRB in December 2019 kept the voting list
requirement as it overhauled other union representation procedures.
My amendment removes any ambiguity in the PRO Act by making it clear
that nothing in the bill will be permitted to affect employee privacy.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Vargas). The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This amendment is a weak attempt to lend lip service to employee
privacy, but it fails to reduce the PRO Act's invasion of workers'
personal lives. Simply because this amendment says the bill shall not
be construed to affect employee privacy does not make it so.
This amendment will not affect the PRO Act's mandate forcing
employers to share employees' home addresses, home phone numbers, cell
phone numbers, personal email addresses, and more with union organizers
without giving workers any say in the matter or ensuring that their
personal information is protected.
The PRO Act's provision is an invasion of privacy, and empty rhetoric
in this fig leaf amendment does nothing to fix this harmful mandate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The argument of my friend and colleague is all well and good, but I
am happy to report that current law already prohibits unions from
engaging in harassment and coercion. The PRO Act doesn't change that.
The PRO Act simply codifies the 2014 election rule and the NLRB rules
about what had to be included in the list.
Harassment and coercion are prohibited today, will be prohibited
tomorrow, and would still be prohibited if the PRO Act bill makes its
way to the President's desk for signature.
The truth is that this list is already narrowly designed to be used
solely for union organizing campaigns before an election, and no union
has ever been charged with using this list for any improper purpose or
in violation of employee privacy.
If my friend's fears of coercion or intimidation were legitimate, we
would see labor charges against unions, but that hasn't happened
because the fear is unfounded.
My amendment merely memorializes and protects employees by clarifying
that nothing in the PRO Act will affect employee privacy.
I am proud to support workers' privacy and their right to organize.
I am proud of the PRO Act, a bill that recognizes that union
participation is the fabric of our middle class; a bill that recognizes
that strong union membership increases productivity, reduces turnover,
and gives the middle class more purchasing power; a bill that
recognizes that while union membership is at an all-time low, it is not
the result of union apathy, and that 62 percent of workers want to
unionize but cannot because workers are not on equal footing with
management; a bill that ends unfair union election practices like
employer-mandated captive audience speeches because the freedom to
associate or not associate should also include the freedom not to
listen.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and the underlying bill, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and anti-
small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a
liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses
and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers in small
businesses, and this amendment does nothing to change that.
My colleagues keep saying that the Trump administration is supporting
many bad rules put in place in 2014; however, that is misleading. The
administration has not completed its work on modifying or changing
some of those rules.

Unions attempted to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of
eligible workers in 2018, so it should come as no surprise that union
membership in the United States is plummeting. Yet, rather than correct
their own wrongdoing and increase their ranks by serving workers better
or going out and actually doing the job that unions are supposed to do,
unions are demanding that Congress enact this sweeping, radical bill
that tilts the playing field aggressively in their favor against
workers and small businesses.

[[Page H903]]

This amendment does nothing to lessen the harm this bill will inflict
on American workers in the form of violating their privacy, providing
their personal information to union organizers without allowing workers
the choice to refuse.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Allen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike subsection (k) of section 2.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a small business owner, I came to Congress to put America back on
a path to prosperity and create jobs. I am proud to say that as a
result of progrowth policies passed by the 115th Congress and enacted
by President Trump, American workers are thriving under our strong
economy. Unemployment is down and wages and jobs are up. I am
particularly excited by the growth in my home State of Georgia.
For the seventh year in a row, Georgia has been named the best place
to do business. A large part of that is because Georgia became a proud
right-to-work State back in 1947. Ever since, families are flourishing;
people are working; and business is booming.
But some of my colleagues in other States think they know what is
best for Georgia. The PRO Act will outright ban right-to-work laws that
have been so successful in States like Georgia. I can tell you right
now that the folks of Georgia know what is best for them, not the
Federal Government.
My amendment is simple. It strikes the ban on right-to-work States.
The right to work is what fuels the American Dream, opening a door to
upward mobility and the opportunity for workers to achieve their goals.
No American should be forced to pay for representation and political
activities that they do not agree with, and that is what will happen if
we take away States' authority to enact right-to-work laws.
My amendment will protect States' right-to-work laws so that union
dues are voluntary, giving power to workers, not union bosses, who
pocket these benefits from mandatory dues. It should not even be up for
debate. Workers should be in control of their earnings and how they
spend it.
As Members of Congress our duty is to put our constituents first, so
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, which prioritizes
hardworking Americans' right to choose over the special interests of a
union.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and to
commend the Chair for including in the PRO Act provisions that will end
the free-rider problem caused by so-called right-to-work States.
Right-to-work provisions undermine the right to unionize because our
basic labor law requires a union to represent all those in the
bargaining unit, and everyone in the bargaining unit benefits from the
union contract. If you tell people you don't have to join, you don't
have to pay the union dues, you don't have to pay a fee and you still
get all the benefits, then right-to-work is really code for right to
free ride.
The result is that States with so-called right-to-work laws have half
the private sector unionization rates as other States. It doesn't just
hurt those who are in a union because it hurts every wage earner in the
whole State. Average wages decline. That is why average wages in so-
called right-to-work States are $8,700 less than they are in other
States, but it doesn't just affect that whole State. It drives other
States to perhaps adopt so-called right-to-work laws in a race to the
bottom as they fight for businesses. It even hurts us in California,
where we have to compete with low-wage employers in antiunion States.
I have been working on this problem for decades. That is why I
introduced the Nationwide Right to Unionize Act in the 110th Congress,
the 111th Congress, the 112th Congress, the 113th Congress, the 114th
Congress, the 115th Congress, and now the 116th Congress each time with
dozens of cosponsors.
Last Congress I was joined by Elizabeth Warren in the Senate where we
introduced our bills together. Last week Senator Warren and I each
introduced our bills in the House with 30 original cosponsors and the
Senate with 16.
The PRO Act is to be commended because it solves this free-rider
problem. We had the State Department testify before my subcommittee of
Foreign Affairs that so-called right-to-work laws are a violation of
the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights because the right to organize is a
human right, and right-to-work laws make a mockery of that right.
I also rise in opposition to the amendment we are going to be dealing
with, No. 10 by Mr. Meadows, which is substantively identical to what
we are considering now. The Rules Committee in an effort to be
incredibly bipartisan has allowed two substantively identical
amendments to be presented to this House. They are both substantively
identical. They are both equally reprehensible.
Defeat this amendment. Pass the bill. End the race to the bottom and
raise wages nationwide. A country which even last year saw wages rise
just 1 percent more than inflation needs unions. We need the right to
organize. Pass the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that right-to-work
States are stronger, growing faster, and more prosperous. The Federal
Government has no business outright banning right-to-work laws that are
so successful in many States across the Nation.
Why would California tell Georgia how to run their State?
Democrats in this body have a radical agenda to erode the rights of
States. It is just wrong.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect States' rights and vote
``yes'' on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1745

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First, I want to point out that, by every measure, unemployment, jobs
per month, a Dow Jones industrial average, even the deficit were all
better under President Obama than President Trump.
We also know that union members get better wages, better benefits,
and safer workplaces than nonmembers. But unions have the duty to
represent all workers in a bargaining unit, even those who are not
members of the union.
In so-called right-to-work States, that means the union must equally
represent those nonmembers who are free to avoid paying their fair
share of the costs of representation. This obligation to represent
everyone is known as the duty of fair representation.
Since all workers receive a benefit from union representation, it is
only fair that everyone contribute their fair share. For example, if a
worker files a grievance, the union must represent

[[Page H904]]

that person with individualized representation, and that could cost
thousands of dollars a day.
Likewise, when a union incurs expenses while bargaining for raises or
benefits, everyone in the bargaining unit benefits, so it only makes
sense that everyone help pay for that representation.
The PRO Act permits unions and employers to negotiate labor
agreements, which include a service fee to cover the fair share of the
cost of providing services mandated by law. That does not mean
political activities or advocacy or holiday parties or Fourth of July
celebrations, just those that are required by law. It just ensures that
those who enjoy the benefits of union representation pay their fair
share.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Hayes

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 19, line 18, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 19, line 20, striking the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Board shall dismiss any petition for an election
with respect to a bargaining unit or any subdivision if,
during the preceding 12-month period, the employer has
recognized a labor organization without an election and in
accordance with this Act.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to preserve the
ability for new, voluntarily recognized unions to collectively bargain
for a reasonable period of time without the threat of an invited
decertification campaign.
I include in the Record a letter from the National Education
Association in support of the PRO Act.

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2020.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of
the National Education Association who work in schools and on
college campuses in 14,000 communities, we urge you to vote
YES on the Protect the Right to Organize Act (H.R. 2474).
Votes associated with this issue may be included in NEA's
Report Card for the 116th Congress.
Collective bargaining is crucial in providing working
people with a voice in the workplace and a means for
improving their families' financial circumstances. The
freedom to collectively bargain, in both the public and the
private sectors, helps reduce income inequality and assists
low- and middle-income workers in sharing in economic growth.
However, according to Bureau of Labor statistics, only 6.2
percent of workers in the private sector were union members
in 2019. Employers' hostility to union organizing is largely
to blame for the declining number of private-sector union
members. This negatively affects working families and our
nation's economic viability. The PRO Act will take several
steps to reduce the barriers to private-sector union
organizing, including:
Revising the definition of ``employee'' and ``supervisor''
to prevent employers from classifying employees as exempt
from labor law protections;
Expanding unfair labor practices to include prohibitions
against replacement of or discrimination against workers who
participate in strikes;
Making it an unfair labor practice to require or coerce
employees to attend employer meetings designed to discourage
union membership an unfair labor practice; and
Allowing injunctions against employers engaging in unfair
labor practices involving discharge or serious economic harm
to an employee.
All working families deserve financial stability and the
ability to negotiate to improve their circumstances. The
right to organize is essential to these, and to our nation's
overall economic health. We urge you to vote YES on the PRO
Act to help remove barriers to organizing in the private
sector.
Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chair, as a union member, I have had the benefits of
the organizing and collective bargaining power of WTA, CEA, NEA, and
SEIU 1199. But not all people work in fields with a history of
unionization. New unions need a chance to bargain with employers and
prove they are productive and skilled advocates on behalf of their
members.
For over 40 years, the National Labor Relations Board protected the
voluntary recognition process by affording a reasonable amount of time
for employers and unions to collectively bargain without fear of
decertification challenges. That rule balanced the need for stability
in labor relations with the right to have an election, while giving the
unions a chance to demonstrate effectiveness to its members.
In 2007, the Bush administration's NLRB scrapped that policy by
requiring employers to post a notice inviting a decertification
election within a 45-day window, fostering uncertainty among employees,
undermining stability in collective bargaining, and encouraging
employers to stall at the bargaining table. Although the NLRB rejected
this policy in 2011, this administration has proposed to revive it.
Unions need our support now more than ever. In 2018, Connecticut saw
a 3.5 percent decline in union membership from the previous year. Due
to this administration's attacks following the Janus Supreme Court
decision, national union membership is at 10.3 percent, down from 20.1
percent from the first year data was collected in 1983.
We should not be proposing new rules meant to antagonize and
intimidate newly formed unions or new workers advocating for their
constitutional right to organize. We should be giving new unions the
tools they need to succeed.
A nonunionized workforce means lower wages, poorer working
conditions, and reduced benefits. It means working at risk of
exploitation. It means a workforce left with no tools to advocate for
themselves in the workplace.
The PRO Act will strengthen unions formed over a century ago and
those formed today. It will bolster the power of workers and the middle
class by giving labor law teeth to prevent intimidation and
retaliation. It will strengthen Connecticut workers' rights to
collectively bargain on behalf of their members. And it will put a stop
to the blatant attacks from employers and State legislatures.
Mr. Chair, I stand with my union brothers and sisters at all stages
of the unionization process.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment ensuring new
unions are given the chance to organize without a rushed threat of
decertification.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The biggest problem with our Federal labor laws today is inadequate
protection of workers' rights within the labor organizations that
represent them. This amendment would make that problem worse. Workers
should not be forced into a union with which they do not wish to
associate.
The existing process for workers to remove a union is too limited and
burdensome as it is. Workers face tremendous one-sided barriers to a
decertification election that they do not face in a certification
election.
Worse, more than 90 percent of workers represented by a union today
have never voted for that union to represent them.
Let me repeat that. More than 90 percent of workers represented by a
union

[[Page H905]]

today have never voted for that union to represent them.
Democrats oppose legislation that would allow workers to vote
periodically on the union in their workplace, and this amendment would
make it even more difficult for workers to have an opportunity to vote,
even after clearing all of the existing unnecessary hurdles.
This amendment would make the PRO Act even more antiworker than it
already is.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chair, first, the PRO Act does not require employees
to recognize unions without first having an election. Rather, the right
of an employer to voluntarily recognize a union has been the law of
this land since 1935, when the National Labor Relations Act was
enacted.
Voluntary recognition happens with demonstrated majority support from
members by petition or union authorization cards.
Again, voluntary recognition happens with demonstrated majority
support from members by petition or union authorization cards.
The PRO Act simply strengthens employees' right to a free and fair
election by establishing more effective remedies when an employer
unlawfully interferes with an election.
Second, my amendment does not undermine the right to have an
election. It codifies a period of time during which a union and an
employer can focus on bargaining an agreement and allows workers to
exercise their constitutional right to collectively bargain. It
prevents wasteful delay tactics so both parties can get to the
negotiating table.
If we are going to protect the practice of collective bargaining, we
need to ensure there is a reasonable time period for the union to
represent employees and bargain on their behalf without fighting over
other challenges.
This time period only begins after the employees have demonstrated a
majority want to have a union. It does not stop employees from seeking
an election after a reasonable time of 1 year, provided it does not
interfere with other existing NLRB policies.
The reality is union membership is declining because of the continued
attacks on working-class Americans. Our workers are losing a seat at
the table in their own workplaces. They need us to defend their rights
and ensure they have a fair shot at negotiation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up for unions and support
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, union membership is plummeting because American workers
have realized that they don't need the unions. We are seeing such a
prosperous economy. And as I said, union membership declining is
correlated with the fact that our economy is booming for the middle
class.
The PRO Act, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most antiworker and anti-
small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a
liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses
and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small
businesses.
The largest federation of unions in America spends more than three
times as much money on politics as it does on its stated purpose of
organizing and representing workers.
With this bill, the unions are trying to take a shortcut. They have
decided it is better to just focus on getting Democrats to do their
work for them.
Unions attempted to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of
eligible workers in 2018, so it should come as no surprise that union
membership in the United States is plummeting, along with the great
economy that we have.
Yet, rather than correct their own wrongdoing and increase their
ranks by serving workers better, unions are demanding their allies in
Congress enact this sweeping, radical bill that includes over 50
harmful provisions, including those which eliminate workers' privacy,
forces workers to pay a labor union against their will, subjects
workers and small businesses to direct union harassment, and will kill
thousands of small businesses and good-paying jobs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this antiworker, pro-union
boss amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Keller

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 30, strike line 11 and all that follows through line
16.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2474.
This amendment would maintain current law, which protects the ability
of employers to continue to do business and provide for their customers
during a labor relations dispute.
One of the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act was to
``eliminate . . . substantial obstructions to the free flow of
commerce.'' After the economic chaos of the 1930s, Congress passed the
NLRA.
The NLRA struck a careful balance by protecting workers' ability to
strike while outlawing intermittent strikes that create upheaval and
uncertainty in the absence of a genuine commitment by the employees to
abandon their work.

{time} 1800

Similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of employers to
replace striking workers permanently in order to keep their business
running.
H.R. 2474 discards more than 80 years of precedent by weaponizing the
pain of economic conflict in order to empower union bosses. The bill
aims to make it impossible for employers to continue to do business in
the event of a labor dispute, a death sentence for thousands of small
businesses.
In 1937, there were nearly 5,000 strikes in the United States, a
nightmare for employers, customers, and the economy as a whole. H.R.
2474 seeks to resurrect this chaotic time in America's history. Imagine
what a system that allows for intermittent strikes and bans on the
replacement of striking workers would do to our economy, our global
competitiveness, and the incentive to invest in American workers.
Allowing intermittent strikes and banning permanent replacements is
great for union bosses, but a raw deal for workers, consumers, and
small businesses.
Having worked in the manufacturing sector for over 25 years, I know
it is critically important for the overall health of a business to be
reliable and keep the doors open so employees can keep their jobs.
You cannot be pro-jobs and antibusiness. If a business cannot do its
work, then its purpose no longer exists. Competition will inherently
force businesses to close.
Allowing intermittent strikes and banning permanent replacements
could force businesses to close their doors permanently. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this amendment to protect small businesses and to
prevent unnecessary disruptions of our economy.
Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting Chair (Ms. Pingree). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, first I would like to enter
into the Record letters of support for the PRO Act from the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Federation of
Professional & Technical Engineers and the United Auto Workers.

[[Page H906]]

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

February 4, 2020.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am writing
to state our strong support for H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). I urge you to support this
critical legislation and to oppose any weakening amendments
and any motion to recommit when H.R. 2474 comes to the House
floor this week.
Today, the economy is not working for working people. Wages
have stagnated for workers across the economy, while income
has skyrocketed for CEO's and the wealthiest one percent.
This inequality is the result of a loss of bargaining power
and the erosion of workers' ability to exercise their rights
on the job.
Today, when workers make the decision to stand together and
bargain with their employer for improved working conditions,
the deck is stacked against them from day one. Under current
law, unscrupulous employers, armed with limitless funds,
routinely violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and
block workers' ability to exercise their right to bargain for
better wages and better working conditions. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act is an important step forward for
workers' rights. It would restore and strengthen worker
protections which have been eroded over the years.
The Protecting the Right to Organize Act addresses several
major weaknesses in current law. H.R. 2474 enacts meaningful,
enforceable penalties on employers who break the law and
gives workers a private right of action if they've been
terminated for union activity. The bill would make elections
fairer by prohibiting employers from using coercive
activities like captive audience meetings. H.R. 2474
establishes a process for mediation and arbitration to stop
stalling tactics at the bargaining table and help parties
achieve a first contract. Importantly, the bill also
addresses rampant intentional misclassification and ensures
that misclassified workers are not deprived of their right to
form a union under the NLRA. These are among the many
important provisions in the bill to help restore the middle
class.
Research shows that workers want unions. However, there is
a huge gap between the share of workers with union
representation and the share of workers that would like to
have a union and a voice on the job. The PRO Act would take a
major step forward in closing that gap and ultimately growing
a strong middle class.
I urge you to demonstrate to the American people that
workers and their rights are a priority for this Congress. I
hope I can tell our members that you stood with them and
other workers in their efforts to achieve meaningful workers'
rights and protections and better wages and working
conditions. The Teamsters Union urges you to support H.R.
2474 and oppose all efforts to weaken this bill by amendment.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
____

International Federation of

Professional & Technical Engineers,

Washington, DC, January 31, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of 90,000 workers
represented by the International Federation of Professional
and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we urge you to vote for the
H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019
(PRO Act), scheduled for a floor vote next week. As currently
written, the PRO Act would restore and protect workers'
rights to organize and collectively bargain in their
workplaces and we urge you to oppose any Motion to Recommit
and any amendments that would weaken the language, intent, or
purpose of the bill.
If enacted, the PRO Act would counter the all too common
anti-union intimidation tactics that workers who are
organizing a union are subjected to. For example, upwards of
800 highly trained professionals employed by Southern
California Edison are currently engaged in an organizing
effort with IFPTE Local 20 to address issues such as
mandatory overtime and ever-shortening training for new
hires. These designers, estimators, field planning
technicians, and planners play an important role in ensuring
safety and wildfire mitigation to the more than 15 million
people in Southern California. Unfortunately, Southern
California Edison has decided to engage in some of the very
anti-worker behavior that this bill seeks to correct. This
include such activities as mandatory all-staff captive
audience meetings, one on one meetings, and handing out anti-
union literature filled with misinformation, all aimed at
discouraging union activity.
The PRO Act would counter the all too common anti-union
intimidation tactics that workers in union organizing
campaigns and first contract negotiations are subjected to.
This bill meaningfully restores workers' rights to determine
for themselves if they want a union by providing a fair
process for union recognition if the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) determines that the employer illegally
interfered with the union representation election. Provisions
in the bill also allow the union or the employer to request a
mediation-arbitration process for first contract negotiations
that take longer than 90 days. Language in this bill that
prohibits captive audience meetings and reinstates the
employer requirement to disclose any hiring of anti-union
consultants will help workers make informed choices when they
receive information from their employers. By clarifying and
updating the National Labor Relations Act's definitions for
employee, supervisor, and employer, the PRO Act closes
loopholes that allow employers to misclassify workers and
prevents employers from dodging joint employer liability.
Furthermore, this bill gives the NLRB the authority to
conduct economic analysis as it sets policies and
regulations, increases penalties against employers who
violate the National Labor Relations Act, requires employers
to reinstate workers while the NLRB investigates the
retaliatory firing, and gives unions the ability to collect
fair-share fees.
For all the reasons above, IFPTE we request you vote for
the PRO Act and opposed any weakening amendments that may be
considered.
Sincerely,
Paul Shearon,
President.
Matthew Biggs,
Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.
____

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
January 29, 2020.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than one million
active and retired members of the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, I urge you to vote Yes on the Protecting the
Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 2474) and oppose any
weakening amendments, including the motion to recommit.
The right to form unions paved the way for the creation of
a strong middle class. Over time, unions have vastly improved
workplace rights, wages, benefits, and conditions for all
workers. A worker with a union contract earns, on average,
13.2 percent more in wages than a peer with similar
education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized
workplace in the same sector. Although unions are fundamental
to rebuilding the middle class, the percentage of workers in
unions has declined over the last several decades. Weak labor
laws, anti-worker policies and court rulings have severely
curtailed workers' rights to have a voice on the job.
Aggressive employer anti-union campaigns and weak labor laws
have taken a toll on workers as union membership has
diminished from 33 percent in 1956 to 10 percent in 2019. The
ramifications of anti-worker policies extend well beyond the
workplace and impact our society at large. Our labor laws
need to be strengthened significantly.
Over the past several decades, workers seeking to form
their union at their workplace have faced aggressive
opposition from unscrupulous corporations and other well
financed anti-union special interest groups. According to the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in one out of every three
campaigns, employers fire pro-union workers, and spend at
least $1 billion annually in opposition to organizing. EPI
found that 90 percent of employers require captive-audience
meetings to dissuade workers from joining a union.
Lower unionization rates harm our middle class, economy and
democratic institutions. Collective bargaining raises wages
for both union and non-union workers, lessens racial wage
gaps, and increases wages for women.
The PRO Act directly addresses these and other problems by
including provisions that could help ensure workers have a
voice on the job and a fair opportunity to form a union if
they so choose. Under the PRO Act, the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) would be empowered to assess
significant monetary penalties to deter or punish employers
that unlawfully fire workers for exercising their rights to
form a union or for speaking out to improve working
conditions. The bill would also allow workers to enforce
their labor rights in federal court and prohibit mandatory
attendance in captive audience meetings. Should workers vote
to form a union, the NLRB would be authorized to order
immediate bargaining of a first contract, which would avoid
common employer stall tactics and deliberate
misclassification of workers. It would also ensure that
unions can collect ``fair-share fees'' and eliminates so-
called ``right to work'' laws in order for unions to have the
necessary resources to effectively enforce collective
bargaining agreements and other legally protected rights.
Furthermore, the PRO Act protects employees' right to
strike by preventing employers from hiring permanent
replacement workers. H.R. 2474 also permits unrepresented
employees to engage in collective action or class action
lawsuits to enforce basic workplace rights, rather than being
forced to arbitrate such claims alone. It also reigns in
offensive lockouts. In a lockout, a company expels its union-
represented employees from the worksite, locks the gate, and
refuses to permit them to return to work unless they accept
the employer's proposal. Companies have all too often chosen
to lock out workers than rather engage in good faith
negotiations.
The PRO Act will strengthen the middle class and our
national economy. We urge you to vote Yes on H.R. 2474.
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
UAW Legislative Director.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I would remind the gentleman
that the strikes of 1937 were

[[Page H907]]

precisely the result of the arrangement, the balance that was struck by
the National Labor Relations Act, which was passed in 1935.
The National Labor Relations Act sets forth procedures so that
workers and employers could both advocate for their rights in the
economy. And so to ban intermittent strikes, as the gentleman would
propose, puts at stake two core portions of our Constitution's First
Amendment: the freedom to peaceably assemble and the freedom of speech.
This amendment would place speech- and content-based restrictions on
workers only because they choose to gather and speak on behalf of a
union or forming a union.
We freely allow civil rights protesters, animal welfare activists,
anti-choice activists, and all others to gather and share their
messages. Union members should be no different.
Understand, going on strike is an option of last resort. No worker
wants to risk their job and their paycheck to walk a picket line in the
cold, the rain, or anything in-between. I have stood with striking
workers and seen their resolve and know the impact striking has on them
and their families.
These workers strike because they must, because they have no other
option but to say: ``No more.'' We must respect this resolve by
allowing workers the dignity to stand up for themselves and shout:
``One day longer. One day stronger.''
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. KELLER. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, recently, members of the
United Auto Workers went on strike at General Motors for 40 days. There
was no leader who made them do this, and I have never seen a strike, in
fact in my life, that was dictated by someone from on high. The workers
voted, in that case way over 90 percent, to go on strike.
When I repeatedly visited picket lines at various workplaces
throughout my district in Michigan, I was amazed that a lot of the
veteran workers were out there striking; not for themselves. They were
striking for workers forced to be temporary workers, and not having
full-time status and regularized status for months and years at a time.
These veteran workers, some of whom had worked there 10, 20, 30 years
said it just felt wrong to work side by side doing the same job with
someone who was denied the pay and benefits due to workers at that
workplace.
All of this talk about union bosses disgusts me, Madam Chairwoman.
Unions are organizations that workers build themselves to advocate for
their interests. They are nonprofits. They are not businesses. In an
economy where the real bosses are making 300 and 400 times what the
regular workers make, that is something that would be an obscenity to
the people in the manufacturing sector, to CEOs in the manufacturing
sector, decades ago.
The CEO of General Motors, then the biggest company in the land, made
80 times or 50 times--I forget, something like that--what the workers
made, which is nothing like what happens today. Those are the bosses
that need to be brought under control.
The right to strike is basic to our labor relations and it must be
preserved. We must pass the PRO Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Stevens

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Redesignate section 5 as section 6, and insert after
section 4 the following:

SEC. 5. GAO REPORT ON SECTORAL BARGAINING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General, in
consultation with the persons described in subsection (b),
shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Education and
Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a
report, that--
(1) identifies and analyzes the laws, policies, and
procedures in countries outside the United States governing
collective bargaining at the level of an industry sector,
including the laws, policies, and procedures involved in--
(A) the administrative system facilitating such bargaining;
(B) how collective bargaining agreements are rendered
binding on all firms in an industry sector;
(C) defining an industry sector;
(D) the relationship between collective bargaining at the
level of an individual employer or group of employers and at
the level of an industry sector;
(E) the designation of representatives for collective
bargaining at the level of an industry sector;
(F) the scope of collective bargaining and impasses at the
level of an industry sector; and
(G) the provision or administration of benefits by labor
organizations (such as unemployment insurance), or union
security at the firm level or the level of an industry
sector, to cover the costs of collective bargaining at the
level of an industry sector;
(2) conducts a comparative analysis of the laws, policies,
and procedures specified in paragraph (1) that have been
enacted in countries outside the United States;
(3) to the extent practicable, identifies the effects of
such laws, policies, and procedures on--
(A) the wages and compensation of employees;
(B) the number of employees, disaggregated by full-time and
part-time employees;
(C) prices, sales, and revenues;
(D) employee turnover and retention;
(E) hiring and training costs;
(F) productivity and absenteeism; and
(G) the development of emerging industries, including those
that engage their workforces through technology; and
(4) describes the methodology used to generate the
information in the report.
(b) Expert Consultation.--The persons described in this
subsection are--
(1) workers and the labor organizations representing such
workers;
(2) representatives of businesses;
(3) the National Labor Relations Board;
(4) the International Labor Organization; and
(5) the International Labor Affairs Bureau of the
Department of Labor.
(c) Congressional Assessment and Recommendations.--Not
later than 60 days after the date on which the report is
submitted under subsection (a), the Committee on Education
and Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate
shall--
(1) assess the findings of such report; and
(2) make recommendations with respect to actions of
Congress to address the findings of such report.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chairwoman, today, as we consider the PRO Act, we
think of how far the labor movement has come and how far we have yet to
go. We think of all the important steps we need to take as a government
and as a nation to rebuild our working class as productivity is
dropping and inequality is rising, to ensure fundamental, basic
protections are in place for a better work environment and a stronger
economy for all, to secure workers' rights to collectively bargain.
The PRO Act represents the rights of the nearly 700,000 brothers and
sisters in unions across my home State of Michigan where the steady
humming of hard work and determination abounds. The PRO Act is in our
bones.
Public approval of labor unions is near a 50-year high, but union
membership is at its lowest level since just after the National Labor
Relations Act was enacted in 1935. It is not a coincidence that as
union membership has declined, income inequality has soared.
At the same time, new forms of work continue to emerge in our
innovation economy, work that allows individuals the complete freedom
to work whenever and for whomever they choose.
Many developed countries have sought to address the changing nature
of work through sectoral bargaining, where representatives of workers
and employers in a given industry bargain over wages and standards
throughout that industry. By covering more workers under a collective
bargaining agreement, workers and employers can bargain for industry-
wide floors in wages and benefits.
This amendment asks the Government Accountability Office to look to
the future by evaluating how laws and

[[Page H908]]

policies on sectoral bargaining have been playing out in other
countries, strengthening workers' ability to effectively bargain in the
face of a rapidly changing economy.
Specifically, my amendment asks the GAO to assess the various forms
of sectoral bargaining, including:
One, multiemployer bargaining, which permits unions to collectively
bargain contracts for workers across a region or an industry;
Two, pattern bargaining, which involves union organizing and
collective bargaining with all the companies in an industry. The United
Auto Workers has used this model to bargain for common terms with the
big three in Michigan; and
Three, wage standard boards where government, industry, and labor
would be responsible for setting wages, benefits, and other terms and
conditions of employment across specific industries.
Madam Chairwoman, the Education and Labor Committee has held three
hearings on the future of work where we have begun exploring
alternative models to empower workers in the face of this rapidly
changing economy.
While sectoral bargaining is no substitute for the essential reforms
in the PRO Act, a number of emerging industries, think tanks, and other
worker advocates have begun to explore this idea to complement the PRO
Act.
We ask that the GAO also assess the economic impacts of sectoral
bargaining, including the impact on wages, prices, productivity, and
the development of emerging industries, including those who engage
their workforces through technology.
As a co-chair of the Future of Work Task Force on the New Democrat
Coalition, we, as Democrats, realize that there is an urgency to start
to fix the problem that some of this legislation addresses. But this
must not be the end of the conversation of what we need to do to
support workers and allow our economy to thrive in the 21st century
labor movement.
Another amendment I had introduced was not made in order, but it
would have asked the GAO to explore the deployment of portable benefit
systems and the feasibility of a new employee classification for this
gig economy and their employees.
We will continue exploring these alternative work models that ensure
a strong set of benefits and protections for workers, while allowing
them to retain the independence and flexibility they want.
With a comprehensive assessment by the GAO on sectoral bargaining in
other countries, Congress will be better informed on the next steps
after the PRO Act is enacted into law.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
This amendment will open Pandora's box. Sectoral bargaining which
would apply a single one-size-fits-all contract to every employee in
every business across a particular industry in the United States would
be an unmitigated disaster for American small businesses. It would rob
small business owners and workers alike of the freedom to negotiate
their own contracts.
Every business is different. One-size-fits-all union contracts
applied across an entire industry throughout the United States would
saddle small businesses with labor and employment costs that do not
work for their particular business and that they may not be able to
afford.
Similarly, employees would be forced to accept wages, benefits, and
other terms and conditions of employment that they had no say in
determining, and that may not work for their individual situations.

{time} 1815

Collective bargaining agreements already force workers into one-size-
fits-all contracts, but currently, in the United States, they are at
least confined within the walls of one business at a time.
Sectoral bargaining is a flawed and economically stifling policy used
in other countries, and one we should not be importing into the United
States. It would likely expand union contracts to hundreds of thousands
of additional employees, to the detriment of every worker hoping for
more individualized wages and benefits.
The absence of sectoral bargaining has allowed America's spirit of
freedom and innovation to drive unrivaled economic growth and
prosperity. Congress should not entertain importing the socialist
method of collective bargaining from other countries. Look at our
economy, especially compared to socialist European economies. It is
booming; they are stagnant.
The United States Congress does not need to import the worst economic
ideas from other countries with weaker economies, but socialist
Democrats insist on doing so. Sectoral bargaining is one such proposal
that we should not entertain.
Madam Chairman, I have seen some interesting amendments in my time in
the Congress, in this Chamber, but I have to say, this is the most
bizarre amendment that I believe I have ever seen. I urge my colleagues
to defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Meadows

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike page 30, line 17, and all that follows through page
31, line 2.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chairman, my amendment strikes the language in the
PRO Act that would, in effect, repeal right-to-work laws nationwide.
Currently, 27 States have adopted right-to-work laws that protect
workers in their States from forced unionization. Eight of these States
further protect their workers by enshrining right to work in their
State constitutions.
At their root, right-to-work laws let workers choose whether or not
to join a union. Right-to-work laws do not ban union membership.
Instead, they let workers, not their employer and not the government,
make the choice for them.
My colleagues opposite want to make the government the answer to
everything. Yet, here we are today, and we should be protecting
American values, American freedoms, that freedom of speech and that
freedom to associate as a worker chooses.
The Supreme Court already recognized these rights in the union
context when it ruled that government workers cannot be forced to pay
union dues. Taking away this freedom in the private sector would
reverse decades of protections that the States have given their
workers.
I might add that some of the best growing economies are States where
we have this ability, and my colleagues opposite want to, indeed, come
in and reach into States and tell them how to operate when we have
growing economies?
If California wants to make sure that everybody has to be in a union,
let them move to California.
But do you know what? The verdict is already in. They are leaving
California for States like Texas and other places where workers truly
have the ability to choose for themselves.
I believe that we ought to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition
to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment is a naked
attempt to undermine unions by making it harder to collect reasonable
fees for the services that they are required by law to perform.
Unions have a legal obligation to represent and advocate for all
members of

[[Page H909]]

a bargaining unit, even if those people choose to remain nonunion. As a
result, the law has created a perverse incentive for workers to receive
the benefits of unions' labor without paying a reasonable fee for these
services--in fact, without paying anything at all.
For years, so-called right-to-work laws have been wildly misnamed.
They don't actually provide any right to a job. Instead, they allow
States to interfere with the freedom of contract, solely for the
purposes of pitting workers against one another and threatening a
union's ability to exist at all.
Let me be clear, the PRO Act does not allow the employer and union to
agree that employees must be a member of the union as a condition of
employment. Despite the rhetoric, that has not been possible since the
late 1940s when the Supreme Court decided that no worker can be
required to be a member of a union. It is simply false. Nor does it
allow fair share dues to go toward political activity or advocacy.
It covers only the cost of representation and contract
administration, what the union is required by law to provide for
everybody in the bargaining unit.
The PRO Act simply restores fairness to the system.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, it is interesting to hear this debate
because the very State that the gentleman is from is a right-to-work
State. I find it just amazing. He comes down here and suggests that
somehow Washington, D.C., knows better than his own home State.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman over there used the word ``perverse.'' There is
something perverse here, all right. I will say that I support the
amendment by Mr. Meadows.
Among the numerous perverse power grabs in this bill offered today,
H.R. 2474 seeks to eliminate right-to-work protections nationwide,
superseding laws passed in those 27 States my good friend talked about,
including my home State of Texas, which as he alluded to, by the way,
its economy is so successful and our economy so big that if we were a
country, we would be the 10th largest country in the world. That is how
good our economy is.
Right-to-work laws prohibit the termination of employees for refusal
to join or pay dues or fees to an organization they may or may not even
support.
Let's protect families, not organizations. Let's protect families'
incomes, not unions'.
My friend Mr. Meadows' amendment strikes the provision of this bill
so that States may continue to protect workers from forced unionization
and ensure Americans keep their hard-earned money.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, the real motives are
revealed in the rhetoric. This is an attack on unions themselves.
The way that our labor relations have been organized since the 1930s
when the Wagner Act was passed is that private-sector labor relations
are governed by Federal law. Everything about our National Labor
Relations Act and the way workers can form unions in the private sector
and the rules for how elections happen, all these things are Federal.
This carve-out for States to be able to try to starve workers'
organizations by allowing this free-riding to go on is something that
happened over President Truman's veto, and, yes, we have been against
it for the last 70 years. The proof is in the pudding. The right-to-
freeload States have lower incomes; they have lower percentages of
workers who have benefits; and they have shorter life expectancy.

Over and over, the statistics show that workers and families are
better off. The old saw about letting people keep their hard-earned
money, unions are something that workers form voluntarily to advance
their interests. Union members make more money than nonunion members.
They make a great investment by coming together and bargaining together
to form a union.
Our labor relations are set up for workers to make a democratic
choice as a group in a workplace about whether or not to form a union.
If workers come together and make that choice, it is only fair that
everybody pays their fair share to administer the contract that
benefits all of them.
Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I just find it amazing that somehow we are
here debating this issue, and he is suggesting that the numbers prove
his point, and they do exactly the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that the reason why unions are failing is
because the workers are going other places because they get a better
benefit.
It is what it is because of what we are seeing on the ground not only
in North Carolina and Texas but in 27 other States. It is more than
half of the country. Yet the gentleman from Michigan over here somehow
says: Well, it is the freeloaders.
I can tell you, Madam Chair, based on his assumption, there are a few
people who pay dues into the Freedom Caucus. Some of the things that we
have supported he has actually benefited from. So should he pay dues to
the Freedom Caucus, based on his assumption?
I think that he would have a problem with that, just like everyone
over here has a problem with forcing people to pay union dues when they
don't want to join the union, and this is the protection for that.
I suggest that we support this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I challenge the gentleman to
point out a Chamber of Commerce in this country that allows people to
receive the benefits of the chamber without paying dues. They have
members and nonmembers. Health clubs, any kind of organization in this
country, people pay their fair share for the benefits that it creates.
The purpose of right-to-freeload laws has been nakedly obvious from
the beginning in the 1940s when they were pushed by far rightwing
foundations like the Olin Foundation and the Scaife Foundation, whose
sole purpose was to destroy collective bargaining in this country.
The other side is trying to destroy the solidarity of American
workers, to benefit the bosses and the employers that want to have a
union-free environment.
The facts are so obvious. When workers come together and form unions,
they make more money; they make better wages; they are five times more
likely to have a pension; and they are much more likely to have
employer-provided health insurance. This is the truth.
Employers and their enablers simply want to destroy collective
bargaining in this country, and I don't care if it is State by State or
any other way.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. These laws have been wrong since
they came into existence, and they are still wrong today.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, at least we have found something that the
gentleman from Michigan and I can agree on. What is wrong is wrong, and
that is wrong.
When you look at what the gentleman is trying to propose with his
legislation, and the fact that he is trying to put the will of
Washington, D.C., on States all across this great country, that is
wrong.
Why do we not allow the status quo to continue? Why? Because it is
good for workers. It is good for my State. It is good for South
Carolina. It is good for Texas. It is good for all kinds of States. I
would even say it is good for his State because he is a right-to-work
State.
But do you know what? We have talking points that are prepared by
people who will benefit from this legislation and nothing more. This
does not help the worker.
Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.

[[Page H910]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

{time} 1830

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 31, line 18, strike ``Section 203(c)'' and insert
``(a) In General.--Section 203(c)''.
On page 32, after line 7, insert the following:
(b) Whistleblower Protections.--The Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.)
is further amended--
(1) by redesignating section 611 (29 U.S.C. 531) as section
612; and
(2) by inserting after section 610 (29 U.S.C. 530), the
following new section:

``whistleblower protections

``Sec. 611.
``(a) In General.--No employer or labor organization shall
terminate or in any other way discriminate against, or cause
to be terminated or discriminated against, any applicant,
covered employee, or former covered employee, of the employer
or the labor organization by reason of the fact that such
applicant, covered employee, or former covered employee does,
or the employer or labor organization perceives the employee
to do, any of the following:
``(1) Provide, cause to be provided, or is about to provide
or cause to be provided, information to the labor
organization, the Department of Labor, or any other State,
local, or Federal Government authority or law enforcement
agency relating to any violation of, or any act or omission
that such employee reasonably believes to be a violation of,
any provision of this Act.
``(2) Testify or plan to testify or otherwise participate
in any proceeding resulting from the administration or
enforcement of any provision of this Act.
``(3) File, institute, or cause to be filed or instituted,
any proceeding under this Act.
``(4) Assist in any activity described in paragraphs (1)
through (3).
``(5) Object to, or refuse to participate in, any activity,
policy, practice, or assigned task that such covered employee
reasonably believes to be in violation of any provision of
this Act.
``(b) Definition of Covered Employee.--For the purposes of
this section, the term `covered employee' means any employee
or agent of an employer or labor organization, including any
person with management responsibilities on behalf of the
employer or labor organization.
``(c) Procedures and Timetables.--
``(1) Complaint.--
``(A) In general.--An applicant, covered employee, or
former covered employee who believes that he or she has been
terminated or in any other way discriminated against by any
person in violation of subsection (a) may file (or have any
person file on his or her behalf) a complaint with the
Secretary of Labor alleging such violation. Such a complaint
must be filed not later than either--
``(i) 180 days after the date on which such alleged
violation occurs; or
``(ii) 180 days after the date upon which the employee
knows or should reasonably have known that such alleged
violation in subsection (a) occurred.
``(B) Actions of secretary of labor.--Upon receipt of such
a complaint, the Secretary of Labor shall notify, in writing,
the person named in the complaint who is alleged to have
committed the violation, of--
``(i) the filing of the complaint;
``(ii) the allegations contained in the complaint;
``(iii) the substance of evidence supporting the complaint;
and
``(iv) opportunities that will be afforded to such person
under paragraph (2).
``(2) Investigation by secretary of labor.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1), and after
affording the complainant and the person named in the
complaint who is alleged to have committed the violation that
is the basis for the complaint an opportunity to submit to
the Secretary of Labor a written response to the complaint
and an opportunity to meet with a representative of the
Secretary of Labor to present statements from witnesses, the
Secretary of Labor shall--
``(i) initiate an investigation and determine whether there
is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has merit;
and
``(ii) notify the complainant and the person alleged to
have committed the violation of subsection (a), in writing,
of such determination.
``(B) Grounds for determination of complaints.--The
Secretary of Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this
subsection, and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise
required under paragraph (2), unless the complainant makes a
prima facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs
(1) through (5) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor
in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
``(3) Burdens of proof.--
``(A) Criteria for determination.--In making a
determination or adjudicating a complaint pursuant to this
subsection, the Secretary, an administrative law judge or a
court may determine that a violation of subsection (a) has
occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any
conduct described in subsection (a) with respect to the
complainant was a contributing factor in the adverse action
alleged in the complaint.
``(B) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a
decision or order that is favorable to the complainant shall
not be issued in any administrative or judicial action
pursuant to this subsection if the respondent demonstrates by
clear and convincing evidence that the respondent would have
taken the same adverse action in the absence of such conduct.
``(C) Notice of relief available.--If the Secretary of
Labor concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the
Secretary of Labor shall, together with the notice under
subparagraph (A)(ii), issue a preliminary order providing the
relief prescribed by paragraph (4)(B).
``(D) Request for hearing.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of receipt of notification of a determination of the
Secretary of Labor under this paragraph, either the person
alleged to have committed the violation or the complainant
may file objections to the findings or preliminary order, or
both, and request a hearing on the record. The filing of such
objections shall not operate to stay any reinstatement remedy
contained in the preliminary order. Any such hearing shall be
conducted expeditiously, and if a hearing is not requested in
such 30-day period, the preliminary order shall be deemed a
final order that is not subject to judicial review.
``(E) Procedures.--
``(i) In general.--A hearing requested under this paragraph
shall be conducted expeditiously and in accordance with rules
established by the Secretary for hearings conducted by
administrative law judges.
``(ii) Subpoenas; production of evidence.-- In conducting
any such hearing, the administrative law judge may issue
subpoenas. The respondent or complainant may request the
issuance of subpoenas that require the deposition of, or the
attendance and testimony of, witnesses and the production of
any evidence (including any books, papers, documents, or
recordings) relating to the matter under consideration.
``(4) Issuance of final orders; review procedures.--
``(A) Timing.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
conclusion of any hearing under paragraph (2), the Secretary
of Labor shall issue a final order providing the relief
prescribed by this paragraph or denying the complaint. At any
time before issuance of a final order, a proceeding under
this subsection may be terminated on the basis of a
settlement agreement entered into by the Secretary of Labor,
the complainant, and the person alleged to have committed the
violation.
``(B) Available relief.--
``(i) Order of secretary of labor.--If, in response to a
complaint filed under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor
determines that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred,
the Secretary of Labor shall order the person who committed
such violation--

``(I) to take affirmative action to abate the violation;
``(II) to reinstate the complainant to his or her former
position, together with compensation (including back pay with
interest) and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges
associated with his or her employment;
``(III) to provide compensatory damages to the complainant;
and
``(IV) expungement of all warnings, reprimands, or
derogatory references that have been placed in paper or
electronic records or databases of any type relating to the
actions by the complainant that gave rise to the unfavorable
personnel action, and, at the complainant's direction,
transmission of a copy of the decision on the complaint to
any person whom the complainant reasonably believes may have
received such unfavorable information.

``(ii) Costs and expenses.--If an order is issued under
clause (i), the Secretary of Labor, at the request of the
complainant, shall assess against the person against whom the
order is issued, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all
costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert
witness fees) reasonably incurred, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, by the complainant for, or in connection
with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the order was
issued.
``(C) Frivolous claims.--If the Secretary of Labor finds
that a complaint under paragraph (1) is frivolous or has been
brought in bad faith, the Secretary of Labor may award to the
prevailing employer or labor organization a reasonable
attorney fee, not exceeding $1,000, to be paid by the
complainant.

[[Page H911]]

``(D) De novo review.--
``(i) Failure of the secretary to act.--If the Secretary of
Labor has not issued a final order within 270 days after the
date of filing of a complaint under this subsection, or
within 90 days after the date of receipt of a written
determination, the complainant may bring an action at law or
equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court
of the United States having jurisdiction, which shall have
jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount
in controversy, and which action shall, at the request of
either party to such action, be tried by the court with a
jury.
``(ii) Procedures.--A proceeding under clause (i) shall be
governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in
paragraph (3). The court shall have jurisdiction to grant all
relief necessary to make the employee whole, including
injunctive relief and compensatory damages, including--

``(I) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
employee would have had, but for the discharge or
discrimination;
``(II) the amount of back pay, with interest;
``(III) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discharge or discrimination, including
litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable
attorney fees; and
``(IV) expungement of all warnings, reprimands, or
derogatory references that have been placed in paper or
electronic records or databases of any type relating to the
actions by the complainant that gave rise to the unfavorable
personnel action, and, at the complainant's direction,
transmission of a copy of the decision on the complaint to
any person whom the complainant reasonably believes may have
received such unfavorable information.

``(E) Other appeals.--Unless the complainant brings an
action under subparagraph (D), any person adversely affected
or aggrieved by a final order issued under subparagraph (A)
may file a petition for review of the order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the
violation with respect to which the order was issued,
allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant
resided on the date of such violation, not later than 60 days
after the date of the issuance of the final order of the
Secretary of Labor under subparagraph (A). Review shall
conform to chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. The
commencement of proceedings under this subparagraph shall
not, unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the
order. An order of the Secretary of Labor with respect to
which review could have been obtained under this subparagraph
shall not be subject to judicial review in any criminal or
other civil proceeding.
``(5) Failure to comply with order.--
``(A) Actions by the secretary.--If any person has failed
to comply with a final order issued under paragraph (4), the
Secretary of Labor may file a civil action in the United
States district court for the district in which the violation
was found to have occurred, or in the United States district
court for the District of Columbia, to enforce such order. In
actions brought under this paragraph, the district courts
shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief
including injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive
damages.
``(B) Civil actions to compel compliance.--A person on
whose behalf an order was issued under paragraph (4) may
commence a civil action against the person to whom such order
was issued to require compliance with such order. The
appropriate United States district court shall have
jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or
the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such order.
``(C) Award of costs authorized.--The court, in issuing any
final order under this paragraph, may award costs of
litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness
fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award
is appropriate.
``(D) Mandamus proceedings.--Any nondiscretionary duty
imposed by this section shall be enforceable in a mandamus
proceeding brought under section 1361 of title 28, United
States Code.
``(d) Unenforceability of Certain Agreements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the rights and
remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by
any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment,
including by any predispute arbitration agreement.
``(e) Savings.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of
any employee who exercises rights under any Federal or State
law or common law, or under any collective bargaining
agreement.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise with enthusiasm and support for
H.R. 2474, the PRO Act.
I would indicate that in America we would ask the question, When will
we have a 40-hour week or the weekend? All brought about by union
organizing and union leadership.
We need the PRO Act to ensure that Americans across the land have the
ability legally to organize and to be able to operate under the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Let me also say that it is imperative that we begin to recognize that
the American people like unions. Over 64 percent of Americans and
millennials appreciate the idea of having representation for better
quality of life and work.
So I rise to add to this very important legislation an amendment that
extends whistleblower protections to employees of both employers and
unions under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. This is
a fair and balanced amendment. We remember Supreme Court decisions like
the Janus Act, and many others, who undermine the ability for unions to
be able to organize or to engage. This protects the people who are
trying to organize.
But the whistleblower protections allow employees of employers and
employees of unions to be protected if they see something wrong and
they want to make sure that it is right.
Let me give you an example:
Today, I met Kimberly Lawson, who is part of the Fight for $15. She
also came to share the problems she has had with sexual harassment on
the job. It happens to be in one of the fast-food operations. She said,
on the record, that if we could pass the PRO Act, she wouldn't be alone
trying to raise our hourly wage or face sexual harassment without a
union to help her.
This is important legislation. The whistleblower protection is
important because Ms. Lawson would have the ability to be able to
report what is happening to her without losing her job as a single
mother with a young child.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, although I plan to vote in favor of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment is little
more than a recognition from the Democrats that the PRO Act is truly a
union boss wish list that strips rights away from workers, increases
the coercive power of union bosses, and will make union corruption like
we are seeing at the United Auto Workers Union even likelier.
It is ironic that Democrats have chosen to offer whistleblower
protection for illegal union activities as an amendment to the PRO Act
after years of opposing more transparency and accountability for union
leaders when the Republicans were in the majority.
Last Congress, Congressman Francis Rooney offered not one, but two
bills with whistleblower protections for union corruption. Both bills
had zero Democrat cosponsors. This attempt to provide Democrat Members
with a talking point is too little too late and does nothing to address
the PRO Act's overwhelming problems.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 4 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me, first of all, thank the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), ranking member, for her
support.
Let me also thank the chairman of this committee for his leadership
and support, and the staff for working with my staff so very ably.
But let me add that, as I have seen, committee Democrats on this
particular committee strongly agree that allegations of corruption
should be fully investigated. They have not ignored it, and those who
are charged should be prosecuted and held accountable. They have not
ignored it. That is why we have robust criminal and civil penalties for
unions and companies.
This is about whistleblower protection, and I would say that no union
is against this. That is why this amendment particularly reinforces
that the employees of employers and employees of unions have the right
to bring to the attention anything that undermines

[[Page H912]]

their workplace or their quality of work.
I believe this is an amendment that all of us can support and that it
focuses on whistleblowers, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, Democrats bemoan that
plummeting union membership does not reflect workers' actual opinion of
unions. But NLRB decisions and so-called conservative attacks are not
the reason workers have voluntarily chosen to leave unions behind.
Democrats and their friends in Big Labor refuse to acknowledge that
millions of workers are simply disenchanted with union representation
and that union leaders have lost the trust of their members.
We need not look any further than the ongoing corruption scandal at
United Auto Workers in which several high-ranking union officials have
already been convicted of a litany of crimes, including embezzlement,
misuse of workers' union dues on lavish personal expenses, money
laundering, tax fraud, and accepting bribes in violation of Federal
labor law.
Two former UAW vice presidents have been charged. The last two UAW
presidents have been formally implicated in a racketeering scheme of
more than $1.5 million, and the current UAW president is under
investigation for receiving bribes and kickbacks.

The UAW is now at risk of being placed under Federal oversight under
the Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organization Act, or RICO.
That is why I have sent not one, not two, but three letters requesting
a public hearing by the Committee on Education and Labor to examine
this widening corruption scandal.
It should come as no surprise that the UAW, long one of the largest
unions in the country and a major benefactor of the Democrat party,
lost 35,000 members in 2018, and the overall union membership fell
again in 2019 to just 6.2 percent.
Rather than increase transparency and accountability to serve workers
better, over the past decade unions successfully lobbied the Obama
administration to roll back transparency requirements and are now
calling on their political allies in Congress to pass the radical,
coercive H.R. 2474 as a bailout.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is
remaining for both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me be very clear. It is an
important point to make that Democrats--the committee Democrats, in
particular--recognize that a few bad actors are not going to deter or
dissuade us from taking this historic step towards strengthening
workers' rights to organize and restoring balance to the economy.
As I said earlier, the growing support for unions is phenomenal.
Millions of Americans look for a better quality of life because unions
are negotiating on their behalf. If this particular employee at the
fast-food organization had a union, she would be able to organize and
ensure that she got $15 an hour, or to be able to make sure she had
better healthcare for her young 5-year-old.
Madam Chair, this is legislation that is long in coming. And my
amendment adds to the importance of it by protecting whistleblowers who
work for employers and work for unions. I also want to say that the
Government Accountability Project that protects whistleblowers is
supporting this legislation. I would ask that my colleagues support it
because we are standing up to corruption, but we are also standing up
for workers--workers who need opportunities and the ability to get a
better quality of life.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Democrats believe one-size-fits-all union contracts are good for
workers in the modern economy and that forcing these workers to pay
hundreds of dollars per year to left-wing political organizations is
the only way to guarantee wage growth, combat inequality, and
strengthen the middle class. But the last 3 years and beyond have made
clear that nothing could be further from the truth.
Wages are not stagnant, and to claim they are is a blatant lie. Wages
have grown by 3 percent each of the last 2 years. Moreover, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta reported the pay for the bottom 25 percent of
workers rose 4.5 percent from a year earlier, compared to 2.9 percent
for the top 25 percent, meaning wages are rising faster for rank-and-
file workers than for their bosses.
Over the first 3 years of the Trump presidency, wages for the bottom
10 percent of earners over age 25 rose an average of 5.9 percent per
year compared to 2.4 percent during President Obama's second term.
Wages for the middle two quartiles have also grown faster under
President Trump than during President Obama's second term.
Overall, the typical American household earns over $1,000 more per
month today, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 1975. The union
membership rate today is less than half of what it was in 1975.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, do I have the right to close as the
proponent of the amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has the right to close.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I believe that I am in
opposition, do I not have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina indicated her
support for the amendment.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time
I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and anti-small
business bills to be considered by Congress in decades, and this
amendment does not change that.
The PRO Act is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and
empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file
workers and small businesses.
While I will support the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, we
will still oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for us being able to come together around a very vital
amendment that gives protection to employees of employers and employees
of unions to be able to indicate when matters are wrong, incorrect, or
violate the law, or impact negatively on employees of any organization.
But what I would say is that it is important that this particular
legislation go forward because of the historic nature of ensuring the
ability to organize for willing individuals.
And let me cite Kimberly Lawson again. She is fighting for $15. A
union would help her provide for her family and organize for those
dollars. Maybe we don't know about those particular workers who are
living below the poverty line or living with wages that are below an
hourly wage or decent wage. Unions would help that.
We cannot talk about individuals already in the higher, upper brow of
work in this Nation. Their salaries may be going up. Hers is not.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support and vote for the Jackson
Lee amendment and support the PRO Act.
Madam Chair, I would like to offer an amendment today that would
provide whistleblower protections to employees who report violations of
the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). This
amendment covers BOTH employees of employers as well as employees of
labor unions.
The LMRDA is an important labor law passed in 1959 that protects
union members' through a ``bill of rights'' for members of labor
organizations, requires extensive reporting and

[[Page H913]]

public disclosure of labor union finances, guards against the failure
to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct by
providing civil and criminal remedies against employers and unions who
engage in misconduct, and mandates transparency regarding arrangements
between employers and anti-labor consultants.
I am pleased that the PRO Act includes reforms to the LMRDA that
further clarify the original intent of the law by ensuring that
employers not only disclose arrangements they enter into with antiunion
consultants to directly persuade employees on how to exercise their
rights under the NLRA, but also to disclose arrangements where the
consultants are hired to engage in indirect persuasion activities.
Examples of indirect persuasion include planning employee meetings,
drafting speeches or presentations to employees, training employer
representatives, identifying employees for disciplinary action or
targeting, or drafting employer personnel policies.
The DOL has narrowly construed the law for too long and excludes up
to 75% of the arrangements with union busting consultants. To remedy
this, the PRO Act reinstates requirements of the Persuader Rule adopted
by the Obama Administration in 2016 but was unfortunately repealed by
the Trump Administration. That repeal, coupled with the Trump
Administration's refusal to defend the rule in court, ensures workers
remain in the dark about the activities of consultants hired to bust
union organizing drives.
Another way to strengthen the LMRDA is to provide whistleblower
protections; which is exactly what this amendment does. All workers
deserve whistleblower protections for reporting potential violations of
law, no matter their place of employment or the type of employer. This
amendment covers reporting alleged violations by an employee,
regardless of whether their employer is a business or a labor
organization.
This amendment allows employees to file complaints with the
Department of Labor and provides for a prompt investigation of
allegations of unlawful retaliation. It ensures employees have a right
to a hearing, and effective remedies including reinstatement, back pay
and attorney fees. And if the DOL fails to act in a timely manner,
employees have the right to bring suit in federal court to secure a
remedy. I urge all members to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rooney of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 16, beginning line 1, strike subparagraph (A) and
insert the following:
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) by an employee or a group of employees or any
individual or labor organization acting in their behalf, or
an employer, alleging that the labor organization that has
been certified or is currently recognized by the employer as
the bargaining representative is no longer a representative
as defined in subsection (a), if--
``(i) fewer than 50 percent of the members of the
bargaining unit in question had an opportunity to vote in the
certification election that resulted in certifying the labor
organization then recognized as the bargaining representative
for such unit; or
``(ii) no certification election was conducted regarding
such unit;'';
Page 17, after line 8, insert the following:
(B) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``When a petition is filed under paragraph (1)(C), a question
of representation affecting commerce exists if the petitioner
establishes the existence of the circumstances described in
paragraph (1)(C)(i) or paragraph (1)(C)(ii).'';

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Rooney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I am proud to offer this pro-worker amendment. Current
employees are locked into old, obsolete, and outdated union contracts
that were approved long before they ever came to work there.
Employees deserve a voice that is reflective of today's rapidly
modernizing workforce and workplace. Baby boomers are retiring, and
countless existing employees are locked into collective bargaining
agreements made decades ago.
In 2016 alone, NLRB data showed that only 6 percent of union members
voted to be represented by their union in those agreements that they
were bound to. This simple amendment would allow employees to petition
for a union certification election whenever fewer than 50 percent of
the current union members were members during the last election. It
also empowers employees who might deem unions unnecessary. It will
allow them the right to decertify and to represent themselves.
This proposal gives new and current employees a seat at the table.
They get their own voice and it provides for more accountability. With
the recent news of embezzlement and corruption by United Auto Worker
Union bosses, we must go further to empower all employees who are
forced to pay dues to their unions that they haven't voted on or
wanted.
All employees deserve honest representation and the ability to
decertify a collective bargaining agreement if they no longer need
union representation. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in
supporting the current and future workforce by supporting this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1845

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. I rise in opposition to this amendment, Madam
Chairwoman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, there are no workers in
America who are ``locked into collective bargaining agreements
negotiated decades ago''--zero.
What happens in our country is that workers vote to form a union in a
workplace, and then they periodically negotiate contracts.
Usually, contracts last 2 or 3 years, 4 or 5 years. It is usually
employers who want them to last longer. And the two parties, in freedom
of contract, agree on those terms.
What the gentleman's amendment seeks to do is not for workers to have
any rights whatsoever. Workers already have the right to decertify a
union through an election. What this amendment seeks to do is to give a
right to employers to destroy unions by not recognizing a union anymore
under very strange circumstances.
The point of the National Labor Relations Act is to protect
employees' freedom to choose a union or refrain from forming a union.
This amendment, however, undermines that right by allowing an employer
to step in and demand a new election without any objective showing that
the union no longer enjoys majority support, no objective showing
whatsoever.
As I said, employees already have the right to petition for another
election if that is what they want. That is an existing law. It is in
the PRO Act.
This amendment is a backdoor to providing an employer the ability to
conduct another antiunion campaign designed to sow fear and discord
amongst its employees. Under this amendment, a union with majority
support could be challenged by an employer simply by virtue of the
passage of time and the natural turnover that exists in all workplaces.
My colleagues across the aisle often speak about the need to protect
employees' rights to choose a union, and yet here they are seeking to
undermine that very right. This amendment is about promoting
decertification, not protecting the rights of workers.
Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to reemphasize
a couple of facts here that are at

[[Page H914]]

variance from what the gentleman from over there said.
Six percent of union members have voted to be represented by their
union under current collective bargaining agreements. This amendment
would say, if 50 percent or more of the people in a collective
bargaining agreement never voted on it, they get the right to vote on
it.
We all know people in business who have dealt with unions--and I have
decertified unions all over Oklahoma and Texas and other States. These
contracts are not as easy to decertify, given the existing impediments
as might be seen. This law would enable those workers to have the
freedom to do it themselves and not be subjugated to agreements that
they never voted on in the first place.
When I decertified the unions in Oklahoma and Texas back in the
eighties, thousands of our building trades employees flocked to vote
yes to get rid of the unions because they weren't adding value and they
wanted to keep those fees for themselves. Since that time, we know how
the construction industry has developed in Oklahoma and Texas.
So I speak from real, personal experience, having been a member of
the carpenters union, that it is good to give employees the right to
decertify their union and to make it easier for them to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I reiterate that workers
have the right to decertify a union if they want to under existing law
and under the PRO Act. It doesn't change that. What we do is say that
employers may not stop recognizing a union simply because of turnover.
If workers negotiated a contract with an employer through their union
several years ago and now there has been some turnover, that doesn't
mean the workers are against the collective bargaining agreement that
benefits them. The contract will expire, and then the workers will
negotiate another one, whichever workers are there at that time. At
that time, if a majority of the workers want to decertify the union,
they are fully free to do that.
What the gentleman is trying to defend is the employer's role in
destroying unions. That is what is really going on here.
Madam Chairwoman, in my 30-some years of being involved in the labor
movement, the biggest problem in workers' freedom to form unions is the
idea that the employers are a party, and you have to try to create a
union or keep a union by going up against your boss, the person who
decides your wages, decides your assignment. This is just another
tactic to allow employers to pressure workers out of having collective
bargaining.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, maybe I ought to do this in
Spanish or Italian, because we are not communicating effectively.
There is nothing in this amendment that has anything to do with
employers determining who is or is not decertified. It is when a
certain number of employees have not voted on that collective
bargaining agreement because of turnover in the rapidly evolving,
modernizing workforce--which I appreciate the gentleman recognizing--it
makes it easier for them to do it.

Employers don't have a role in this. This is about employees deciding
if they want to keep their collective bargaining agreement or not.
We have all seen the difficult institutional impediments to the
ability to decertify the way it is right now. This will help that and
recognize that we are in an era of high volatility, workers going to
many more jobs than they used to throughout their career, and making
the NLRB get with the program on adapting to the current workforce that
we live in.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, one more time, I would like
to say that the NLRB was a very important piece of legislation 70 years
ago. These little tweaks like this to update the NLRB for the modern
workforce, the volatility, the digital era, are perfectly legitimate
and logical responses to the conditions that we find ourselves in now.
We don't have carpenters who would spend their entire career at one
company anymore. They come and go at different places. It happens in
manufacturing as well. This bill would recognize that volatility and
institutionalize it in a constructive manner.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. How much time do I have, Madam Chairwoman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I would point out that the
gentleman's amendment says that an employer alleging that a labor
organization no longer has majority status because of turnover may seek
a decertification election. The gentleman's amendment empowers the
employer to decertify the union.
What we are doing in the PRO Act is overturning the Johnson Controls
decision of the Trump NLRB from July 3 of last year that allowed an
employer to announce it was withdrawing recognition of a union because
of this turnover, because simply more than half the people weren't
there the last time they negotiated a contract or when the union was
formed.
This is an attempt to allow employers to determine that they want
another election and to go all, again, through the captive audience
meetings where they force workers to attend on pain of termination,
meetings whose sole purpose is to scare workers out of forming a union,
to show movies or other propaganda that doesn't have to be truthful at
all to scare workers out of forming a union.
It is time to stop having employers prevent workers from forming a
union. That was the purpose of this amendment. That is why I oppose it.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Vargas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 15, strike ``and''.
On page 19, after line 15, insert the following:
``(B) a regional director shall transmit the notice of
election at the same time as the direction of election, and
shall transmit such notice and such direction electronically
(including transmission by email or facsimile) or by
overnight mail if electronic transmission is unavailable;
and''.
On page 19, line 16, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Vargas) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to improve the
efficiency of the union election process. This amendment will reverse
an antiworker rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board
several months after the PRO Act was marked up in the Education and
Labor Committee.
The PRO Act strengthens workers' rights to a free and fair union
representation election. It does so by preventing unnecessary delays.
If we allow these delays to occur, then we are allowing employers more
time to engage in antiunion campaigns designed to erode support for the
union.
Democracy in the workplace should be a right, not a fight, and the
workers who request a union representation election should not be
denied their right to vote through unnecessary delay.
In 2014, the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB, updated its
union election procedures by enacting reasonable deadlines and
preventing employers from stalling elections through frivolous
litigation. The PRO Act codifies many of those requirements, including
the timelines for pre- and post-election hearings.

[[Page H915]]

The 2014 election rule protected the integrity of the union
representation process and was upheld in every court where it was
challenged. However, on December 18, 2019, the Trump NLRB rescinded
parts of the 2014 rule, burdening the employees with unnecessary delays
and giving employers more opportunity to stall a timely election with
frivolous litigation.
One important change in the 2014 election rule was that, once the
NLRB's regional director decides that a representation election should
be held, the director must ordinarily issue the notice of election at
the same time as that decision. The notice of election must be posted
in the workplace. It is crucial to informing employees of the time and
details of the voting process.
However, the Trump NLRB changed this policy to allow delay before the
regional director issues a notice which details the election. This
amendment removes the delay by requiring the decision directing an
election and the notice of an election to be issued at the same time,
unless extraordinary circumstances warrant otherwise.
In doing so, my amendment provides clarity to employees so that they
may know the details of their election as soon as possible.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment, despite my affection for the gentleman offering it.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Chair, while this amendment appears to make arbitrary changes
to union election procedures, make no mistake: It is part of Democrats'
and union bosses' ongoing efforts to rush the union election process at
the expense of American workers by requiring that National Labor
Relation Board, NLRB, regional directors transmit the notice of
election at the same time as the direction of election.
This amendment should actually be called the ambush elections
amendment, as it would worsen the already harmful impacts of the Obama
NLRB's ambush election rule, which shortened the timeline for union
elections from a median of 38 days to as few as 11 days.
This amendment would reduce the timeline even more, increasing the
unfair advantage for labor unions that the Obama NLRB created and which
the PRO Act makes Federal law.
The unfairly condensed timeline required by this amendment--in which
employers are expected to obtain counsel, understand complex matters of
labor law, and effectively communicate with their employees--infringes
on an employer's right to due process and is antithetical to the NLRB's
promise of a fair and robust election process.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1900

Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unnecessary delays in union representation elections enable employers
to have more time to campaign against unions through lawful or unlawful
means.
Once the NLRB determines that an election should go forward, the
details of the election must be settled expeditiously so employees
understand their rights as quickly as possible.
Employers engage in all kinds of tactics designed to scare employees
out of supporting the union, from holding captive audience meetings, to
issuing threats to specific employees.
Unnecessary delays only provide more time for employers to undermine
employees' free choice. The choice of whether to join a union belongs
to the employee. The PRO Act prevents employers from interfering with
employees' freedom of association.
Moreover, the provisions of my amendment apply except under
extraordinary circumstances.
When the NLRB created this rule initially in 2014, it found the
details of the election, included in the notice, would often be
resolved either in a pre-election hearing or in an agreement between
the union and the employer.
If there is still an issue with the details of the election after the
pre-election hearing, and at the time the regional director issues the
direction of election, these would count as ``extraordinary
circumstances.''
Minimizing these delays preserves employee free choice by ensuring
that their vote is untainted by employer interference.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Americans continue to enjoy substantial economic mobility, despite
Democrat claims that the decline in union membership has led to a
permanent upper class. Millions of poor Americans continue to move into
the middle class and millions in the middle class are moving into the
ranks of the wealthy, a group heavily criticized by the Democrats'
class-warfare politics.
In inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars, from 1967 to 2018, the portion of
U.S. households earning less than $35,000 a year fell by 25 percent.
The portion earning between $35,000 and $100,000, the middle class,
fell by 22 percent, from 53.8 percent to 41 percent of the country. But
it did not fall because the middle class is worse off.
The ranks of the poor and middle class are shrinking as the ranks of
the wealthy and upper middle class are growing. From 1967 to 2018, the
portion of U.S. households making more than $100,000 rose from 9
percent to more than 30 percent of the country.
In 1967, nearly 25 percent of workers belonged to a union. In 2018,
that number was just 10.5 percent. That means that while the union
membership rate fell by more than half, the share of American
households earning six-figure incomes--that is more than 100,000--more
than tripled.
And, yes, contrary to another popular Democrat claim, throughout most
of the country, these wage gains are outpacing the cost of living.
No one can argue with this good news, yet, in an attempt to score
political points and bail out their allies in Big Labor, Democrats
claim that the economy isn't working for the poor and the middle class.
As lawmakers, we can always do more to increase opportunities for
people to achieve the American Dream. But to suggest the economy isn't
working for average Americans, and the way to fix it is to expand
forced unionism through coercive socialist schemes like H.R. 2474, is
flatly untrue.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VARGAS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Unions created the middle class in our country. And all of the things
that we enjoy, the safety that we have in our manufacturing, the 5-day
work week, all the opportunities that women have, and people of color,
all those came because unions stood up for these rights.
My amendment strengthens the opportunity for people to choose to
become a union.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Madam Chair, again, I really respect my colleague from California,
and he knows that.
However, it is not the unions who have created the middle class in
this country. What has created the middle class in this country is
freedom, the capitalistic society, the rule of law, our Judeo-Christian
beliefs. We are the most prosperous, most successful country in the
world, and it is because of those things.
Did unions help at one time? Yes, they did. But they have outgrown
their usefulness. We don't need to force unionism on the American
people. We need to preserve their freedom and do everything that we
can. That is what grows this country and makes it great.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Tlaib

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H916]]

On page 19, line 15, strike ``and''.
On page 19, after line 15, insert the following:
``(B) not later than 2 days after the service of the notice
of hearing, the employer shall--
``(i) post the Notice of Petition for Election in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted;
``(ii) if the employer customarily communicates with
employees electronically, distribute such Notice
electronically; and
``(iii) maintain such posting until the petition is
dismissed or withdrawn or the Notice of Petition for Election
is replaced by the Notice of Election; and''.
On page 19, line 16, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that protects
union elections by ensuring timely notices of union representation
elections. This amendment overturns a recent National Labor Relations
Board regulation that undermines workers' rights to organize in their
workplace.
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Scott and his exceptional
staff for working with me on this amendment, and for their tireless
efforts to strengthen unions and protect our country's workers.
The PRO Act strengthens workers' rights to a free and fair union
representation election. It does so by fostering transparency in the
workplace about the right to organize and removing barriers that were
solely created to undercut labor organizing at the workplace.
In 2014, Madam Chair, the Board updated its union election procedures
by streamlining the union representation process. The PRO Act codifies
many of the 2004 requirements, including the timelines for pre- and
post-election hearings.
The 2014 Election Rule protected the integrity of the union
representation process, which is critical, and it was upheld in every
court where it was challenged.
You see, corporate greed is what is driving this administration's
attack on workers. In December of 2019, the Board rescinded many parts
of that 2014 rule, burdening our workers with unnecessary delays and
giving corporations more opportunity to stall workplace rights and
organizing with frivolous litigation.
The Republican Chairman of the Board, John Ring, pushed these changes
without providing any notice to the public, ambushing workers with new
procedures, solely designed to undermine the rights for our folks, for
our neighbors and workers to organize.
One important change in that 2014 Election Rule required corporations
to post a notice when workers file a petition for an election. This
notice is critical to informing workers about the details of the
petition, and their rights, while the board processes their petition.
Notably, the 2014 rule required corporations to post this notice
within two business days, 2 business days after the board issues notice
of a pre-election hearing. This requirement was fair, and it was just.
However, once again, the agents of corporate greed are trying to
cheat us out of our rights. Chairman Ring and the other Republican
members of the board nearly tripled the amount of time corporations
have to post that notice to 5 days after being notified about the pre-
election hearing. This delay enables the corporations to take advantage
of a crucial time period where workers may not know their rights or the
details of the board process governing their petition for a fair
election.
We should be doing all we can do, Madam Chair, to ensure workers'
collective bargaining rights are protected. Enough of the antiworker
mentality driven by those who want to avoid paying fair wages and
offering strong workplace protections for our neighbors.
This amendment restores fairness and democracy into our process,
Madam Chair, and it brings back the 2014 election rule by requiring the
corporations to post the notice of petition for election within 2 days
after the board notifies the corporations and the union about the pre-
election hearing.
It is pretty simple. In doing so, this amendment will foster more
transparency, and will prevent unnecessary delays that undermine the
right to organize in our country.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment imposes yet
another unnecessary and harmful requirement on employers as they
prepare for a union election; and this new mandate will be imposed on
business owners who will have already lost numerous employer rights
because of other provisions in the PRO Act.
During the Obama administration, the National Labor Relations Board
drastically changed its union election procedures, adding dozens of new
requirements and restrictions on employers in an effort to short-
circuit the union election process and increase union membership.
On top of this, the PRO Act makes over 50 changes to existing labor
law, adding a litany of burdensome constraints that will harm
employers, particularly small employers who do not have infinite time
and resources to respond to a union organizing drive.
Unions often begin organizing campaigns weeks, or even months before
employers are made aware; creating a scenario in which workers are only
hearing one side of the issue prior to a union election.
When an election petition is filed, employers have only a few days to
prepare their case, depriving them of their rights to due process and
all parties of their right to a fair and robust election process. This
amendment would further burden employers and tilt the playing field in
favor of union bosses.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Look, unnecessary delays in union representation elections provide
corporations with more time to wage anti-union campaigns using illegal
and legal tactics. That is why folks are going to be against this.
When workers file a petition for union representation elections,
corporations must properly notify them of their rights under the law.
It is pretty clear. It is pretty transparent, and allows, again,
information to get to workers, our neighbors that are there that want
to organize for better wages, for protection at the workplace.
I urge my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Madam Chair, because of the force of labor unions,
American workers have higher wages and workplaces that are fairer and
safer. And we can thank labor unions for things like employee health
coverage, the end of child labor, and a 40-hour work week.
To counter the power of collective bargaining, some in corporate
America have struck back by harassing union organizers, denying
information to employees, and using independent contractors.
That is why I am voting for the Protecting the Right to Organize Act
of 2019, to defend and secure our labor unions, the champions of the
American workers. I urge support of this amendment and the bill.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Democrats insist that the PRO Act expands workers' rights. But, in
reality, this bill coerces workers and undermines their rights in order
to increase the wealth and power of union bosses. Unions have a long
and sordid history of harassing and intimidating workers into
supporting them, and this bill makes it worse.
For example, in 2013, Ms. Marlene Felter, a medical records coder in
California, testified that union organizers ``were calling them on
their cell phones, coming to their homes, stalking them, harassing them
. . . to convince them to sign union cards.''
In 2017, one Minnesota personal care attendant, who chose not to
provide her full name, described her experience with an SEIU union
organizer for a Forbes.com piece: ``The woman identified herself as a
SEIU representative,

[[Page H917]]

and asked if they could talk for a few minutes. Holly said she didn't
have time right now, but the woman persisted, placing herself between
Holly and the front of the door and repeatedly asking her how she
intended to vote in the upcoming union election.
``Holly became frightened; arms full of groceries, she could hear her
patient becoming agitated and distressed inside, and here was this
strange woman blocking her way and demanding to know how she would
`vote.' Holly finally extricated herself and entered her home, slamming
the door behind her. But that wasn't the end of things. Over the next
weeks and months, she received multiple calls and visits from the
union.''

{time} 1915

The author of the piece asked Holly how she would characterize the
nature of these calls and visits. ``Stalking, absolutely,'' said Holly.
``They wouldn't leave me alone.''
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, testified before our
committee in May 2019 that unions need workers' personal information
because ``it is essential in order to be able to communicate with them.
. . . You may have to meet with them at a grocery store, anyplace else
where you can get them. The most efficient place and the best place for
them to be able to talk is in their home setting, at their home, so
that you can have a real conversation with them.''
The PRO Act's own supporters admit unions will harass workers at
their own homes, at work, and at the grocery store, yet Democrats claim
this bill expands and protects workers' rights.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``no'' on
the underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 15, strike ``and''.
On page 19, after line 15, insert the following:
``(B) regional directors shall schedule elections for the
earliest date practicable, but not later than the 20th
business day after the direction of election; and''.
On page 19, line 16, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Scott and the committee
for working so hard to bring this historic legislation to the floor.
As Members may know, my district, which includes the city of Detroit,
was built on the backs of unions and standing up for worker rights.
Thanks to our unions, our communities receive respectful benefits, fair
pay, and great representation. However--this comes as no surprise--this
administration has weakened workers' rights and labor authority.
The PRO Act and my amendment look to shed some light on these recent
attacks by strengthening workers' rights to a free and fair union
representation election. My amendment accomplishes this by preventing
unnecessary delays between the filing of a petition and the holding of
an election. When such delays ensue, this gives employers the
opportunity to launch antiunion campaigns designed to erode union
support.
Madam Chair, we need to protect workers' rights to a timely election,
not dismiss it. My amendment does just that, as it looks to eliminate
an unnecessary delay relating to union elections recently imposed by
the NLRB. This amendment addresses the mandatory 20-day wait period
between the filing of the petition and holding the election. There has
been no justification for establishing this wait period.
In 2014, under the Obama administration, the NLRB updated its union
election processes by enacting reasonable deadlines and preventing
employers from stalling elections through frivolous litigation. The PRO
Act codifies many of these requirements, including the timelines for
pre- and post-election hearings.
One of the most notable changes in the 2014 election rule was that
once the NLRB regional director concludes that an election should
happen, the regional director must schedule the election for the
earliest date practicable. The NLRB changed this by requiring regional
directors to impose a random 20-day waiting period.
My amendment eliminates this arbitrary waiting period and returns to
the requirement that an election shall be scheduled as soon as
practicable, unless extraordinary circumstances apply.
Workers who request a union representation election should not be
impeded in their right to vote with frivolous delays. Democracy in the
workplace should be a right, not a fight.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, again, I have respect for
the gentlewoman on this, but I have to respectfully oppose this
amendment, which is intended to tilt the playing field even further
against workers and in favor of union bosses, more so than the
underlying bill already does.
By requiring union elections to be held as early as practicable,
union bosses will have an unfair advantage because it deprives workers
of adequate opportunity to hear from their employer about potential
risks of unionization.
The PRO Act codifies the Obama NLRB's ambush election rule, which
shortened the time before a union election takes place from a median of
38 days to as few as 11 days. This amendment would further reduce that
time, increasing union bosses' advantage.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, unnecessary delays only serve one
purpose, and that is to enable antiunion employers to have more time to
expose employees to their campaign against the union.
I have so much respect for my colleague on the other side, but to say
that we should not protect our workers because of a union boss? They
are not bosses. They are elected by the membership.
We should be promoting employee free choice by ensuring that their
vote is untainted by an employer delay or interference. Once the NLRB
determines that an election should go forward, it should happen as soon
as possible.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
My colleague and I agree that workers should be protected. There is
absolutely no disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on that,
but we believe that the existing law is sufficient both for protecting
the right to organize as well as protecting workers.
Democrats bemoan attacks on the right to organize, but the right to
organize has not changed in more than 70 years. Unions have simply
abandoned their stated purpose of organizing workers and are trying to
take a shortcut through the Congress.
NLRB data shows that the number of representation petitions filed by
unions with the NLRB fell from 5,000 in 1997 to fewer than 1,600 in
fiscal year 2018, the fewest in over 75 years. Let me repeat that. The
number of representation petitions filed by unions with the NLRB fell
from 5,000 in 1997 to fewer than 1,600 in fiscal year 2018, the fewest
in over 75 years.
In fiscal year 2018, there were more than 110 million private-sector
employees available for organizing under the National Labor Relations
Act, but the number of employees who actually petitioned for union
representation was just 73,000. That means that unions sought to
represent less than one one-tenth of 1 percent of potential new

[[Page H918]]

members in this country in fiscal year 2018, yet Democrats blame
falling unionization on conservatives.
This lack of attention to organizing is reflected in unions'
financial priorities, as well, and not just by UAW leaders spending
workers' dues on cigar parties and golf. The AFL-CIO's 2018-2019 budget
dedicated less than one-tenth of the budget to organizing efforts.
The largest portion of the budget, more than 35 percent, was dedicated
to political activities.

In addition to spending massive sums on political activities, unions
also generously spent workers' dues, money intended for collective
bargaining representation, to advance political causes. From 2010
through 2018, unions sent more than $1.6 billion in union dues to
hundreds of leftwing advocacy organizations, including Planned
Parenthood, the Progressive Democrats of America, and the Center for
American Progress.
Much of this spending came amidst a Presidential cycle in which more
than 40 percent of union households voted for the Republican Donald J.
Trump for President, yet Democrats blame conservatives for plummeting
union membership. That is not the problem.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I want to be clear that we should be
promoting employee free choice. This is not about the election process.
When we are standing here on the floor, we are talking about the
American people and their rights. I stand here representing the city of
Detroit, the city that put the country on wheels by strong union
workers.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' vote on this
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Rouda

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part B of House Report 116-392.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Redesignate section 5 as section 6.
After section 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

The amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to
affect the jurisdictional standards of the National Labor
Relations Board, including any standards that measure the
size of a business with respect to revenues, that are used to
determine whether an industry is affecting commerce for
purposes of determining coverage under the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 833, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rouda) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a businessman, I know firsthand the power of small businesses as a
driver of economic growth, not just for the owners but for the 60
million small business employees in the United States.
While the underlying bill makes the playing field fairer for American
workers, my amendment clarifies that the National Labor Relations Board
jurisdictional standards for small businesses remain consistent,
ensuring small businesses have the stability they need to develop long-
term business plans.
The NLRB uses businesses' gross annual volume to determine whether a
company is subject to its standards, with different thresholds for
different types of businesses. My amendment ensures existing thresholds
do not change.
Madam Chair, we cannot keep shifting the goalposts for millions of
Americans. Small businesses need stability to strategize and
consistency to create jobs.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support small
businesses across America and adopt this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This amendment changes nothing about the underlying bill and the pain
it will inflict on American workers and businesses. It is simply
another weak attempt to pay lip service to address one of the many
glaring flaws in the PRO Act.
The National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, already applies to nearly
every business in the country, and the PRO Act's harmful provisions
will also. This amendment does nothing to protect small business
entrepreneurs and independent contractors.
If adopted, small businesses will still be saddled with new costs and
mandates. They will still be forced to turn their employees' private
information over to union organizers. They will still be subject to
completely unrestricted union harassment even if they aren't the
subject of a union organizing campaign. They will still have their
rights throughout that process completely obliterated.
Independent contractors will still be at risk of being classified as
employees under the bill's onerous ABC test. The NLRA's existing
jurisdictional standards do not change that reality. The ABC test is
not about whether independent contractors are businesses covered by the
NLRA but, rather, whether they are employees covered by the act.
This amendment does nothing to change the fact that millions of
independent contractors will be classified as employees against their
will and, as a result, will have their livelihoods put at risk by
socialist Democrats in Washington.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership in bringing this important amendment to
the floor, and I rise in support of it. It clarifies that nothing in
this act shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional standards of
the National Labor Relations Board with respect to small businesses. I
thank the gentleman, Mr. Rouda, for his leadership in that regard. I
urge passage of the amendment.
Madam Chair, I proudly rise on this historic day as the Democratic
House takes bold action to restore fundamental fairness to America's
workers by passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO
Act.
Madam Chair, I salute our distinguished chairman, Bobby Scott, for
his lifetime of leadership to tilt back the playing field to the side
of the American worker. I thank the members of the Education and Labor
Committee and all who have worked to make this legislation go over the
finish line.
Some people always say to us: Your Caucus is so very diverse. What
unifies them?
I say it is diverse in every way. Sixty percent of our Caucus are
women, people of color, LGBTQ. We have generational differences,
geographical, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, opinion--the
beautiful diversity of opinion.
But what does unify us is our commitment to America's working
families, and that is what brings us to the floor today. It is a
commitment to salute working families, to raise paychecks, and to do so
by enabling workers to bargain collectively.
I always say that the middle class is the backbone of America's
democracy. The middle class has a union label on it.
So many things that have come into the workforce, whether it is the
40-hour workweek, safer working conditions, fair pay for family leave,
collective bargaining for secure retirement--the list goes on and on--
the labor unions have been responsible for that.
Yesterday, several Members and I were honored to meet with Jennifer
Womack, a worker who had been prevented from joining a union, and I
want to share her story with my colleagues.
She told us about the unfair working conditions that she has faced:
how she

[[Page H919]]

was illegally denied pay after missing work to undergo serious surgery,
even after spending her entire recovery period on the phone with the
benefits department to help her pay her bills; how one of her managers
engaged in offensive and bigoted behavior but was never disciplined, in
fact, was given a company award.
When Jennifer and her coworkers tried to form a union to improve
working conditions, she was subjected to humiliating retaliation and
forced to attend antiunion trainings designed to scare her off.
She told us: ``I believe that the decision of whether to join a union
should be up to me and other workers without having to face threats and
retaliation.
And Democrats agree.
Sadly, her story is shared every day by millions of Americans who
face a grim reality of reprisal, of retaliation, of denial of their
rights to join or trying to join a union.
Democrats offered our Better Deal for Workers, pledging to tilt the
playing field, with Mr. Chairman so much in the lead, to tilt the
playing field back to the side of workers.
Since day one, our majority has worked to build an economy that works
for workers' interests, not the special interests: passing the $15
minimum wage, securing paycheck fairness for women.
Madam Chair, I thank the unions for their leadership in our country
for equal pay for equal work. No institution has done more in that
regard. We are trying to make that the case for all workers that you
would have equal pay for equal work.
We are also protecting the pensions of millions and lowering
healthcare costs and increasing paychecks, to name a few.
Today, we are building on that progress by passing the cornerstone of
our pro-worker agenda, the PRO Act.
With this legislation, Democrats are holding companies that violate
workers' rights accountable. We are strengthening workers' sacred
collective bargaining rights, and we are protecting workers' access to
fair union elections.
The PRO Act secures justice for workers and advances progress for
all.
As Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO, which represents
12.5 million Americans and 55 unions, testified last year: ``A happier,
healthier, more upwardly mobile workforce is good for our economy
as consumers have additional money to spend. Local tax revenues
increase, and education funding is bolstered. Inequality shrinks. It is
a virtuous cycle.

``The union movement and all working people are hungry for pro-worker
reforms to our existing labor laws. . . . It is time for our laws to
catch up. It is time to make the PRO Act the law of the land.''
I quite agree.
Democrats call on Republicans to join us to pass the PRO Act and to
rebalance the scales toward workers.
I always say, whether it is an election or a debate or a negotiation:
Who has the leverage?
Well, right now there is too much leverage used against America's
workers, and that is harmful to America's working families.
We want to again tilt that playing field back into the direction of
workers so their leverage is increased, so their opportunities are
improved, and then we can move closer to ending the inequality, the
disparity in income in our country.
Madam Chair, I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important
PRO Act.
Madam Chair, I commend the chairman, the distinguished chairman, for
his leadership again, Mr. Scott, and members of his committee.
And I again thank Mr. Rouda for his amendment that clarifies that
nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional
standards of the NLRB with respect to small businesses. I thank the
gentleman, Mr. Rouda, for his leadership.
Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on both the underlying bill and
this amendment.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, once again, I reiterate the previous comments
that this bill and the supporting amendments deserve the bipartisan
support that we have already seen. I encourage Members across the aisle
to reconsider those ideas and support the passage of this bill.
Madam Chair, if the gentlewoman is ready to close, I am as well, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I enter into the Record the
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2474.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2474--Protecting the Right to Organize Act--Rep. Scott, D-VA, and
218 cosponsors

The Administration opposes H.R. 2474, the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act. The Administration supports the rights
of workers to freely join a union. In fact, under President
Trump, on average over 250,000 more Americans are members of
a private-sector union than under President Obama. This
growth has been driven, in part, by the tremendous strength
of the Trump economy. The Administration is willing to work
with Congress to strengthen protections for union members.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2474 contains provisions that would kill
jobs, violate workers' privacy, restrict freedom of
association, and roll back the Administration's successful
deregulatory agenda.
H.R. 2474 would hurt workers in several ways. First, the
bill would kill jobs and destroy the gig economy. It appears
to cut and paste the core provisions of California's
controversial AB 5, which severely restricts self-employment.
AB 5 is actively threatening the existence of both the
franchise business sector and the gig economy in California.
It would be a serious mistake for Congress to impose this
flawed job-killing policy on the entire country.
Additionally, H.R. 2474's job-killing effects could be even
greater, as it would empower third-party arbitrators to
impose collective bargaining agreements. Involuntary
contracts that do not work for employees or their employers
could force layoffs or even bankruptcies--ultimately, harming
workers.
Second, H.R. 2474 would violate workers' privacy. It would
require companies to give union organizers their employees'
home addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal e-mail
addresses, and it also would allow unions to bypass secret-
ballot elections. Secret ballots protect workers from both
employer and union coercion, and the Administration believes
voting privacy should be protected.
Third, H.R. 2474 would also restrict workers' freedom of
association. It abolishes State right-to-work laws, and would
thereby make union dues compulsory nationwide. Additionally,
the bill would legalize ``secondary boycotts,'' which
Congress previously banned because they pressure workers to
join a particular union. And it would rush union elections,
depriving employees of time to make a considered choice. The
Administration is willing to discuss legislation clarifying
that unions do not need to represent workers who do not pay
dues. But it believes that workers' decisions to join and
support a union should be the product of choice, not
compulsion.
Finally, by imposing unnecessary and costly burdens on
American businesses, this bill would take the country in
precisely the opposite direction from the President's
successful deregulatory agenda, which has produced rising
blue-collar wages and record low unemployment. For example,
by expansively defining joint employer liability, the bill
would discourage investment and job creation and reduce
opportunities for workers.
If H.R. 2474 were presented to the President in its current
form, his advisors would recommend that he veto it.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I would like to quote from a
part of the Statement of Administration Policy.
``The administration opposes H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to
Organize Act. The administration supports the rights of workers to
freely join a union. In fact, under President Trump, on average, over
250,000 more Americans are members of a private-sector union than under
President Obama. This growth has been driven, in part, by the
tremendous strength of the Trump economy. The administration is willing
to work with Congress to strengthen protections for union members.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2474 contains provisions that would kill jobs,
violate workers' privacy, restrict freedom of association, and roll
back the administration's successful deregulatory agenda.''
``Finally, by imposing unnecessary and costly burdens on American
businesses, this bill would take the country in precisely the opposite
direction from the President's successful deregulatory agenda, which
has produced rising blue-collar wages and record low unemployment.''
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, I oppose the underlying bill.
We need to keep this economy doing very well, and we need not to
support this piece of legislation which is unfair to American workers,
unfair to businesses, unfair to the American taxpayers.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``no'' vote
on the

[[Page H920]]

underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
116-392 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Stevens of Michigan.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Wild of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Allen of Georgia.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Meadows of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 11 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Rouda of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Stevens

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Stevens) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 178, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 41]

AYES--241

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean Patrick
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NOES--178

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--16

Arrington
Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
McCaul
Morelle
Murphy (FL)
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

{time} 2006

Mr. LaMALFA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CARBAJAL, BUTTERFIELD, POSEY, and ROY changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 229, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 42]

AYES--190

[[Page H921]]

Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McHenry
Meadows
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--229

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Byrne
Cardenas
Cleaver
Eshoo
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Meuser
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2011

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. David P. Roe) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 43]

AYES--187

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOES--235

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter

[[Page H922]]

Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NOT VOTING--13

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

{time} 2015

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Wild

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 44]

AYES--242

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean Patrick
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NOES--178

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--15

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Johnson (LA)
Kirkpatrick
Lesko
Lewis
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2019

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Allen

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Allen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 45]

AYES--187

[[Page H923]]

Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--232

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Byrne
Cisneros
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Lynch
Morelle
Price (NC)
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2023

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Meadows

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 46]

AYES--186

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--235

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)

[[Page H924]]

Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--14

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Hollingsworth
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2026

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 47]

AYES--404

Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Keller
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean Patrick
Marchant
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yarmuth
Young
Zeldin

NOES--18

Abraham
Amash
Biggs
Brooks (AL)
Ferguson
Fulcher
Gooden
Gosar
Griffith
Harris
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Marshall
Massie
Ratcliffe
Roy
Waltz
Yoho

NOT VOTING--13

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2030

Mr. RICHMOND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Rouda

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rouda) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 173, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 48]

AYES--249

[[Page H925]]

Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young
Zeldin

NOES--173

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho

NOT VOTING--13

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Morelle
Radewagen
Roby
San Nicolas
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

{time} 2038

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Raskin). There being no further amendments,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Pingree) having assumed the chair, Mr. Raskin, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2474) to
amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations
Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 833, he
reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House
with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2474 to the Committee on Education and Labor with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Page 15, line 21, strike the closed quotation marks and the
second period.
Page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
``(j) A labor organization shall not communicate with an
employee regarding joining or supporting the labor
organization if the employee is not authorized to work in the
United States.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, this motion is the final
opportunity to amend the legislation and would do so without any delay
in passage.
This amendment ensures that labor unions are not using illegal
foreign labor to expand their region to the American workplaces and
collect more union dues.
Under current law, an employee can sign a union authorization card to
count toward the showing of interest in union elections regardless of
whether that worker is authorized to work in the United States. Illegal
immigrants should not be working at American companies, let alone used
by labor unions to organize workplaces.
This motion to recommit ensures that unions cannot communicate with
employees for organizing purposes if the employee is not legally
authorized to work in the United States.
Because of the success I have worked for in life, not many people
know that my life began very differently.
My family was dependant on food stamps for most of my youth. My
stepdad never worked, and my siblings and I paid the price for it.
I knew from a young age that I would not let that be my life. From
the moment I could start working, I did whatever it took to earn
financial security: hog farming, welding, computer programming, and the
list goes on.
If it weren't for the McDonald's Franchisee program, I wouldn't be
here today. After 11 years working in the restaurants, I was able to
work my way into the franchisee program and purchase my first franchise
location, then build a successful company with over 20 locations; a
program that allowed a person that came from a place like I did to
achieve the American Dream.
I have lived a true American story. And my mission in life is to help
every child who grew up like me, wondering where their next meal would
come from, unsure if their lights would be on when they got home from
school; I want those kids to know that our country is a place of
opportunity and a place of hope for those who will work for it.
We shouldn't be here discussing this bill today. It is not worthy of
this Chamber. But since we are, I must do everything I can to show my
disapproval in the strongest terms.
The change we are proposing here is simple. We are asking that unions
be barred from contacting individuals who are not eligible to work in
this country.
If an employer cannot hire someone in our country illegally, a union
should not be allowed to organize those individuals. Believe it or not,
this is not currently outlawed.
If my colleagues insist on moving forward with legislation that
empowers union bosses and strips independence from our workers, they
should not do it in a way that encourages illegal immigration.
This motion to recommit would make the PRO Act pro-American worker,
rather than just pro-union bosses.

[[Page H926]]

I have been doing my research a long time. I spent 34 years as a
business owner before coming to Congress. I have dealt with union
issues for longer than some of my colleagues have been alive.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who will financially benefit from
the passage of this bill, said:

Those who will oppose, delay, or derail this legislation,
do not ask us for a single dollar or a door knock. We won't
be coming.

Well, I am standing here today to let Mr. Trumka know that I proudly
oppose this legislation.
One of the biggest glaring failures of this legislation is taking
away employee choice; effectively repealing right-to-work laws all
across this country, like in my home State, where we choose to empower
employers and employees alike.
Decades of legal precedent will be pushed aside. Where workers have
previously had the freedom to choose whether or not to pay fees and
join a union, they will now be forced to pay membership fees or lose
their job. This will put immeasurable power in the hands of union
bosses.
Privacy provisions--that have been in place for decades--barring
unions from accessing private information about employees, will be
eradicated under this bill. You heard that right. Unions will be able
to access employees' private information, even those that are not
members of the union. They can use that information for anything; sell
it to the highest bidder, all without the knowledge or the consent of
the individuals.
The same franchises that gave me the opportunity to achieve the
American Dream are under attack with this legislation. Over 750,000
franchise locations that employ more than 8 million people are at risk
because of the joint employer provisions in the bill.
The expanded joint employer standard has cost franchise businesses
$33.3 billion per year; resulting in 376,000 lost job opportunities and
93 percent more lawsuits.
Many of the ideas in this bill have already been rejected in the
court system and are currently opposed by a bipartisan coalition in
Congress.
I urge my friends across the aisle to support the motion to recommit
on behalf of the American worker and their right to choose.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the PRO Act is about tackling
income inequality and remedying laws that have failed to protect
workers' rights.
The PRO Act expressly says it shall not be construed to amend any
laws regarding hiring undocumented workers. It also prevents employers
from being able to bust a union organizing drive simply by firing
undocumented workers they had hired previously.
The real-world effect of this MTR is to create a perverse incentive
to go ahead and hire undocumented workers, because they could never
receive information from a union about organizing.
Moreover, carving out undocumented workers from organizing deters all
workers from exercising their rights. Employees who witness employers
violating labor laws without repercussions will be afraid to rely on
the National Labor Relations Act.
Finally, our immigration laws require employers to find out about
whether workers are documented or not. There is no provision in our
laws that allow unions to find that out.
This MTR is truly bad policy. It will encourage more hiring of
undocumented workers; exactly the opposite of what the authors intend.
But the main thing is it will undermine the freedom to form unions and
bargain collectively for all workers.
Republicans offered this MTR to score political points. But we are
focused on rebuilding the American middle class.
I have spent most of my career helping workers form unions and
bargain collectively. The power of workers to unite and demand fair
wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions is truly
inspiring, and it is essential for working families simply trying to
get by.
Right now, corporate profits are skyrocketing, while the share of
healthcare costs paid by employers is falling. Worker productivity is
at a peak, yet wages are stagnant. The gap between the rich and poor is
the highest ever recorded.

One of the main causes of these problems is declining union
membership, which is at its lowest point in decades. The PRO Act is
about reversing these trends so workers can enjoy their fair share in
the economy that they help create.
Recent studies have shown that in cities where union membership is
strong, children in low-income families go on to ascend to higher
income levels than their parents. Isn't that what every parent wants?
Creating a pathway to a better life, that is the American Dream, and
that is the power of a union.
Fifty-eight million Americans say they would join a union if given
the opportunity; 58 million, 48 percent of nonunion workers.
Just think of the impact we could have simply by making it easier for
Americans to exercise the rights they already supposedly have under the
law; rights that have been undermined systematically by special
interests that want to keep the economy working for the very
wealthiest, at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
The PRO Act is about that most American of ideals, freedom. All we
are doing today is allowing workers to decide on their own, free of
harassment and intimidation, whether or not they wish to form a union
and bargain collectively, and to access their other rights under the
NLRA.
When we pass the PRO Act today, we say loud and clear that we are not
on the side of special interests. We stand proudly on the side of
working families.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to
recommit, and to vote ``yes'' on the PRO Act.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott),
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this is the last step before we
can pass the PRO Act. We know that union members make higher salaries,
get better benefits, work in safer workplaces. Nonunion members benefit
from the high salaries.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on:
Passage of H.R. 2474, if ordered; and
Agreeing to H. Res. 826.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 49]

AYES--195

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan

[[Page H927]]

Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--223

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Morelle
Roby
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

{time} 2100

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 194, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 50]

AYES--224

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NOES--194

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--12

Byrne
Cleaver
Gabbard
Gaetz
Holding
Kirkpatrick

[[Page H928]]

LaHood
Lewis
Morelle
Roby
Sewell (AL)
Webster (FL)

{time} 2107

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________