[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

     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

[[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

  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 187, 
noes 235, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [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

  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 242, 
noes 178, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [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

  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 187, 
noes 232, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--187

     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)
     Hollingsworth
     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

[[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

  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 186, 
noes 235, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [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

  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 404, 
noes 18, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [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

     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.
     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
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     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)
     Kinzinger
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)

[[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.

                          ____________________