[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1134-H1163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ACT OF 2021

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 842) 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 ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188, the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-10 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 842

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting 
     the Right to Organize Act of 2021''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

        TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Reports.
Sec. 103. Appointment.
Sec. 104. Unfair labor practices.
Sec. 105. Representatives and elections.
Sec. 106. Damages for unfair labor practices.
Sec. 107. Enforcing compliance with orders of the board.
Sec. 108. Injunctions against unfair labor practices involving 
              discharge or other serious economic harm.
Sec. 109. Penalties.
Sec. 110. Limitations on the right to strike.
Sec. 111. Fair share agreements permitted.

 TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947 AND 
       THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959

Sec. 201. Conforming amendments to the Labor Management Relations Act, 
              1947.
Sec. 202. Amendments to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure 
              Act of 1959.

                        TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 301. Severability.
Sec. 302. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 303. Rule of Construction.

        TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) 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.''.
       (b) 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.''.
       (c) Supervisor.--Section 2(11) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(11)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and for a majority of the individual's 
     worktime'' after ``interest of the employer'';
       (2) by striking ``assign,''; and
       (3) by striking ``or responsibly to direct them,''.

     SEC. 102. 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, 2023, 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--
       ``(A) 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);
       ``(B) list each case in which the Designated Agency Ethics 
     Official provided advice regarding whether a Member should be 
     recused from participating in a case or rulemaking; and
       ``(C) list each case in which the Designated Agency Ethics 
     Official determined that a Member should be recused from 
     participating in a case or rulemaking.''.

     SEC. 103. APPOINTMENT.

       Section 4(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     154(a)) is amended by striking ``, or for economic 
     analysis''.

     SEC. 104. 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 terms and conditions of employment 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

[[Page H1135]]

     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 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 2 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 2 
     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 9 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Protecting the Right to Organize 
     Act of 2021, 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 for denying or limiting such use.''.

     SEC. 105. 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 certify the results of the 
     election, 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, following a 
     post-election hearing, that 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, set aside the election and 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 1 
     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 8 days after a notice of such hearing is 
     served on the labor organization and shall continue from day 
     to day until completed;
       ``(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;
       ``(C) 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;
       ``(D) regional directors shall schedule elections for the 
     earliest date practicable, but not later than the 20th 
     business day after the direction of election; and
       ``(E) a post-election hearing under this subsection shall 
     begin not later than 14 days after the filing of objections, 
     if any.'';

[[Page H1136]]

       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(e) or'' and inserting 
     ``(d) or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The Board shall dismiss any petition for an election 
     with respect to a bargaining unit or any subdivision if, 
     during the 12-month period ending on the date on which the 
     petition is filed--
       ``(1) the employer has recognized a labor organization 
     without an election and in accordance with this Act;
       ``(2) the labor organization and employer engaged in their 
     first bargaining session following the issuance of a 
     bargaining order by the Board; or
       ``(3) the labor organization and successor employer engaged 
     in their first bargaining session following a succession.
       ``(g) The Board shall dismiss any petition for an election 
     with respect to a bargaining unit or any subdivision if there 
     is in effect a lawful written collective bargaining agreement 
     between the employer and an exclusive representative covering 
     any employees in the unit specified in the petition, unless 
     the petition is filed--
       ``(1) on or after the date that is 3 years after the date 
     on which the collective bargaining agreement took effect; or
       ``(2) during the 30-day period beginning on the date that 
     is 90 days before the date that is 3 years after the date on 
     which the collective bargaining agreement took effect.
       ``(h) The Board shall suspend the processing of any 
     petition for an election with respect to a bargaining unit or 
     any subdivision if a labor organization files an unfair labor 
     practice charge alleging a violation of section 8(a) and 
     requesting the suspension of a pending petition until the 
     unlawful conduct, if any, is remedied or the charge is 
     dismissed unless the Board determines that employees can, 
     under the circumstances, exercise free choice in an election 
     despite the unlawful conduct alleged in the charge.''.

     SEC. 106. DAMAGES FOR 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''.

     SEC. 107. ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS OF THE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Section 10 of the National Labor Relations 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
       (3) 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 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.'';
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) 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'';
       (B) by striking ``Any'' and inserting the following: ``
       ``(1) Within 30 days of the issuance of an order, any''; 
     and
       (C) 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
       (5) in subsection (g), by striking ``subsection (e) or (f) 
     of this section'' and inserting ``subsection (d) or (f)''.
       (b) 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''.

     SEC. 108. 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), (3) or (4) 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).

     SEC. 109. PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 12 of the National Labor Relations 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``sec. 12. Any person'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Violations for Interference With Board.--Any 
     person''; and
       (2) 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 5 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

[[Page H1137]]

     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), (3), or (4) 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.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 10(b) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``180 days''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``the six-month period'' and inserting 
     ``the 180-day period''.

     SEC. 110. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.

       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.''.

     SEC. 111. 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.''.

 TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947 AND 
       THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959

     SEC. 201. 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. 202. 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.''.

                        TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 301. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to 
     any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of 
     this Act, or the application of that provision to persons or 
     circumstances other than those as to which it is held 
     invalid, is not affected thereby.

     SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 303. 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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 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) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             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 include extraneous material on H.R. 842, the Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act of 2021.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right 
to Organize Act of 2021, or the PRO Act.
  The American economy needs a strong middle class. Labor unions play 
an essential role in rebuilding our middle class and improving the 
lives of workers and their families. There is clear evidence that 
workers who organize a union have higher wages, better benefits, and 
safer workplaces.
  Regrettably, union membership has dropped over the last 50 years from 
nearly one-third of all workers in the mid-20th century to just over 10 
percent of workers today. The decline of unions and workers' bargaining 
power are major reasons why income inequality has soared and wages have 
stagnated for hardworking people.
  But this decline in union membership is not a product of workers' 
choices. A recent survey by MIT found that nearly half of nonunion 
workers say that they would vote to join a union if given the 
opportunity.
  The gap between worker preferences and union membership is the result 
of an 85-year-old labor law that lacks the teeth to enforce workers' 
rights when employers unlawfully retaliate against them for organizing. 
The National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA, is far too weak to defend 
workers against intensifying antiunion attacks from special interests.
  That is why we must pass the PRO Act. The legislation strengthens 
workers' rights by making significant upgrades in the NLRA since it was 
enacted 85 years ago.
  First, the PRO Act provides new tools to protect workers from 
antiunion intimidation and retaliation. It then introduces meaningful 
penalties for companies that violate workers' rights and closes 
loopholes they use to exploit workers.
  Finally, the PRO Act strengthens safeguards to ensure that workers 
can hold free, fair, and safe union elections.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stand up for workers and 
ensure that they can exercise their right to join together and 
negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and a safe workplace. I 
urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the radical, partisan, and 
utterly shameful PRO Act.
  This unnecessary bill is an assault on American workers, employers, 
and the economy. Democrats are pushing this sweeping legislation 
without holding a single committee hearing or markup.
  Is this the new standard for the people's House?
  It silences the minority and their constituents by denying a thorough 
examination of yet another extreme and

[[Page H1138]]

damaging Democrat legislative scheme. It is disgraceful.
  The pro-union bosses' act that Democrats have disingenuously titled 
the PRO Act is a left-wing wish list of union boss priorities, which 
undermines the rights of workers by forcing them to pay into a union 
system, whether or not they want to be represented by a union.
  Many workers would not choose to funnel billions of their hard-earned 
dollars to left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood, the Clinton 
Foundation, the Progressive Democrats of America.
  This misguided bill also stunts economic recovery by hitting 
employers over the head with an estimated $47 billion in new annual 
costs. But it is not just employers who will pay the price. This bill 
will reclassify gig economy workers as employees, costing tens of 
thousands of workers their jobs and eliminating the flexibility so many 
rely on to care for their family members; a priority even more critical 
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  The appalling list of bad policy provisions in this bill goes on, and 
we will hear more about them during this debate. The bottom line is 
this, the PRO Act is a sorry excuse for legislation, and the partisan 
process under which it is being considered is equally embarrassing. I 
urge all Members to reject the PRO Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protecting 
the Right to Organize Act.
  The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for workers to 
have the right to negotiate for better wages, stronger benefits, and 
safer working conditions.
  To keep our communities going, nurses, grocery store workers, 
firefighters, childcare workers, educators, healthcare workers, and 
more have been showing up to work every day, despite the risks. We have 
the opportunity to honor their work and to help restore fairness to our 
economy by making it easier for workers to form unions and collectively 
bargain.
  The PRO Act will establish substantive and enforceable penalties for 
unlawful tactics employers take to interfere with workers' organizing a 
union. The legislation closes loopholes in labor laws that allow 
workers to be misclassified, provides them with protections of the 
National Labor Relations Act, bans captive audience meetings, and 
prohibits employers from interfering in union elections. It is the most 
significant workers' rights legislation in years and an important step 
in restoring the middle class.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the BlueGreen 
Alliance in support of the PRO Act.
                                                    March 8, 2021.
       Dear Representative: As a coalition of some of the nation's 
     largest labor unions and environmental organizations, 
     collectively representing millions of members and supporters, 
     the BlueGreen Alliance and its partners write to express our 
     support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 
     2021, H.R. 842.
       In the United States, we face a critical juncture for the 
     rights of employees to organize. Workers have faced wage 
     stagnation, difficult working conditions, and a wholesale 
     effort to decimate their ability to organize for the past 
     several decades. Exploitation by employers of labor laws that 
     have been made toothless has caused union membership to fall 
     dramatically from 33 percent in 1956 to ten percent in 2018. 
     As it stands, no meaningful penalties exist for corporations 
     using illegal tactics to eliminate the option to organize. 
     Workers, already facing record income inequality, now face 
     job losses due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. And 
     we know the reality is that we went into this pandemic with 
     three ongoing interconnected crises: economic inequality, 
     racial inequality, and climate change.
       Based on the National Bureau of Economic Research's 
     statistics, we know that unions consistently provide working 
     Americans with ten to twenty percent higher wages than non-
     unionized workers. Workers who are union members fare better 
     in crises--whether the crisis is COVID-19 or climate change. 
     During crises, unionized workers have better access to 
     enhanced safety measures, unemployment insurance, additional 
     pay, paid sick time, and input in the terms of furloughs or 
     other job-saving arrangements. Empowering workers, whether 
     they are in the private sector or in the public sector, 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. This bill can also help us close the gap in union 
     density and job quality in our growing clean energy sectors.
       The PRO Act empowers employees by strengthening workers' 
     rights to bargain and to organize. It does so by ending 
     prohibitions 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, we urge you to vote yes on the PRO Act. Thank you 
     for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
       BlueGreen Alliance, American Federation of Teachers, 
     International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, 
     International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, League of 
     Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council, Service Employees International 
     Union, Sierra Club, United Steelworkers Union, Utility 
     Workers Union of American.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with workers 
and support this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues have, apparently, 
decided committee work doesn't matter for the 117th Congress because 
they, once again, brought legislation to the House floor without first 
holding a single committee hearing or markup.

                              {time}  1245

  As the Republican leader of the Health, Employment, Labor, and 
Pensions Subcommittee, I would have welcomed the opportunity to debate 
and amend this flawed legislation in committee.
  H.R. 842, also known as the PRO Act, is a radical proposal aimed at 
appeasing big union bosses who fund the far left's political agenda. 
From 2010 to 2018, unions sent more than $1.6 billion in member dues to 
hundreds of left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood, the Clinton 
Foundation, and the Progressive Democrats of America, instead of 
spending that money on worker representation.
  That is right. Union leaders are lining their pockets and their 
friends' pockets with the dues workers are forced to pay. No worker 
should be forced to participate in union activity or pay for 
representation they do not agree with. That is un-American. But the 
pro-union bosses act would overturn right-to-work laws in 27 States, 
including my home State of Georgia.
  That would be devastating for Georgia's post-COVID economy. That is 
why I will offer an amendment protecting the right-to-work laws. In 
fact, I introduced a total of five amendments to this bill that would 
put workers first; but, unfortunately, Democrats only allowed one to be 
considered on the House floor for debate even though last Congress they 
allowed more than one to be voted on this House floor.
  But the American people deserve to know the other amendments that the 
Democrats blocked.
  First is protecting employees' right to secret-ballot elections. An 
amendment requiring all unions to win a secret-ballot election in order 
to be certified because no worker should face retribution because of 
how they cast their ballot.
  Codifying a sensible joint-employer standard. An amendment that 
strikes

[[Page H1139]]

the section of the bill which defines joint employment using the 
indirect control and replaces this provision with the direct and 
immediate control to protect franchisees and treat them as any other 
small business owner.
  Employee privacy protection. An amendment requiring employers to 
receive express consent from employees before sharing their personal 
information with a union because the bill currently does not require 
that consent.
  And worker retirement protection. This amends the bill to state that 
mandatory arbitration agreements cannot force the members of a 
bargaining unit into a multiemployer pension plan.
  All of my amendments would bring much-needed accountability and 
transparency, and I am disappointed a majority of them were not even 
allowed to be offered on the House floor. Furthermore, the PRO Act 
would further disrupt our economy, which is in desperate need of full 
reopening.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I stand with small business owners and our 
workforce, and I oppose this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress we held 
three hearings and considered 35 amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor and the co-chair of the new Labor Caucus.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
  As a small business owner and union member of the International Union 
of Painters and Allied Trades for 30 years, I know how important it is 
that every worker has a union.
  Giving workers a voice in their workplace, negotiating for good, 
family supporting wages and benefits and worker safety are crucial to a 
family's ability to thrive.
  Democrats will deliver on this important legislation today, but it is 
interesting Republicans lately have been trying to falsely rebrand 
themselves as the party of working people while opposing the strongest 
bill in Congress to give power to workers. The same Republicans who 
fought tooth and nail to reduce stimulus checks and unemployment 
insurance, championed union busting and prevented an increase in the 
minimum wage from being included in COVID relief.
  They claim they are the party of the working people. Their idea of 
helping working people is voting for a $2 trillion tax cut for 
corporate donors and billionaire friends but refusing to vote for a 
$1.9 trillion investment in the American people.
  Their tax breaks for the top 1 percent, by the way, even included a 
provision that might make it easier to send jobs overseas. Yes. That is 
fighting for the average worker--in China.
  Please, if you are the party of working people, then I am a stunt 
double, doppelganger for Brad Pitt. I hope you enjoyed me in ``Fight 
Club.''
  Today, on this side of the aisle we proudly stand up to protect the 
right to organize for every worker.
  We will stand up for better worker protections in a pandemic.
  We will stand up for negotiating for better pay and benefits to 
support your family.
  We will stand up against antiworker so-called right-to-work laws that 
inevitably mean right to work for less.
  We will stand up for gig workers, for nurses, for grocery workers, 
for meatpackers, for fast-food workers, for public service workers, 
and, yes, for Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama.
  That is what the party of working people would do, and that is why we 
are going to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two pieces of correspondence 
from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Transport Workers 
Union of America.
                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 2021.
     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. 842, 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. 842 comes to the House 
     floor this week. The Teamsters Union believes that this 
     legislation is critically important to rebuilding the middle 
     class and to begin reversing decades of income inequality and 
     the erosion of worker rights.
       Today, the economy is not working for working people and 
     their families. Wages have stagnated for workers across the 
     economy, while income has skyrocketed for CEO's and the 
     wealthiest one percent. In large measure, 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 with impunity. The 
     Protecting the Right to Organize Act is an important step 
     forward for workers' rights, rebuilding the middle class, and 
     addressing inequality. 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. The legislation 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 and by 
     preventing employers from hiring permanent replacements of 
     workers who exercise their right to strike. It would 
     establish 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.
       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, addressing income 
     inequality, 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 worker 
     rights and protections and better wages and working 
     conditions. The Teamsters Union urges you to vote yes on H.R. 
     842 and to oppose all efforts to weaken this bill by 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
     General President.
                                  ____



                                          Transport Workers of

                                             America, AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 150,000 members 
     of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), I am writing to urge 
     you to support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act 
     when it comes to the floor this week. This 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 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 airline 
     mechanics to bikeshare workers.
       Bikeshare workers at Motivate (a company owned by Lyft) are 
     often considered part of the ``gig economy''. They are also 
     proud TWU members with a national contract. For many of these 
     union members, the majority of their interaction with their 
     employer is through an app--very similar to the way rideshare 
     drivers interact with their employers. These workers move 
     around a large geographic area collecting and repositioning 
     bikes in the same way a rideshare driver would pick up and 
     move passengers. Unlike rideshare drivers, however, bikeshare 
     workers' rights are not seen as incompatible with their 
     company's business model.
       These workers and many others are proof that collective 
     bargaining is powerful enough to live on into our future. 
     None of the more than 200 current contracts that TWU has 
     negotiated and implemented is identical--in fact many of them 
     would work at no other company or among any other work group. 
     While the process mandated under our labor laws may be the 
     same, the outcomes vary wildly, allowing for growth and 
     change as circumstances shift and technologies evolve. All 
     workers deserve access to that process in order to better 
     their standard of living.

[[Page H1140]]

       Unfortunately, the proportion of unionized workers in the 
     U.S. is near a 90-year low because of structural hurdles 
     which make joining a new union very difficult.
       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 vote yes on the PRO Act and to 
     oppose any weakening amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John Samuelsen,
                                          International President.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to voice my 
opposition to the PRO Act, shortsighted legislation that is a bad deal 
for America's workers and America's employers.
  The greatest thing that I learned working in a factory is that 
workers care about employers and employers care about and value the 
hardworking people who come to work and get the job done every day.
  The PRO Act needlessly inserts government--what I call the 
middleman--into the workplace, driving a wedge between the employee-
employer relationship. This bill would infringe on workers' rights and 
handcuff employers, making it harder for people to make decisions that 
positively impact their workforce.
  Our team has met with employers and workers across central and 
northeastern Pennsylvania, and the message is crystal clear: Say no to 
the PRO Act.
  Let's not pretend the government knows or cares about workers more 
than the businesses that employ them, and let's not add more mandates 
where they don't belong. Instead, it is time for the government to step 
back and for businesses to continue what they do best: innovate, 
produce, and provide opportunities for the American people.
  If my colleagues supporting the PRO Act really care about America's 
employers, workers, and boosting our economic recovery, then I urge 
them to oppose this special interest giveaway.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) who is a distinguished member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor and is the chair of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the PRO Act. 
I am very proud to be a lead sponsor of this transformative bill and to 
represent one of the most unionized States in the country, where I have 
spent two decades organizing alongside unions for decent wages, 
benefits, and workers' rights.
  Unions helped build America's middle class. But over the years large 
corporations have deployed union-busting tactics to rob workers of 
their fundamental workplace rights. That changes today.
  The PRO Act will undo decades of Republican antiworker policies. It 
puts power back into the hands of workers and secures the right to 
organize and bargain for good wages, fair benefits, and an equal voice 
on the job. The PRO Act is about democracy in the workplace. It is 
about standing with the heroic workers carrying America through the 
pandemic.
  It is past time to pass the PRO Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of support from the 
Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of 
America.

                                                         SEIU,

                                                 February 4, 2021.
       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 
     2021. 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, and build our economy back better than it 
     was before.
       We are nearly one year into the worst public health and 
     economic crisis we have faced in a generation, with underpaid 
     frontline workers literally risking their lives for poverty 
     wages. While many have rightly called these essential workers 
     heroes, our country has failed to truly respect them with a 
     promise to protect them and adequately pay them throughout 
     the crisis. Too many essential workers continue to lack basic 
     work protections like proper PPE, paid sick and family leave, 
     or health care, and far too few have a voice in the workplace 
     and access to a union. This is most true for the Black and 
     brown workers who have kept us safe and fed throughout this 
     crisis.
       Unions are the best solution to leveling the playing field 
     and safeguarding the health and safety of working people. In 
     fact, during this crisis, where workers that have been able 
     to act collectively and through their union, they have been 
     able to secure enhanced safety measures, additional hazard 
     pay, paid sick time, and other protections. But because of a 
     concerted effort to undermine unions in America over the past 
     forty years, just 10% of working people have a say in the 
     decisions that affect them at work, in their communities and 
     in our economy. Too many unscrupulous employers--even amidst 
     a pandemic--take advantage of America's outdated labor laws 
     to stifle the ability of working people to join together in 
     unions to stay safe on the job 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. Furthermore, 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.
       In this time of crisis, working people around the country 
     urgently need the PRO Act's much needed reforms to make it 
     easier for people to join unions and hold companies 
     accountable. A voice on the job has never been more important 
     for safeguarding the health, safety, and economic security of 
     the working people we have relied on to get us through this 
     pandemic.
       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.
                                  ____

                                Communications Workers of America,


                                                 AFL-CIO, CLC,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the members and officers 
     of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am writing 
     to urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 842, the Protecting the 
     Right to Organize (PRO) Act, when it comes to a vote on the 
     House floor this week.
       The ability of working people to join together to 
     collectively bargain for fair pay and working conditions is a 
     fundamental right. But it is extremely difficult for private 
     sector workers covered by the NLRA to organize if their 
     employer opposes them doing so. Companies can intimidate 
     workers relentlessly, misclassify workers, gerrymander 
     election units, dodge accountability for violating worker 
     rights by hiding behind subcontractors, and more--all 
     completely legally. And even if they do violate the law and 
     illegally terminate or punish workers for union activity, the 
     existing NLRA is toothless and its penalties barely amount to 
     a slap on the wrist. Companies who illegally fire workers are 
     only required to pay them back pay, minus any income they've 
     had elsewhere in the interim.
       Once workers do come together and organize, the existing 
     NLRA is also inadequate to protect worker rights. Companies 
     can easily stall indefinitely to prevent workers from getting 
     a first contract for years after they organize. If and when 
     workers are forced to go on strike to protect their 
     livelihoods, employers can permanently replace strikers 
     without consequence.
       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%.
       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. 
     These problems have all been magnified by the ongoing COVID-
     19 pandemic.
       New research confirms that workers without union 
     representation are less likely to have paid leave, to have 
     access to proper PPE at work, or to have protections against

[[Page H1141]]

     unnecessary layoffs. The PRO Act would fix these problems and 
     re-establish workers' right to organize in this country, In 
     doing so, it helps combat skyrocketing economic inequality 
     and strengthens the middle class. Therefore, I strongly urge 
     you to vote in favor of the PRO Act and oppose any amendments 
     that would weaken the bill. CWA will include votes on this 
     bill in our Congressional Scorecard.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                       Christopher M. Shelton,

                                 President, Communications Workers
                                                 of America (CWA).

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the PRO Act.
  The efforts by House Democrats to kill flexible work options in 
America do not consider the harmful effects this bill will have on 
mothers. This bill would force workers out of their individual labor 
agreements and into one-size-fits-all union contracts.
  I have seven children, and balancing work and family is an issue that 
I truly care about. For many mothers, flexible work opportunities are 
their lifeline. Federal law should not discourage mothers from working 
in positions that fit their unique schedules and needs. When given 
flexible opportunities, mothers are able to advance their careers while 
balancing competing priorities of childcare, education, caring for sick 
or aging family members, and so much more.
  The only thing that this bill is pro on is big labor. The PRO Act is 
a massive expansion of union bosses' power at the expense of workers 
and employers' freedom.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I got here just a little before I was going to speak, 
and I heard the gentlewoman from Illinois speak. She talked about 
flexible work hours. I thought to myself: Who decides what is flexible?
  Historically, of course, working men and women were told: You will do 
this for that much at this time under these conditions.
  That was the reality--sweatshops, health-endangering shops, and long 
hours with little pay. Then the labor unions came along. They got some 
strength, they got some support, and lo and behold, the middle class 
started to grow and started to make good wages, have safe working 
conditions, and, yes, flexible hours.
  Mr. Speaker, as we work to create jobs and build our economy back 
better, we need to make sure that the jobs that are available to 
Americans help them get by and get ahead. That is what the minimum wage 
battle is about. That is what this is about--average working people 
wanting to get by, wanting to have a decent salary, and wanting to have 
decent working conditions.
  Very frankly, that just didn't happen, Mr. Speaker. Some died to make 
that a reality. Others were beaten and battered in order to have that 
be a reality. Child labor, abuse of gender, women abused in the 
workplace working in terrible, odious conditions--that is why Democrats 
passed the PRO Act last year, and that is why we will do so again 
today.
  One of the most important tools for workers to secure better pay and 
benefits is the right to organize and bargain collectively. Those of 
you who have been employers know that you want to maximize profits and 
you want to try and manage and see whether you can hire people for X 
amount of dollars rather than X plus Y. That right was secured over the 
course of generations by workers who fought to have that right 
recognized and secured. Collective bargaining made possible the 
prosperity and upward mobility that was a hallmark of America in the 
20th century.
  Strong unions lead to better pay, higher quality and more affordable 
healthcare, more secure retirement benefits, and workplaces that are 
safer, not just for union members but for all workers.
  Unfortunately, in the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, the right to 
organize has been eroded and weakened. As a result, many workers are 
stuck with no recourse to demand the better pay and benefits they 
deserve, and they need, and their families need, and we need as a 
middle class society that knows that we are a consumer economy. Henry 
Ford knew if you didn't pay them, then they couldn't buy your cars--a 
pretty simple equation.
  The PRO Act would change that, empowering workers, once again, 
through their right to organize. It prevents management from 
misclassifying workers.
  I urge Members to think whether or not that happens.
  Mr. Speaker, this gig economy sounds great until you get to be 65 or 
67 and you look around and there is nobody behind you. There is nobody 
to lift you up. There is nobody to say: Thank you for that 30 years, 40 
years, or 50 years of service to our company or to our economy. It 
prevents management from misclassifying workers in order to avoid 
negotiating the fair pay and safe working conditions they deserve.

                              {time}  1300

  No, they are just contract employees. They don't have any real 
attachment or relationship with our company. They are just contract, 
and we can use them one day and throw them away the next.
  Moreover, the PRO Act levels the playing field for labor unions in 
contract negotiations. Maybe you don't believe in that, Mr. Speaker, 
not you personally, but maybe there are people who don't believe that 
they ought to be equal. After all, I started the business, and I 
invested money.
  I agree with that; I want to see them make money. I am a 
procapitalist Democrat, a procapitalist American. I have been around 
the world, and I have seen noncapitalist societies. They don't work 
very well. But the capitalist society works better if everybody is 
lifted, not just some.
  I thank Chairman Scott of the Education and Labor Committee for his 
hard work on this bill, as well as the members of his committee.
  I am proud that we Democrats strongly support this bill, which is so 
central to our effort to make opportunities more accessible and more 
broadly available to American workers as we look to rebuild our economy 
stronger after COVID-19.
  The leader of the party on the other side of the aisle said in his 
speech that he gave at the beginning of the session: We are the 
workers' party.
  We will see, Mr. Speaker, when we vote on this bill, whether that 
statement was accurate.
  The workers are not against this bill. As I said last year, when we 
passed this bill, the PRO Act is the workers' rights legislation that 
working people in our country need and for which they have been waiting 
for far too long. That is why we need to pass this bill today and send 
it to the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for our workers, for our families, 
for our children, and for our effort to build back better and stronger 
from the challenges we now face.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats continue to look backward, 100 
years backward. Just before COVID hit, we had the greatest economy in 
our country ever, the lowest unemployment for women, minorities, 
everyone, without the PRO Act.
  No procapitalist can support this bill. This is part of a socialist 
agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 842, the prounion bosses act.
  Here we are once again. This is becoming all too familiar here in 
Congress, an exercise for Democrats to steamroll these massive bills 
through the House without proper debate or transparency. Our committee 
didn't even have a hearing or a markup on this.
  Frankly, the bill is disastrous. Bills like this only further 
suppress workers' rights, create a one-size-fits-all type of union 
contract, and create incentives for disruptive and dangerous union 
strikes, especially in healthcare.
  One particularly bothersome practice is this legislation would 
require employers to hand over workers' private personal information to 
union organizers--home addresses, cell phone numbers, email addresses--
without

[[Page H1142]]

their employees' consent. These are privacy violations not to be 
tolerated in this country.
  I know leadership doesn't want you guys to do this, but we want to 
work with you. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter 
of support for the bill from the AFL-CIO.
     Legislative Alert


                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On January 26, we wrote in support of 
     the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842), 
     which would restore the original intent of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (NLRA) 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. We write 
     today to redouble our request and to express our views on 
     amendments to H.R. 842 that the Rules Committee has made in 
     order.
       Now is the time to pass the PRO Act. For too long, 
     employers have been allowed to violate workers' rights with 
     impunity because the law includes no penalties for doing so. 
     As a result, workers' ability to negotiate for better pay and 
     benefits has eroded and income inequality has reached levels 
     we have not seen since the Great Depression. In the midst of 
     a global pandemic, which has killed tens of thousands of 
     front line workers, it is more important than ever that 
     working people have the right to rely on the protection of a 
     union contract.
       The PRO Act will level the playing field to give workers a 
     fair shot when fighting for improvements on the job. The bill 
     modernizes 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. The bill would also 
     make union elections fairer by prohibiting employers from 
     requiring their employees to attend ``captive audience'' 
     meetings, a common tactic whereby employers present anti-
     union propaganda to pressure 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, avoiding the complex and drawn out process in 
     the courts of appeals. In addition, the bill would ensure 
     that employees are not deprived of our right to a union 
     because an employer 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 
     due to employers' intentional delays.
       The PRO Act recognizes that employees need the freedom to 
     picket or withhold our labor in order to push for the 
     workplace changes we need. 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 ``right to work'' laws. 
     These laws, steeped in a history of racism, are promoted by 
     billionaires and special interest groups to give more power 
     to corporations at the expense of workers, and have the 
     effect of lowering wages and eroding pensions and health care 
     coverage in states where they have been adopted.
       The PRO Act is the first step towards restoring our middle 
     class by strengthening the collective power of workers to 
     negotiate for better pay and working conditions. After the 
     PRO Act's passage, we urge Congress to further empower 
     workers through passage of the Public Service Freedom to 
     Negotiate Act, so our nation's public sector workers may 
     enjoy the protections of a union contract.
       We urge you to support and vote for the PRO Act.


                       Amendment Recommendations

       Tlaib (#8) This amendment establishes a 120-day timeline 
     for the tripartite arbitration process between the employees/
     labor organization and employer to ensure that the 
     arbitration process is not indefinitely drawn out. Vote yes.
       Hern (#6) Prohibits the PRO Act from taking effect until 
     the Secretary of Labor certifies that the PRO Act will not 
     negatively affect employment rates. There is nothing to 
     support the notion that strong labor protections have adverse 
     impacts on job numbers. This serves no purpose other than to 
     further delay worker access to the protections of the PRO 
     Act. Vote no.
       Keller (#16) This amendment deletes the provisions of the 
     bill prohibiting employers from permanently replacing workers 
     on strike and protecting the rights of workers to engage in 
     brief or intermittent strikes. Vote no.
       Good (#18) Amends section 302 of the Labor Management 
     Relations Act to prohibit employers from remaining neutral 
     during an organizing effort or election. Vote no.
       Comer (#21) This amendment strikes the provision of the 
     bill which requires employers to disclose how much they are 
     spending on union-busting or ``union avoidance'' consultants. 
     Vote no.
       Torres (#22) This amendment revises the Labor-Management 
     and Disclosure Act of 1959 to require the Department of Labor 
     to make disclosures under the persuader rule publicly 
     available in an accessible and searchable electronic form, 
     and through a secure software application for use on an 
     electronic device. Vote yes.
       Walberg (#24) This amendment seeks to extend the time 
     between a petition for a union election and a pre-election 
     hearing. Vote no.
       Levin (#34) This amendment directs the NLRB to develop a 
     system and procedures to conduct union representation 
     elections electronically, as allowed by the PRO Act itself. 
     Vote yes.
       Fulcher (#37) Codifies a vote-and-impound process through 
     which the NLRB will conduct union elections even where 
     employer coercion or other unfair labor practices have 
     occurred, tainting the election. This policy is harmful to 
     workers who are subject to employer unfair labor practices 
     during or prior to a union election. Vote no.
       Fitzgerald (#39) Requires an unnecessary administrative 
     process for unions to collect consent before using dues for 
     activities other than collective bargaining or contract 
     administration. Serves only to create administrative hurdles 
     as employees are already entitled to limit payments to union 
     to those for representational purposes. Vote no.
       Allen (#47) This amendment strikes the provision requiring 
     states to allow ``fair share agreements.'' So-called ``Right 
     to Work'' laws, which prohibit fair share agreements, depress 
     wages and benefits. Vote no.
       McBath (#54) This amendment simply clarifies that the 
     definition of employer and employee in the PRO Act does not 
     affect state laws governing wages, hours, workers' 
     compensation or unemployment insurance. Vote yes.
       Wilson (#59) This amendment strikes the provision requiring 
     states to allow ``fair share agreements.'' So-called ``Right 
     to Work'' laws, which prohibit fair share agreements, depress 
     wages and benefits. Vote no.
       Newman (#67) This amendment ensures that the NLRB's notices 
     that inform workers of their rights be in the languages 
     spoken by the employees. Vote yes.
       The AFL-CIO offers no recommendation on the following 
     amendments: Jackson Lee (#12), Bordeaux (#25), Stevens (#65), 
     Murphy (#68), Davids (#71).
       Restoring our middle class depends on strengthening the 
     collective power of workers to negotiate for better pay and 
     working conditions. This is why public support for unions is 
     the highest it has been in decades. We urge you to support 
     the PRO Act, oppose all weakening amendments for the reasons 
     explained above, and help us build an economy that works for 
     all working families. We also urge you to oppose any Motion 
     to Recommit, which would have the effect of killing the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                                     Director, Government Affairs.

  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to rebut many 
arguments, like the one we just heard. The requirement that the 
employer share lists of the employees during a union election is 
decades and decades old. It hasn't changed.
  In any event, I am here to support the PRO Act with all of my heart. 
For decades, we have witnessed the loss of workers' rights, the decline 
of private-sector union membership, and the erosion of the American 
middle class. For 86 years, Congress has failed to pass any meaningful 
private-sector labor law reform to reverse these devastating trends.
  The decline of union membership has resulted in an unequal economy 
where workers no longer receive a fair share of the profits they 
produce. But we can change that starting today.
  The PRO Act protects workers' rights to unite and negotiate for 
higher pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions. By passing 
the PRO Act, we empower workers to fight for the fruits of their labor 
and build an economy that works for all Americans.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the working people of 
this Nation and vote for the PRO Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 842.
  This bill would be the most drastic change to labor law this country 
has seen in the past 80 years. It would severely upend labor laws and 
change

[[Page H1143]]

long-established precedents at the behest of Democrats and their Big 
Labor donors and at the expense of hardworking Americans.
  This bill would take away the flexibility of workers to choose their 
own work hours, place onerous burdens on small business, restrict the 
ability of employers to seek labor relations advice, and violate 
workers' privacy by giving labor organizations access to their contact 
information without consent.
  This bill would also undermine the ability of States to choose their 
own labor laws by striking down the right-to-work laws of 27 States.
  As a member of the Wisconsin Senate, I authored the right-to-work 
bill that became law. I can attest firsthand to what the consequences 
would be if these laws were struck down.
  Striking down State right-to-work laws would force millions of 
workers to pay dues to labor unions without any say about how their 
money was spent.
  I offered an amendment to this bill that would prevent union dues 
from being used for political purposes. It is yet to be seen whether 
Democrats will support union bosses or hardworking Americans.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is 
available on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cicilline). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 21\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 20\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. MRVAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for this time and 
opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right 
to Organize Act.
  Unions are the backbone of northwest Indiana's economy, and we must 
do all we can to strengthen the ability for all workers to form unions. 
For far too long, State and Federal policies have targeted union 
workers and their ability to position themselves and leverage.
  Today, we change that. Today, we have the backs of working families. 
When workers can stand together and form a union, they have the ability 
to use their collective voice for fair wages, safe working conditions, 
improved health benefits, and a more secure retirement.
  Organized labor is essential to creating opportunities for all 
individuals to have a good-paying career where they can take care of 
themselves and their families.
  I believe that the divide in our Nation is by workers believing they 
will be left behind. The PRO Act will lift up workers and unite 
workers.
  I thank Chairman Scott for this time, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support the PRO Act so that we can move forward in creating an 
economy that works for everyone.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International 
Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers.


                International Union of Bricklayers and Allied 
                                                 Craftworkers,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
       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. 842. The PRO Act is historic 
     legislation that will help level the playing field and 
     provide workers the opportunity to freely exercise their 
     right to organize a union. President Biden captured this 
     fundamental principle clearly and succinctly when he told 
     America's workers and companies that ``The choice to join a 
     union is up to the workers--full stop.''
       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 worker's 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn).
  Mr. CAWTHORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PRO Act.
  You see, when I came to Washington, D.C., I believed that I had one 
duty, one purpose, that I was elected to serve my district, my people, 
and to answer to nobody else except my constituents.
  But since arriving in Congress, I have learned that not everyone 
shares the same philosophy. You see, I have come to realize that this 
body is oftentimes more interested in self-service than in public 
service, that corporate donors come before constituents, and that a 
union boss is more important than an American worker.
  The right to work is as intrinsically American as the right to vote. 
No man or woman should be denied the fruits of his labor simply because 
they refuse to toe a partisan line. Each man and woman ought to be 
granted the dignity and respect to decide his own destiny.
  This bill strips the right of self-determination away from the people 
and places it directly into the hands of the powerful. It is a shameful 
display of the very type of self-service that disgusts nearly every 
American outside of Washington, D.C.
  This vote will reveal much about who we are elected to serve. Are we, 
as representatives of the people, elected to serve union management or 
our constituents?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with labor unions that, 
throughout history, have fought the greed of their bosses and 
corporations in order to have a better life.
  I rise in solidarity with workers in the Marathon Petroleum plant in 
Minnesota who are striking for safer working conditions and with the 
workers at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, Walker Art Center, and 
many more workplaces that have recently unionized in my district.
  I rise in solidarity with the 5,800 mostly Black workers in Alabama 
who are currently fighting one of the most predatory corporations in 
the world, Amazon, to form a union.
  Labor unions have been the driving force for all positive change for 
workers in modern history. As a former union member myself, I can 
attest to the power that workers wield when they exercise their right 
to organize. That is why we need the PRO Act and why we must pass it 
this week and pressure the Senate to do the same.
  The PRO Act puts power back where it belongs, in the hands of 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from National Nurses 
United.


                                       National Nurses United,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
       Dear Representative, The House of Representatives is 
     scheduled to vote on H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to 
     Organize (PRO) Act this week. On behalf of the 170,000 nurses 
     represented by National Nurses United, the largest union of 
     registered nurses in the United States, we strongly urge you 
     to vote YES on the PRO Act, which would implement critical 
     improvements to current labor law in order to protect the 
     right for workers to organize collectively and form a union.
       A union gives workers the ability to act together to 
     advocate for safe working conditions, to improve their wages 
     and benefits, and to protect their workplace rights through 
     collective bargaining and concerted activity. For registered 
     nurses, union advocacy and representation allow us to focus 
     on what we do best: caring for our patients. Across the 
     country, nurses have been subject to intimidation and 
     retaliation from their employers because of their efforts to 
     unionize. The PRO Act would provide critical protections for 
     nurses who want to organize collectively.
       The dire need for this legislation has been made all the 
     more clear during this pandemic as nurses have been forced to 
     struggle

[[Page H1144]]

     together for the most basic safety protections at their 
     hospitals and clinics. The formation of a union in the 
     hospital not only offers protections to nurses and other 
     health care workers, but just as importantly, it leads to 
     health and safety protections that improve patient care. For 
     example, union organizing has led to improvements in 
     infectious disease protocols, staffing levels, workplace 
     violence prevention programs, and safe patient handling 
     programs, all of which directly improve patient care.
       Attacks on unions and the right to unionize have hurt 
     efforts to protect patient care in the hospital, and to 
     improve the lives of working families outside the hospital. 
     While the latest Gallup poll shows support for unions at its 
     highest point since 2003, with 65% of Americans approving of 
     labor unions, these attacks on unions and the right to 
     organize have continued unabated. The PRO Act would provide 
     the legislative reform needed to protect American workers.
       The PRO Act would have a direct impact on registered nurses 
     and all other workers by making the following improvements to 
     current labor law:
       Prevent employers from interfering in union elections, 
     including prohibiting employers from holding captive audience 
     meetings;
       Facilitate first contracts by requiring mediation and 
     arbitration to settle disputes;
       Strengthen support for workers who suffer retaliation and 
     require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to 
     immediately seek an injunction to reinstate employees while 
     their cases are pending;
       Prevent employers from forcing employees to waive their 
     right to collective or class-action litigation;
       Close loopholes in the federal labor law that allows 
     employers to deny pay, benefits, or workers' rights to 
     employees;
       Put an end to the misclassification of employees as 
     supervisors or independent contractors;
       Enhance the right to support boycotts, strikes, and other 
     acts of solidarity.
       This legislation is of high priority for registered nurses 
     across the country, and we hope you will join with us in 
     supporting it by voting yes. If you have any questions, 
     please do not hesitate to contact our Lead Legislative 
     Advocate.
           Sincerely,
     Bonnie Castillo, RN,
       Executive Director, National Nurses United.
     Deborah Burger, RN,
       President, National Nurses United.
     Zenei Cortez, RN,
       President, National Nurses United.
     Jean Ross, RN,
       President, National Nurses United.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa 
(Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Foxx for yielding time 
for me to speak today.
  Even though I have family members who are members of unions, I rise 
today to speak in opposition to H.R. 842, the PRO Act.
  The PRO Act is an unnecessary challenge to the rights of business 
owners and workers alike. The legislation would eliminate right-to-work 
laws across our country, and Iowa has one of those. It is yet another 
attempt to attack States' rights.
  Abolishing these laws would force workers to participate in and pay 
dues to unions, even if they don't wish to be represented or support a 
union's political philosophy.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared about workers' 
rights, why did this administration cancel the Keystone Pipeline and 
open our borders to a crisis?
  Additionally, this bill would strike down other worker protections, 
including their ability to hold secret ballot elections and to be heard 
by the National Labor Relations Board, and would create burdensome 
guidelines for determining joint employment and independent contractor 
status.
  We need to do more to support our workers and businesses and do it in 
a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the prounion boss 
act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano), a member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor and chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Over the years, Republicans and wealthy corporate interests have 
chipped away at labor rights, stripping workers of their power and 
worsening economic inequality in the process.
  Since March 2020, as the pandemic has ravaged our communities, 
billionaires' wealth has grown by $1.3 trillion. Meanwhile, millions of 
Americans are still unemployed, and working families are struggling to 
pay for food, rent, medical bills, and other basic necessities.
  It is time to put an end to antiunion activities. They are illegal 
power grabs by antilabor special interests that put profits over the 
needs of working people.
  On our path to economic recovery, unions will offer us a way to build 
back our middle class stronger than ever before. Let's pass this bill 
to give more power to American workers, reduce economic inequality, and 
support working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from The Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights in support of the Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act of 2021.
                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
     Vote Yes on H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize 
         Act of 2021.

       Dear Representative, On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse 
     membership of more than 220 national organizations to promote 
     and protect the civil and human rights of all person in the 
     United States, we urge you to vote YES on H.R. 842, the 
     Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021. 
     Protecting the right to collectively bargain is a top 
     priority for the civil and human rights community, and The 
     Leadership Conference will include your vote on H.R. 842 in 
     our Voting Record for the 117th Congress.
       Economic security is inextricably linked to civil and human 
     rights, and enabling working people to exercise the right to 
     form unions and engage in meaningful collective bargaining is 
     one of the most effective, efficient, and comprehensive ways 
     to promote economic security for individuals and their 
     families. Unions allow working people to have a stronger 
     voice to advocate for fair wages, safer working conditions, 
     and better workplace standards. A working person covered by a 
     union contract earns, on average, 11.2 percent more in wages 
     than a nonunionized worker in the same sector with similar 
     education and experience, and the gains are even more 
     pronounced for workers of color. Black workers, for example, 
     earn 14 percent more than their non-union counterparts, and 
     Latino workers earn 20 percent more. Unions also help close 
     race and gender wage gaps, and unionized workers enjoy safer 
     workplaces, stronger health care benefits, more predictable 
     work schedules, greater access to paid sick days, and better 
     retirement benefits.
       The benefits of unions have become even more pronounced 
     during the COVID crisis. Too many essential workers during 
     this pandemic have lacked basic protections on the job, 
     leading to thousands of working people becoming infected with 
     the coronavirus, some dying as a result. Many sites of 
     coronavirus outbreaks during the pandemic were at workplaces 
     that offered low-pay and limited, if any, benefits to 
     workforces with large concentrations of people of color, 
     women, and immigrants--communities, who because of decades of 
     systemic discrimination, have fewer resources to withstand a 
     health emergency. Working people with a union, however, were 
     better able to negotiate enhanced health and safety measures, 
     premium pay, and paid sick leave during this crisis. Research 
     also shows that unionized workers have felt less fearful 
     speaking out about health and safety hazards on the job.
       Despite the right to form unions and collectively bargain, 
     attacks on unions have led to a decline in the share of 
     working people covered by collective bargaining agreements 
     over the past 40 years, a trend that has mirrored the rise in 
     income inequality in America. It is clear, however, that 
     working people want to join unions. There is a 400 percent 
     gap between the percentage of working people who say they 
     want a union--48 percent--and the percentage of unionized 
     workers, around 12 percent. Workers want unions because they 
     have seen how having a collective voice allows them to win 
     better pay and benefits, stronger health and safety 
     protections, and more fairness on the job. The PRO Act would 
     streamline the process for forming a union, ensure that new 
     unions are able to negotiate a first collective bargaining 
     agreement, and hold employers accountable when they violate 
     workers' rights.
       Though the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was meant to 
     encourage collective bargaining, in the 80 years since its 
     passage, nearly every amendment to the law has made it harder 
     for working people to form unions. This allows employers to 
     take advantage of weaknesses in the law to undermine the 
     rights of working people, including firing pro-union workers, 
     holding mandatory meetings to bash unions, and refusing to 
     bargain a first contract after a union is formed. These 
     hostile behaviors, which occur at the expense of the 
     employee, are often without consequence for the employer. The 
     PRO Act seeks to remedy this imbalance by bolstering workers' 
     rights and creating accountability for employers that engage 
     in anti-union behavior.
       The PRO Act would reform existing labor laws and protect 
     the right to join a union by:
       Imposing stronger remedies when employers interfere with 
     workers' rights. The PRO

[[Page H1145]]

     Act would institute civil penalties for violations of the 
     NLRA and would also require the National Labor Relations 
     Board (NLRB) to go to court for an injunction to immediately 
     reinstate terminated workers if the NLRB believes an employer 
     has illegally retaliated against workers for union activity. 
     The PRO Act would also 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.
       Strengthening workers' right to join a union and 
     collectively bargain over working conditions. The PRO Act 
     would prohibit employers from holding mandatory anti-union 
     meetings and engaging in other coercive anti-union tactics. 
     The law would establish a process for reaching a first 
     agreement when workers organize, employing mediation, and 
     then, if necessary, binding arbitration. 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. The 
     PRO Act will also help level the playing field for workers by 
     repealing the prohibition on secondary boycotts and 
     prohibiting employers from firing workers during lawful 
     strikes.
       Unrigging the rules that are tilted against workers. The 
     PRO Act tightens the definitions of independent contractor 
     and supervisor to help prevent misclassification and make 
     sure that all eligible workers can 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. 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.
       Through organizing, bargaining, litigation, legislative, 
     and political advocacy, unions and the labor movement have 
     played a significant role in advancing the rights and 
     interests of people of color and women in the workplace and 
     in our society overall. Unions can best play this role when 
     the right of workers to organize and bargain is fully 
     protected and can be freely exercised.
       Working people in America need--and have a right to enjoy--
     the benefits that result from collective bargaining and union 
     membership. We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 842, the 
     Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, to help ensure 
     that working people are paid fairly, treated with dignity, 
     and have a voice on the job.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       Interim President and CEO.
     LaShawn Warren,
       Executive Vice President for Government Affairs.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger.)
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the PRO 
Act.
  The bill is nothing more than a payoff to union bosses at the expense 
of the American workers and our businesses.
  This bill would abolish States' right-to-work laws, like ours in 
Tennessee. This would force workers to give money to unions from their 
hard-earned paychecks, even if they don't want union representation.
  Where do these union contributions end up?
  Well, let me tell you: with left-wing political activist groups. $1.6 
billion--and that is billion, with a B--in union member dues went to 
these groups between 2010 and 2018 alone.
  Last week, the Democrats passed a bill to direct tax dollars to 
political campaigns. And if that wasn't enough, now they are trying to 
force more workers to pay union dues so union bosses have more cash to 
funnel as political donations to left-wing groups.
  So let me ask you, America: Should Members of Congress be able to 
tell others how to do their jobs and who can employ you? I think not.
  This bill is just another progressive power grab, and American 
workers and businesses deserve better.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the most important pro-
labor legislation in several generations, the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act, otherwise known as the PRO Act.
  For far too long, the deck has been stacked against the right to 
freely organize and collectively bargain. We have seen the result. 
Despite massive gains in productivity and economic growth, working- and 
middle-class American workers' purchasing power and real wages have 
barely moved from where they were 40 years ago. Meanwhile, the gains 
that were created by those workers have flowed overwhelmingly to the 
super wealthy at the very top.
  Let's level the playing field and give America's workers a seat at 
the table. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the PRO Act, and I 
urge the Senate to pass it and get it to the President's desk for 
signature.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will make four points on this bill.
  First of all, under this bill, you can have a vote on unionization 
within under 15--I am told even 11--days of finding out the vote is 
coming. You look at our elections. I know in the State of Wisconsin, 
probably similar, you get over 2\1/2\ months between filing and knowing 
you are going to have an election and actually the election. It is hard 
to believe anybody who really cares about the worker would do that.
  Secondly, your privacy concerns. You are even giving the addresses of 
all of the employees to the unions. This is supposedly the party of 
women. Do you really want to come home at night and have people in your 
driveway wanting to talk to you about an election?
  Third, we are getting rid of the secret ballot. I don't know how 
anybody who cares about anybody would get rid of the secret ballot.
  And, fourth, you have a situation here, when it is unclear whether 
something right or wrong happened, automatically you go to a union. So 
you can have a situation here in which the majority of people did not 
vote for a union, and the government bureaucrat says, automatically, 
you are unionized.
  And one final comment: For people talking about purchasing power, the 
most recent COVID bill is a strange bill. Your purchasing power is 
going down.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on Education and Labor.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
                                         International Alliance of


                                   Theatrical Stage Employees,

                                      New York, NY, March 8, 2021.
     Re H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

       Dear Representative: I write to you on behalf of the over 
     127,000 American members of the International Alliance of 
     Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) to urge you to support 
     H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, and 
     to oppose any weakening amendments or motion to recommit when 
     the U.S. House of Representatives considers the bill this 
     week.
       The IATSE proudly represents behind-the-scenes workers in 
     all forms of live theater, motion picture and television 
     production, trade shows and exhibitions, television 
     broadcasting, and concerts, as well as the equipment and 
     construction shops that support these areas of the 
     entertainment industry. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has put 
     millions out of work and threatens the safety of countless 
     others. Over the course of the last year, we have seen that 
     belonging to a union can, quite literally, be the difference 
     between life and death on the job. The time to act is now.
       Labor unions are under assault, with policies across the 
     country undermining workers' collective bargaining rights and 
     stripping union workers of the wages, benefits, and 
     retirement security they deserve. The PRO Act would help 
     level the playing field in an economy pillaged by inequality 
     and anti-worker legislation and would make the freedom to 
     negotiate collectively a reality for millions of American 
     workers.
       The PRO Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support 
     last year, 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 safe workplace and protection against 
     discrimination.
       Among its key provisions, the PRO Act gives the National 
     Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority to ensure employers 
     not only negotiate in good faith but incur financial and 
     legal penalties for union-busting. The status quo gives 
     employers perverse incentives to lie, threaten, and coerce 
     workers out of joining a union. They routinely fire union 
     supporters and force workers to attend mandatory ``captive 
     audience meetings'' where they slander union membership.
       Too often, when workers choose to form a union, employers 
     stall the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement. 
     The

[[Page H1146]]

     PRO Act would establish a process for mediation and 
     arbitration to help the parties achieve a first contract. 
     Employers would also be prohibited from hiding behind 
     subcontractors, or deliberately misclassifying employees as 
     independent contractors, to evade their responsibilities of 
     providing a livable wage, health benefits, or safe work 
     environment.
       The bill protects the right to strike and makes it illegal 
     for bosses to fire and replace workers who walk off the job 
     in protest of better conditions. Workers must be allowed to 
     picket and withhold their labor in order to have the power 
     necessary to improve their workplaces.
       Finally, this crucial piece of legislation eliminates the 
     ``right-to-work'' laws of the Jim Crow era that enable union 
     ``free riders'' and ultimately put lives at risk. Each year, 
     dubious special interest groups and their billionaire funders 
     push these laws to give corporations even greater power at 
     the expense of American workers. The last seven decades have 
     shown that people in states with right-to-work laws receive 
     lower wages and reduced access to quality health care and 
     retirement security.
       The passage of the PRO Act is an important step to 
     rebuilding America's working class, not just from the policy 
     failures of the last few decades, but also the ongoing COVID-
     19 pandemic. This crisis has shown the importance of having a 
     voice in the workplace and support for labor unions is at a 
     historic high. Recent studies have found that nearly half of 
     all nonunion workers, more than 60 million people, would join 
     a union today if given the chance. This is that chance. That 
     is why I urge you to support the PRO Act when it comes before 
     you for a vote on the House floor.
       Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Matthew D. Loeb,
                                          International President.

  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, the PRO Act puts workers first.
  During the COVID-19 pandemic, almost all of the critical sectors of 
our economy that have remained open and functioning have relied on 
union labor and union workers. They are our frontline workers.
  We depend on frontline workers in our hospitals, in our transit 
systems, in our classrooms, our schools, in our essential businesses, 
like supermarkets and corner stores. Frontline workers are, indeed, 
essential workers.
  Every time you go to any of my neighborhoods in Harlem, East Harlem, 
Hamilton Heights, Washington Heights, Inwood, and the northwest Bronx, 
you find these essential workers, 24/7, working to support their 
families and our communities.
  The PRO Act puts workers first with the respect and protections and 
security that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the PRO 
Act. No more lip service. No more empty promises. Let's vote for the 
PRO Act today.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
  Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842.
  Like many other bills in this Congress, the majority has rushed this 
bill to the floor with no deliberation in committee.
  To be clear, I have never opposed union rights to organize. In fact, 
I have worked with them on some valid issues. However, this bill, among 
its many concerning provisions, denies States' rights.
  As a former State senator, I believe it is unconstitutional to deny 
my State of Indiana and our constituents the ability to decide for 
themselves whether to join a union.
  In short, the PRO Act is an antibusiness, antiworker, and antifree 
enterprise socialist agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
radical bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the United 
States House of Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we gather here today to pass the PRO Act, 
we are engaged in a great act of patriotism for our country.
  The middle class is the backbone of our democracy. The middle class 
in America has a union label on it. So as we move to strengthen 
collective bargaining and the rest, we are strengthening our middle 
class and our democracy. For that reason, I rise with great pride as 
the House takes this historic patriotic step forward for our workers 
and for justice and fairness in America.
  I thank Chairman  Bobby Scott, the chair of the Education and Labor 
Committee, for his leadership in the PRO Act, among other things, and 
his lifelong dedication to fighting for working families.
  That is what unifies us as Democrats. With all of our differences, 
our unity springs from our commitment to making progress for America's 
working families.
  This progress is possible, because just over 4 months ago, Americans 
went to the polls and elected President Biden, a champion of workers, 
whose commitment to families' health and financial security is in his 
DNA.
  The elected Democratic majorities in Congress know that unions are 
the backbone of our Nation. And as I have said for many years, the 
middle class has a union label on it. It bears repeating.
  Now, House Democrats are honoring that truth by, tomorrow, passing 
the American Rescue Plan, which honors our heroes, healthcare workers, 
first responders, transportation, sanitation, food workers, and our 
teachers, many of them members of unions.
  Today, we are passing the crown jewel of our pro-worker agenda, the 
PRO Act.
  Again, under the American Rescue Plan, we have a very significant 
provision for pensions.
  The PRO Act restores and strengthens the powers of unions to fight 
for better wages and working conditions, which is both a moral and 
economic imperative for building back better--building back our economy 
better.
  Unions pave the way for bigger paychecks for all, over the last 80 
years, consistently providing workers with 10 to 20 percent higher 
wages, benefits so strong that even nonunion workers receive better 
wages.
  Unions deliver greater access to affordable healthcare and a secure 
retirement. Workers represented by a union are significantly more 
likely to have access to health insurance through work and five times 
as likely to have a defined benefit pension--and that, with Mr. Scott's 
leadership, is a significant part of the American Rescue Plan, which we 
will pass either later today, depending on how long it takes in the 
Rules Committee, or tomorrow at the latest.
  Vitally, unions are a force for justice. Union members of color have 
almost five times the median wealth of their nonunion counterparts, and 
unions are one of the most effective tools for closing the gender pay 
gap. That is something I am so proud of and so grateful to organized 
labor for, because they have done more to close the gender pay gap than 
any organization you can name, except possibly, pretty soon, this 
Congress may vote to have equal pay for equal work. That is something 
we have passed in the House; hopefully, we can pass it in the Senate.
  Yet today, unions face a brutal and existential assault waged from 
courthouses, State houses, and even this House: from the disastrous 
Supreme Court ruling in Janus, which trampled over the freedoms of more 
than 17 million public workers; to so-called right-to-work laws, which 
give employers the right to gut unions; to the GOP tax scam, giving 83 
percent of the benefits to corporations and the wealthy and raising 
taxes on 86 million middle-class families.
  Let me just say that that GOP tax scam, which cost about $1.9 
trillion--I will talk about this later, but I want to mention it here 
every chance I get. Their tax scam cost about $1.9 trillion, exactly 
what this bill invests in, and this bill takes half the kids in America 
who are poor, out of poverty, a third of the people in poverty out of 
poverty, invests in working-class families, puts vaccines in people's 
arms, children back in school safely, money in people's pockets, and, 
again, people back to work. It is something that will grow the economy, 
as opposed to their tax scam, which just heaped mountains of debt onto 
future generations.

  They didn't complain when it cost $1.9 trillion to give a tax break 
to the rich. They are just complaining when we are trying to lift the 
American people up in the time of a pandemic, as well as the economic 
crisis that accompanies it.
  At the same time of all this, workers seeking to organize a union 
face a surge of intimidation and retaliation from the employers and 
special interests. In fact, employers are charged with violating 
Federal law in the majority of all union election campaigns involving 
more than 60 employees. In

[[Page H1147]]

one out of five union election campaigns, employers are charged with 
illegally firing a worker participating in a union activity. Year in 
and year out, big corporate employers get away with their crimes. No 
accountability, no consequence; just full impunity.
  We must strengthen the power of unions to negotiate for what they 
need and deserve, which is why, today, we are passing the PRO Act, 
because what they need and deserve is what America's workers need and 
deserve.
  The most comprehensive, consequential pro-worker legislation in over 
80 years, the PRO Act empowers workers to exercise their basic right to 
organize, including by giving workers the power to override right-to-
work laws and streamlining access to justice for workers who are 
retaliated against.
  It holds employers accountable, reversing an unacceptable status quo 
in which there are no monetary penalties for companies that violate 
workers' rights, no matter how repeated or egregious the violation.

                              {time}  1330

  And it strengthens workers' access to fair and free union elections, 
fixing a process that is fundamentally rigged against workers so that 
they, not employers, can decide for themselves whether to join a union.
  This legislation will make a tremendous difference in workers' lives, 
helping combat the acceleration of economic inequality that undermines 
the middle class, which has only grown worse over the past year.
  In this past year, the rich have gotten so much richer. Let me tell 
you how much. During the first 4 months of the pandemic, while workers 
suffered record high unemployment, Mr. Speaker, American billionaires' 
wealth grew by $931 billion. Extraction of money to the top.
  The PRO Act is part of the Democrats' mission not only to recover 
from this time of crisis, but to Build Back Better, advancing an 
economy that works for every American in every ZIP Code.
  As the AFL-CIO, representing over 12 million workers, writes, ``In 
the midst of a global pandemic, which has killed tens of thousands of 
frontline workers, it is more important than ever that working people 
have the right to rely on the protection of a union contract. The PRO 
Act will level the playing field to give workers a fair shot when 
fighting for improvements on the job . . . The PRO Act is the first 
step to restoring our middle class.''
  As we pass the PRO Act, Democrats will continue our work to pass a 
$15 minimum wage, secure paycheck fairness for women--that is coming up 
in a couple of weeks--protect pensions--tomorrow--and lower healthcare 
costs and increase paychecks for all.
  I have a sweater that one of my friends gave me, and it says ``We 
don't agonize, we organize.'' So I want to also embroider on there, 
``We don't agonize, we organize, we unionize,'' because that is the way 
that we are going to level the playing field for America's workers.
  For America's workers and middle class and for the financial security 
of all Americans, I urge a strong bipartisan vote on the PRO Act.
  I thank the gentleman again, our distinguished chair, Mr. Scott, for 
his leadership.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we know that hyperbole is the strong suit of 
Democrats, but how anyone can say that giving freedom to workers to 
join or not join a union is trampling the rights of workers takes 
hyperbole to new heights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to this 
bill, which would cripple American entrepreneurs and workers, just the 
opposite of what we should be doing to stimulate an economy.
  Workers already have the right to organize under Federal law, as they 
should, but the PRO Act takes the extreme step of forcing unionization 
onto workers who do not wish to be a part of a union.
  And just like the recent $2 trillion spending spree, Democrats are 
ramming this partisan bill through with no Republican input. We didn't 
even have a committee hearing to examine its harmful effects, including 
an estimated $47 billion on job creators.
  Unfortunately, one of my commonsense amendments--to preserve a 
longstanding ban on secondary boycotts--was blocked by the Democrat 
majority.
  Democrats would be wise to heed President Biden's message of unity 
and work with Republicans to help our economy. Instead, they are back 
this week with more partisan bills designed to appease left-wing 
special interest groups. American workers deserve better.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bowman), the vice chair of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, we live in a country where CEOs can make as 
much as 320 times what their workers make. We live in a country where 1 
percent--the top 1 percent economically controls more wealth than the 
bottom 90 percent of our country. We live in a country where three 
individuals own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of our Nation. 
In a democracy with a Constitution such as ours, this economic 
inequality cannot stand.
  The PRO Act seeks to empower workers, workers who built this country 
with their blood, sweat, and tears, who work overtime and extra time 
and weekends and do not take a vacation so that our economy can thrive. 
The PRO Act gives workers the opportunity to unionize and organize 
without being oppressed within the plantation capitalist system. I rise 
to ask bipartisan support of this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for this 
legislation from the United Food and Commercial Workers International 
Union.


                                                         UFCW,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.


              TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

     Re UFCW Action: Vote YES on H.R. 8421 | Protecting the Right 
         to Organize (PRO) Act.
       Dear Senator and/or Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 
     million members of the United Food and Commercial Workers 
     International Union (UFCW), I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the 
     Protecting the Right to Organize Act when it comes to the 
     House floor and oppose any motions to reconsider or weaking 
     amendments. UFCW members are essential frontline workers 
     risking their lives to keep food on our tables, grocery 
     shelves stocked, and our prescriptions filled during this 
     pandemic. By strengthening the right to organize, 
     collectively bargain, and keep our workplaces safe, the PRO 
     Act will provide a better life for our current and future 
     members. We will be scoring this vote.
       Workers face many difficulties on the job including 
     hazardous working conditions, diminishing value of benefits, 
     and stagnating wages. The best way for workers to increase 
     workplace safety, wages, and benefits is to form a union--
     however, the right to organize has been eroded. The PRO Act 
     would modernize the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to 
     strengthen the rights of workers to organize, place 
     meaningful penalties on employers who violate workers' 
     rights, and return power to workers to bargaining for fairer 
     wages, benefits, and working conditions.
       The UFCW believes that restoring our middle class is 
     dependent on strengthening the collective strength of workers 
     to negotiate for better pay and benefits. Please vote ``yes'' 
     on the PRO Act and help us build an economy that works for 
     all working families.
           Sincerely,
     Anthony M. Perrone,
       International President.
     Shaun Barclay,
       International Secretary-Treasurer.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Fulcher).
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842, the so-
called PRO Act. This bill undermines worker privacy, forces independent 
contractors to become employees, and overturns right-to-work laws in 27 
States, including my home State of Idaho.
  The bill obstructs workers from getting rid of corrupt unions by 
blocking or delaying elections from taking place due to frivolous 
lawsuits.
  Now, I have an amendment. It is unlikely to see the light of day. So 
I will mention it here. It protects the worker's right to vote. Under 
my amendment, if an unfair labor practice charge

[[Page H1148]]

is made, the election still takes place, with ballots secured by the 
National Labor Relations Board until the charge is resolved.
  Now, make no mistake, H.R. 842 would still be a bad bill, but at 
least my amendment would ensure union elections take place as 
scheduled, prioritizing worker rights over the unionization process.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment was 
made in order, so we will be considering it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Adams), the chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
  Workers, especially people of color, built this country, and they 
have kept it afloat. Never has that truth been more evident than now, 
as we grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Despite their essential roles in our society, though, we have seen 
workers' rights systematically suppressed for decades, including the 
fundamental right to ban together to organize and to advocate for fair 
treatment, for fair pay, and benefits for safe and healthy work 
environments, and for the respect and dignity they are due as working 
people, let alone the backbone of our economy.
  But, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, let's be clear. This is not just 
about fairness. It is about justice, economic justice. Workers, 
especially women and people of color, have driven economic growth in 
this country, but have seen the fruit of their labor concentrating and 
accumulating in the hands of the wealthiest. In other words, their 
work, their sacrifice has not trickled down.
  Enough is enough. Workers deserve their share. They deserve justice. 
I strongly support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Laborers' 
International Union of North America.


                                                       LiUNA!,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 500,000 members of 
     the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), I 
     write to ask you to support H.R. 842, the Protecting the 
     Right to Organize (PRO) Act, when it comes to the House floor 
     for a vote. The right to join a union is critical to ensure 
     that workers receive fair pay and benefits and safe jobsites. 
     The PRO Act will expand the National Labor Relations Act 
     (NLRA) to ensure that workers and unions have real, 
     enforceable protections under the law.
       One of the most significant problems with the NLRA is the 
     absence of effective remedies for workers against employers 
     who break the law. Often, employers fire union supporters to 
     defeat union organizing efforts, knowing that the penalty is 
     low, only lost wages, and even that is reduced by the amount 
     the worker earns on any other work that he or she finds after 
     getting fired. H.R. 842 will address this serious problem by 
     authorizing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to 
     impose penalties of up to $50,000 for unfair labor practices.
       The PRO Act strengthens enforcement of the NLRA in other 
     important ways. For example, the PRO Act allows workers to 
     exercise First Amendment rights to free speech against so-
     called secondary employers. It strengthens workers' and 
     unions' representational rights and protects immigrants' 
     labor rights. Significantly, it adopts the so-called ABC test 
     for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. 
     Under the Bill, a person is an independent contractor only if 
     the individual is free from the employer's control and 
     direction, the service is outside the normal course of the 
     employer's business, and the individual is customarily 
     engaged in an independently established trade or business. 
     H.R. 842 will also prevent employers from misclassifying 
     workers as supervisors and will establish that employers with 
     control over employees are held responsible for their actions 
     in the workplace, including users of temp agencies. This 
     addresses an important circumstance, since three million 
     people are employed daily by temp agencies. The PRO Act would 
     also ban captive audience meetings, giving workers the power 
     and freedom to decide for themselves if union representation 
     is right for them. Importantly, the PRO Act would push back 
     on the recent so-called right to work laws, which harm unions 
     and our members, by allowing unions to recover fair share 
     fees covering the costs of collective bargaining and 
     representation.
       For these reasons, and for the many other improvements to 
     labor law in the Bill, LIUNA supports the PRO Act and asks 
     you to vote yes when it comes to the House floor.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Terry O'Sullivan,
                                                General President.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Steel).
  Mrs. STEEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the PRO Act.
  The PRO Act strips people of their right to work and comes at a time 
when our economy has been transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now 
more than ever, people need more flexibility and independence to work 
in the capacity they see fit, not less.
  Independent contractors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses in my 
home State of California already understand the devastating effects AB-
5 had on their ability to provide for their families. Even in 
California, they realized there needed to be exceptions for certain 
industries. The PRO Act makes no such exceptions.
  The blanket approach that proved to be a disaster in California is 
certainly guaranteed to cause more harm to workers at the national 
level.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided 
legislation and to preserve our constituents' rights to work.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the PRO Act, which 
protects a worker's right to join a union.
  This is not just an issue of economic justice, as we seek to restore 
power to the people, as we experience an era of entrenched corporate 
power, and as members of this very body dare to debate the need for a 
$15 minimum wage.
  This is also an issue of racial justice. History shows that unions 
help to reduce the racial wage gap by empowering Black and Brown 
workers to fight for better pay and better working conditions; but, due 
to Republican policies, much of that progress has been lost.
  Today, we are seeing the increasing exploitation of workers of color. 
Antiunion policies have hurt Black and Brown workers the most. Today, 
people of color are the most likely to be exploited by greedy 
corporations.
  We cannot achieve racial justice without economic justice, and we 
can't achieve economic justice without protecting all of our workers 
and their right to organize.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this proworker bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
842, the prounion bosses' act.
  First off, Americans have the right to organize and join a union if 
they choose to do so, and United States law has protected this freedom 
for over 80 years.
  My father was a machinist and a union organizer for part of his 
career, and I worked for a time at U.S. Steel South Works on the south 
side of Chicago, a union steelworker.
  Unions have and can still play a valuable role in our Nation's 
workforce. However, any reforms we make to our labor laws should put 
workers first. Unfortunately, the radical, partisan legislation we are 
considering today grants unprecedented power to union leaders at the 
expense of workers.
  We have seen what can happen when union leaders abuse the trust of 
their rank-and-file members. Most recently, a Federal investigation 
into the United Autoworkers revealed an extensive and long-lasting 
effort by two former UAW presidents and their subordinates to embezzle 
over $1.5 million in UAW money for their personal benefit.
  Sadly, the sweeping proposals of this bill will only increase the 
likelihood of abuse similar.
  Mr. Speaker, the hardworking families we represent deserve better 
than the legislation before us. Let's elevate and protect the rights of 
workers with a union that serves them instead of tipping the scales 
against them in favor of special interests and union leaders who serve 
themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 842.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reference was made to union 
officials at the UAW. They were caught and prosecuted under present 
law. The Trump administration that prosecuted them did not make any 
recommendations for changes in the law.

[[Page H1149]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of the PRO Act. And what a 
perfect acronym it is, because this bill is, indeed, proworker, 
procapitalism, proeconomic recovery, profamily, prowomen, just pro-
American.
  I am proud to represent a State with a large union presence, a large 
organized labor presence that has over 161,000 union members, just as I 
am proud to vote for this bill.
  We have seen firsthand how unions enable workers to have better pay, 
better benefits, better working conditions. Unions also help address 
the gender wage gap and promote diversity. Indeed, they are the tide 
that lifts all ships; yet, across the country, the right to unionize 
has come under assault.
  In the face of these attacks, the PRO Act is the strongest upgrade to 
workers' collective bargaining rights in nearly a century.

                              {time}  1345

  It will empower workers to exercise their rights and hold employers 
accountable when they try to stand in the way.
  I include in the Record a letter from UNITE HERE also in support of 
the PRO Act.
                                                       Unitehere!,


                                      Office of the President,

                                     Las Vegas, NV, March 9, 2021.
     Re Support the PRO Act (H.R. 842).

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I urge you to support the Protecting 
     the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, H.R. 842. Like President 
     Biden, the workers we organize in the casino, hotel, and food 
     service industries believe the union is the path to the 
     middle class. The PRO Act will remove many obstacles to 
     joining a union and achieving a union contract through 
     collective bargaining. It will give millions of workers a 
     real opportunity to lift up themselves and their families 
     into the American middle class.
       One of the most significant provisions of the PRO Act is to 
     introduce meaningful, enforceable penalties for breaking 
     federal labor law. President Biden has spoken forcefully for 
     the need to hold corporate executives personally accountable 
     for interfering in union elections and violating other labor 
     laws. We should hold corporate decision makers personally 
     responsible in order to protect employees against illegal 
     anti-union actions just as we hold executives responsible in 
     order to protect investors against illegal financial 
     reporting practices under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
       In Las Vegas, workers at the Station Casinos chain have 
     fought for over a decade to unionize. These workers--cooks, 
     food servers, bartenders, cocktail servers, porters, hotel 
     housekeepers--have seen their efforts thwarted every step of 
     the way by Station Casinos. The company and its two 
     billionaire owners have faced little consequence for the 
     company's long-running anti-union campaign of threats, 
     intimidation, promises, and other interference in employees' 
     efforts to exercise their right to join a union as well as 
     Trumpian refusals to recognize workers' democratic decisions 
     to unionize without costly litigation. The experience of 
     Station Casinos workers shows exactly why it is vitally 
     important to pass the PRO Act to provide for real penalties 
     to corporate and executive wrongdoing when it comes to worker 
     rights.
       In September 2012, the National Labor Relations Board ruled 
     that Station Casinos broke the law dozens of times in its 
     initial response to worker organizing at its Las Vegas 
     casinos. As a remedy, the NLRB required the company to post a 
     notice at all its properties promising not to do so again. 
     Given this mere slap on the wrist by the government, it is 
     perhaps unsurprising that Station Casinos would continue to 
     use certain of the same tactics to oppose unionization that 
     it promised it would not engage in.
       Notwithstanding their employer's opposition, Station 
     Casinos workers persevered and won NLRB-conducted 
     representation elections at several of the companies' 
     properties. They did so amidst Station Casinos' ongoing anti-
     union campaign: at Boulder Station, 67% of workers voted Yes 
     to joining the union in September 2016; 78% voted Yes for the 
     union at Green Valley Ranch Casino in November 2017; 83% 
     voted Yes at Palms Casino in April 2018; 82% voted Yes at 
     Sunset Station in June 2019; 85% voted Yes at Fiesta Rancho 
     Casino in June 2019; and 57% voted Yes at Fiesta Henderson 
     Casino in September 2019.
       But these election victories have not led to bargaining 
     victories. Station Casinos refused to accept the results of 
     several of these landslide results. Instead it mounted a 
     time-consuming litigation campaign through the NLRB and, in 
     two instances, the courts, seeking to overturn workers' 
     democratic choices. It did so despite public statements that 
     it would respect the results of NLRB elections.
       Even after Station Casinos stopped litigating election 
     results and started to negotiate with the union, it has made 
     massive unilateral changes in what the Union alleges is an 
     effort to frustrate the possibility of reaching collective 
     bargaining agreements. While the Union expects that the 
     NLRB's Acting General Counsel's office will do everything in 
     his power to address these alleged unfair labor practices, he 
     still has no better remedies available to him than when 
     Station Casinos was first cited with lawbreaking in 2012.
       Years of facing no real consequences culminated in a 
     frenzied campaign by Station Casinos to stop workers at its 
     largest property, Red Rock Resort, from voting for the union 
     in December 2019. The company's action was so brazen and 
     egregious that the NLRB is currently seeking a rare federal 
     court injunction against it. But it should not have gotten to 
     this point for there to be potentially real consequences for 
     a company that repeatedly breaks federal labor law. 
     Recidivism should have consequences.
       Station Casinos has been able to attack its employee's 
     federal rights to organize and collectively bargain for years 
     with impunity because the company and its decision makers--
     ultimately its billionaire owners--have not had to pay, 
     literally and figuratively, for management's breaking the 
     law, denying workers' right to organize, and refusing to 
     recognize the democratic decision to unionize.
       The PRO Act would begin to change this unfair situation by 
     putting real teeth into the National Labor Relations Act, 
     including permitting the NLRB to impose personal liability on 
     corporate directors and officers who participate in 
     violations of workers' rights or have knowledge of and fail 
     to prevent such violations. This and other changes are 
     necessary to change the anti-union behavior of those who are 
     insulated from the consequences of lawbreaking by their 
     enormous amount of legal and other resources at their 
     disposal.
       Real monetary penalties and personal liability--including 
     jail time, as President Biden has argued--are what will make 
     corporate decision makers understand that it is the national 
     policy of the United States, enshrined in the National Labor 
     Relations Act, to encourage unionization and collective 
     bargaining. With the PRO Act, we can begin to modernize our 
     legal system to advance American workers' rights to organize 
     and collectively bargain in accordance with that national 
     policy.
       I urge you to vote Yes on the PRO Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                        D. Taylor,
                                                        President.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, unions make American companies 
less efficient, less profitable, less competitive, and they cost 
American jobs.
  I actually worked in a unionized auto factory during college, and I 
saw the problems with unions firsthand.
  Unions protect the unproductive worker; diminish the incentive to 
stand out and be exceptional; treat everyone the same based on 
seniority; encourage an entitlement mentality; and foster an attitude 
of resentment toward management.
  They have outlived their value from when they originated to correct 
what are now unfair and unlawful labor practices.
  Every employee should be inspired to progress within an organization 
without at some point stepping over to the dark side because they 
become stigmatized as a member of management.
  The PRO Act is an example of government, or this very Congress, 
employing its own union boss tactics to try to reverse the Nation's 
downward trend in union membership.
  It is no coincidence that unions are among the biggest contributors 
to the Democrat party with over $200 million given last year alone.
  Every State should be a right-to-work State, and that is what we 
should encourage instead of trying to force union membership on the 
Nation's workers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the aggressive concentration of wealth in 
corporate boardrooms, the unending attacks on unions and their attempts 
to organize, and the passage of so-called right-to-work laws, which we 
now know are really the right-to-deprivation laws, have left America's 
workers begging for scraps, rather than receiving the fair compensation 
and full benefits they deserve.
  My father was a proud member of the Ironworkers Union. He showed up 
every day and worked hard, erecting buildings and bridges across New 
England.
  And while he was at work, he knew that his union was fighting to 
defend him and his brothers and sisters and their families by looking 
out for our interests at the negotiating table.

[[Page H1150]]

  It is thanks to the strong benefits and wages secured by his union 
that my parents were able to provide for my sisters and me.
  The PRO Act is about making sure that other families have that same 
chance. It is about restoring dignity and power to where it belongs: 
with our workers.
  After all, it is our workers who kept us afloat, fed, housed, and 
safe this last year. For that I urge this bill's passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in support of this 
bill.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to vote Yes on the 
     ``Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act'' (H.R. 842). As 
     the largest public-sector union our members believe that all 
     workers, both private and public sector, deserve the right to 
     organize and bargain collectively to improve their working 
     conditions.
       Workers need a voice on the job now more than ever before. 
     Since the beginning of the pandemic, unions have advocated 
     for workers' safety and protections. Nurses, teachers, first 
     responders, bus drivers, grocery store workers and other 
     essential workers were in desperate need of personal 
     protective equipment and the right to use paid leave to self-
     quarantine or take care of someone who might have been 
     affected, which unions fought for. Unions also helped to 
     prevent layoffs and furloughs to save jobs and win additional 
     premium pay and paid sick time.
       The value that unions provide to workers and their families 
     creates a strong middle class that makes the economy work for 
     all Americans. With high unemployment and people struggling 
     to make ends meet, it is important to strengthen workers' 
     rights and the ability to organize. On average, a worker 
     covered by a union contract earns 11.2 percent more in wages 
     than a worker in a nonunion workplace in the same sector. 
     Living wages and benefits with union jobs can lead to job 
     competition with nonunion jobs, helping to strengthen local 
     economies.
       The PRO Act strengthens federal laws that protect workers' 
     rights to organize and collectively bargain for wages, paid 
     leave, health insurance, retirement benefits, and workplace 
     protections and safety. The bill increases penalties for 
     employers that violate workers' rights. It strengthens 
     support for workers who suffer retaliation. It prevents 
     employers from misclassifying employees, and it prohibits 
     employers from interfering in union elections.
       AFSCME strongly urges Congress to pass the PRO Act to build 
     back our country and to get us out of this economic crisis 
     stronger than before.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bailey K. Childers,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill is further proof that there is 
virtually no distinction between the Democratic Party and unions as a 
political organization.
  In 1 week, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are bailing out failed union 
pensions with tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer moneys, and now 
they are forcing States and workers into this failed union system.
  This bill is definitely prounion, but it is antiworker, 
anticompetitive, and antifreedom. This bill forces workers into unions, 
forces them to pay union dues. It deprives them of their right to 
privacy. It forces workers to divulge their personal information to 
their union bosses. What a racket. It would wreak havoc on our workers.
  Talk is cheap, Mr. Speaker, and the American worker isn't buying this 
empty political rhetoric. They understand the best way to protect 
workers is through progrowth, America-first policies that give our 
workers more freedom, more opportunity, and more of their hard-earned 
money in their pockets.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the co-chair of the Labor 
Caucus.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the PRO 
Act.
  This bill supports workers in this country by implementing meaningful 
and enforceable penalties for companies that violate workers' rights.
  It expands accessibility to collective bargaining and closes 
loopholes used to exploit workers while strengthening workers' access 
to fair union elections.
  Unions are the bedrock of our Nation's prosperity and success. Many 
of us have been impacted by their good work. Healthcare benefits, 
pensions, safe working conditions, vacations, and holidays, teacher-to-
student ratios, nurse-to-patient ratios were all negotiated and pushed 
forward by unions. Too many of us take for granted benefits that we 
enjoy because of hard-fought battles by unions.
  A January 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics report highlights that 
nonunion worker median weekly earnings were 84 percent of earnings for 
workers who were union members. Further research also underscores that 
strong unions lead to higher wages for all workers, regardless of their 
union status.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.
         International Federation of Professional & Technical 
           Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,
                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
       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 
     Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, H.R. 842 (PRO 
     Act). The bipartisan PRO Act, sponsored by House Education 
     and Labor Chair Bobby Scott, restores the original intent of 
     the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) and levels 
     the playing field between workers who want to form unions and 
     employers who exploit weaknesses in the current law to 
     frustrate union organizing drives and interfere with workers' 
     legal rights to organize and bargain collectively.
       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 
     50 professionals employed by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) 
     are currently voting by mail to form a union with the 
     Nonprofit Professional Employees Union-IFPTE Local 70 (NPEU) 
     so that they can have a voice in creating a workplace that is 
     anti-racist, cooperative, equitable, inclusive, just, 
     respectful, and transparent. These are attorneys, legislative 
     affairs professionals, and communications professionals whose 
     personal and professional dedication to their work ties their 
     working conditions to ALDF's mission. Unfortunately, the 
     employer's anti-union campaign has included spending 
     undisclosed resources to hire an anti-union firm to engage in 
     some of the very anti-worker behavior that this bill seeks to 
     correct. This includes activities such as weekly coercive 
     union avoidance meetings and anti-union communication filled 
     with misinformation, intimidation aimed at discouraging union 
     activity, as well as misclassifying employees as management 
     ahead of the unionization vote.
       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 
     requirement that employers disclose the hiring of and 
     compensation for anti-union consultants will help workers 
     make informed choices when they receive information from 
     their employers. By clarifying and updating the NLRA's 
     definitions for employee, supervisor, and employer, the PRO 
     Act clarifies the definition of joint employer and closes 
     loopholes that allow employers to misclassify workers. 
     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 NLRA, 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 requests you vote for the 
     PRO Act. We urge you to vote against any amendments that 
     weaken sections of the bill, especially sections that 
     prohibit and prevent the misclassification of workers. 
     Further, IFPTE is hopeful that the Rules Committee makes in 
     order and the House approves Rep. Andy Levin's SAFE Act as a 
     part of the underlying bill. The inclusion of this provision 
     would remove the longstanding NLRB prohibition against 
     administering union elections electronically.
       Thank you for considering our request. Should you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact either of us.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Shearon,
       President.
     Matthew Biggs,
       Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member on the 
committee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PRO Act of 2021.
  Out of many features that would hurt employees and economic growth in 
Arkansas in this bill is a hostile practice

[[Page H1151]]

banned by the National Labor Relations Act of 1959. This bill fully 
resurrects it.
  Yet, these unfair practices continued post-1959 in the construction 
industry.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the Eighth Circuit heard a hot 
cargo agreement case. In exchange for a no-strike pledge, a 
construction firm agreed to perform the work and agreed it would hire 
union workers, but they hired a subcontractor, who, while they didn't 
sign the agreement, agreed to use union labor anyway. They went on 
strike, Mr. Speaker, even though they hired union workers. This is the 
kind of unfair approach that does not deserve to be enshrined in this 
bill. As a result, the contractor received a cease and desist demand 
and workers lost the opportunity to work.
  I tried to amend this bill to remove this hot cargo bad idea, but the 
amendment was rejected by House Democrats.
  This is an example of how this party wants to go back to 1959 and 
instill this for all workers across our Nation. We need to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
  Workers sacrifice so much to keep our country going during this 
pandemic. They risk their safety, and many have lost their lives.
  But workers everywhere are also organizing to improve their working 
conditions and keep our communities safe.
  This bill simply guarantees the right to fight for safety and dignity 
on the job.
  It is for Amazon workers in my neighborhood in Chicago fighting for 
their safety on the warehouse floor; for nurses demanding safe staffing 
levels in hospitals and nursing homes; for rideshare drivers and 
delivery workers who don't even have basic rights at work.
  I urge this body to pass the PRO Act for them and for all of us.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Kim).
  Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Foxx for yielding.
  I rise today in support of our Nation's workers and businesses. We 
must find ways to work together to help our economy recover from COVID-
19.
  However, this bill is not the answer, and it is not even close. This 
bill will nationalize the disastrous California policies that have 
forced businesses out of my State, killed jobs, and hurt workers.
  As we saw in California, businesses that can afford lobbyists 
eventually get carveouts, while small businesses are left holding the 
bag.
  The last thing we should be doing during this time is passing 
legislation that will kill jobs and make our recovery even harder. From 
Uber and Lyft drivers to financial advisers to local artists, we should 
support workers' freedom, our gig economy, and create policies to 
promote innovation.
  We should learn from the failings of AB-5 in California and vote 
``no'' on the PRO Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the earlier speakers said: ``This is 
the most dramatic change in labor law in 80 years.'' And I say: ``Thank 
God.''
  In the late seventies, a CEO's earnings were 35 times that of the 
worker. Today, it is 3 to 400 times what the worker makes. And our 
friends on the other side are running around with their hair on fire.
  Heaven forbid we pass something that is going to help the damn 
workers in the United States of America. Heaven forbid we tilt the 
balance that has been going in the wrong direction for 50 years.
  We talk about pensions. You complain. We talk about the minimum wage 
increase. You complain. We talk about giving them the right to 
organize. You complain. But if we were passing a tax cut here, you 
would all be getting in line to vote ``yes'' for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in support of the PRO 
Act.
                                      International Association of


                             Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

                          Upper Marlboro, Maryland, March 9, 2021.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the International 
     Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, I strongly 
     urge you to support the Protecting the Right to Organize 
     (PRO) Act introduced by Representative Bobby Scott. In a 
     functioning and recovering economy, working families and 
     middle-class Americans cannot be left behind.
       The PRO Act is a crucially bold piece of legislation that 
     modernizes federal laws and expands workers' collective 
     bargaining rights and closes loopholes that corporations use 
     to exploit workers. The bill also 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.
       However, the right to freely form a union without the 
     threat of company intimidation or interference is denied to 
     workers today. The PRO Act strengthens protections for 
     employees that engage in collective action and levels 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.
       Finally, the PRO Act would override 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'' on this long overdue 
     legislation.
           Thank you,
                                             Robert Martinez, Jr.,
                                          International President.
  Mr. RYAN. You need to stop talking about Dr. Seuss and start working 
with us on behalf of the American workers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am using my inside voice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, during their floor speeches today, both 
Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer claimed this bill is for the workers.
  If my Democratic colleagues care so much about American workers, why 
do they support incentivizing millions of illegal immigrants into our 
Nation to take away jobs from American workers?
  Why do they support this bill that could force workers to pay union 
dues even if they don't want to?
  Why do they want to take away Arizona workers' rights under the 
Arizona's right-to-work law?
  This bill is bad for employees. It is bad for employers. And it is 
bad for America. I oppose this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions of the 
Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud former member of Teamsters 
Local 170 in Worcester, Massachusetts, and a former member of AFL-CIO 
Local 2 in San Francisco. From that experience, I know personally the 
value of being a union member.
  I am also a former small business person who knows the value of 
having good-paying jobs in a community represented by union members to 
small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the wealthiest Americans continue to take home a larger 
and larger share of America's wealth. According to Fed data, the top 1 
percent of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, which 
is 15 times more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans. One 
percent has more wealth than 160 million Americans.

                              {time}  1400

  This is unparalleled in our existence and must be addressed if you 
really care about working people. This inequality has contributed to 
what is called diseases of despair by public health experts and has 
worsened the behavioral health crisis exponentially in this country.
  At the same time, union coverage today is half of what it was 40 
years ago, and research shows deunionization

[[Page H1152]]

accounts for up to one-third of the inequality of which I speak.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that deunionization has led 
to working people losing $200 billion per year, and that money goes to 
make inequality greater and goes into the already exceedingly 
disproportionate wealth by those in the 1 percent. It hurts all of us, 
including them.
  Strengthening access to unions and American workers being able to 
organize will help restore the balance of power between workers and 
employers, wages and capital. The research is clear that when workers 
collectively bargain and organize, their pay goes up. On average, a 
worker covered by a union contract earns 13 percent more than a peer in 
a nonunionized workplace.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me the time, 
and I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this initiative.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I heard the majority leader speak about 
something that happened in 1870 and 1880, like the Pinkertons are still 
running around union busting.
  Well, it is not 1870. It is not 1880. It is not even the time of 
President Obama. But during President Obama's time, he proposed the 
ambush election rule, and that is in this bill.
  What does that mean? That means the employer must give up the 
addresses, the contact and personal information, and the working 
schedule of everybody in their facility. And they don't get to say no. 
The people who work there don't get to say no. Even the Obama NLRB said 
that they would be subjected to harassment, coercion, or robbery--or 
robbery.
  Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment, which the majority refused, to 
close the loophole that exempts union violence, coercion, and 
extortion. Think about that, union violence.
  If they have the information of the employees and are prone to 
violence, and if you live in Philadelphia, you just go back to the 
helpful union guy, the helpful union guys, the thugs and the 
presentment.
  Reject this. This is the PRO Act, indeed--protecting corrupt union 
bosses from their own failures. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, the ``thugs.'' Are those the friends of 
the folks who attacked this Capitol? Is that who you are talking about? 
Those are thugs.
  Madam Speaker, for 44 years, I have been a member of the IBEW. My 
brothers went to college. I did the other thing. I went to the other 4-
year school, an apprenticeship. My entire life has been about speaking 
for those voices, those workers who didn't have a voice.
  Listen to this: Employers shouldn't make the decision, and unions 
shouldn't make the decision. Employees make the decision whether or not 
they want to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.
  That is one of the reasons why I and five others formed the Labor 
Caucus, because their voices are not being heard.
  Unlimited money, the total control of the workplace--OSHA injuries 
are much higher on nonunion jobs than union jobs. Why? Because workers 
have a voice. They have better health benefits; they have better 
pensions; they have dignity in retiring.
  Madam Speaker, I have spent 44 years and have been involved with 30 
organizing campaigns. I know what it is like to go out and get those 
cards signed. I know what it is like to have a fair election, and that 
is what we need.
  Fairness in America still counts, and workers have been on the wrong 
end of that deal for so long.
  Madam Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to do what is right for 
America. Pass the PRO Act. We are all in this together.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I thank the 
Honorable  Bobby Scott for the opportunity to be heard. I will be 
terse.
  Madam Speaker, unions protect people. Unions protect people because 
those workers will organize and make sure that there is a safe work 
environment.
  This is important because if not but for the union, many companies 
would simply build into the cost of doing business the injuries that 
may be sustained. I am a member of Local 1550 of AFSCME and proud to 
say it.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because it will save lives.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will 
instruct the Committee on Education and Labor to consider an amendment 
to prohibit labor organizations from encouraging illegal immigrants to 
join their ranks.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Scanlon). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic and onerous 
government restrictions, the last year has been among the toughest for 
working Americans in our Nation's history. Congress' foremost duty 
today is to help the millions of hurting American workers recover their 
lost jobs and wages.

  Madam Speaker, this bill prevents us from fulfilling that duty and, 
instead, prioritizes the interests of illegal immigrants and union 
bosses.
  Madam Speaker, I am the grandson and son of proud union members, and 
my brother works at the same factory in northeast Indiana and belongs 
to the same union that my dad and grandfather and uncles and cousins, 
and many others, have as well.
  So let me tell you, it is a travesty that Democrats think that people 
who broke our Nation's laws deserve the same labor rights as they do. 
This bill, as written, would lessen American citizens' union voting 
power and hand it to people who aren't even legally employed. It goes 
against the very purpose of unions: providing a forum where American 
workers can have a voice.
  Madam Speaker, this bill would disempower American workers by 
drowning out their voices to the benefit of illegal immigrants.
  The amendment I propose is simple: Individuals who are not eligible 
to work in our country should not be contacted or courted by labor 
leadership. If my Democratic colleagues insist on moving forward with 
this bill without my amendment, they wouldn't be protecting Americans' 
right to organize. They would be prohibiting American workers from 
organizing as a distinct group.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Indiana an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, the Democratic Party claims to have the 
best interest of American workers at heart so, please, prove it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is an effort by Democrats to cave to big 
labor and special interest groups' demands at the expense of the 
American workforce and the economy. Once again, Democrats are 
attempting to ram through radical, partisan legislation.
  H.R. 842 is radical, backward-looking legislation, which will 
diminish the rights of workers and employers while harming the economy 
and providing a political gift to labor union special interests.
  I thank my Republican colleagues for their hard work in fighting for 
American workers and job creators. I urge all of my colleagues to 
consider the serious damage that the passage of this bill would do, and 
I urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page H1153]]

  Madam Speaker, I reiterate, just before COVID hit, we had a booming, 
booming economy without this legislation. This will harm the economy, 
harm the American workers, and do great injustice to well-meaning 
employers who risk every day their capital and their energy to create 
jobs.
  Madam Speaker, this bill deserves a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, each of us can agree that hard work in this country 
should pay off. Yet, for far too long, we have allowed wealthy special 
interests to pad the profit margins by stripping workers of their 
rights.
  Madam Speaker, we often voice our support for workers. Today, we have 
the opportunity to match our words with action by taking a historic 
step to ensure that they can stand together and negotiate for higher 
pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces.
  I want to recognize all the workers and advocates, especially my 
colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor, for their 
leadership on this legislation.
  There is an extensive legislative history underpinning this bill, 
including three hearings and a markup in the 116th Congress. The views 
of the committee are outlined in the committee report from the last 
Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy in support of the PRO Act and a statement by President Biden on 
the House taking up the PRO Act.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 842--Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021--Rep. Scott, D-
                         VA, and 212 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     842, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021, 
     which would strengthen the Federal laws that protect workers' 
     right to organize a union and collectively bargain for better 
     wages, benefits, and working conditions.
       America was not built by Wall Street. It was built by the 
     middle class, and unions built the middle class. Unions put 
     power in the hands of workers. They give workers a stronger 
     voice to increase wages, improve the quality of jobs and 
     protect job security, protect against racial and all other 
     forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, and protect 
     workers' health, safety, and benefits in the workplace. 
     Unions lift up workers, both union and non-union.
       The policy of the United States Government, stated clearly 
     in the National Labor Relations Act, is to encourage union 
     organizing and collective bargaining. However, due to anti-
     union efforts by many employers for decades, lax enforcement 
     of existing labor laws, and the failure to restore and 
     strengthen labor laws to address the real-world of labor-
     management relations, only 6.3% percent of private-sector 
     U.S. wage and salary workers were union members in 2020.
       H.R. 842 would strengthen and protect workers' right to 
     form a union by allowing the National Labor Relations Board 
     (NLRB) to assess penalties on employers who violate workers' 
     right to organize and ensuring that workers who suffer 
     retaliation for exercising these rights receive immediate 
     relief.
       The PRO Act also defends workers' right to strike--a 
     fundamental economic right--and to engage in boycotts and 
     other acts of solidarity with workers at other companies 
     without penalty. It clarifies that employers may not force 
     employees to waive their rights to join together in 
     collective or class action litigation. The bill also closes 
     loopholes in Federal labor law by barring employers from 
     misclassifying workers as independent contractors and 
     preventing workers from being denied remedies due to their 
     immigration status. It establishes an expansive joint 
     employer standard, allowing workers to collectively bargain 
     with all the companies that control the terms and conditions 
     of their employment. The bill allows unions to collect fair-
     share fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining and 
     administering a union contract for all workers who are 
     protected by the contract's terms. H.R. 842 restores workers' 
     access to fair union elections and ensures the results are 
     respected.
       The Administration strongly encourages the House to pass 
     H.R. 842, and looks forward to working with the Congress to 
     enact this critical legislation that safeguards workers' 
     rights to organize and bargain collectively. The PRO Act will 
     strengthen our democracy and advance dignity in the 
     workplace.
                                  ____


  Statement by President Joe Biden on the House Taking Up the PRO Act

                (Statements and Releases, March 9, 2021)

       I strongly encourage the House to pass the Protecting the 
     Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021, which would dramatically 
     enhance the power of workers to organize and collectively 
     bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
       As America works to recover from the devastating challenges 
     of deadly pandemic, an economic crisis, and reckoning on race 
     that reveals deep disparities, we need to summon a new wave 
     of worker power to create an economy that works for everyone. 
     We owe it not only to those who have put in a lifetime of 
     work, but to the next generation of workers who have only 
     known an America of rising inequality and shrinking 
     opportunity. All of us deserve to enjoy America's promise in 
     full--and our nation's leaders have a responsibility to 
     deliver it.
       That starts with rebuilding unions. The middle class built 
     this country, and unions built the middle class. Unions give 
     workers a stronger voice to increase wages, improve the 
     quality of jobs and protect job security, protect against 
     racial and all other forms of discrimination and sexual 
     harassment, and protect workers' health, safety, and benefits 
     in the workplace. Unions lift up workers, both union and non-
     union. They are critical to strengthening our economic 
     competitiveness.
       But, after generations of sweat and sacrifice, fighting 
     hard to earn the wages and benefits that built and sustained 
     the American middle class, unions are under siege. Nearly 60 
     million Americans would join a union if they get a chance, 
     but too many employers and states prevent them from doing so 
     through anti-union attacks. They know that without unions, 
     they can run the table on workers--union and non-union alike.
       We should all remember that the National Labor Relations 
     Act didn't just say that we shouldn't hamstring unions or 
     merely tolerate them. It said that we should encourage 
     unions. The PRO Act would take critical steps to help restore 
     this intent.
       I urge Congress to send the PRO Act to my desk so we can 
     seize the opportunity to build a future that reflects working 
     people's courage and ambition, and offers not only good jobs 
     with a real choice to join a union--but the dignity, equity, 
     shared prosperity and common purpose the hardworking people 
     who built this country and make it run deserve.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, or the 
PRO Act.
  For too long, wealthy corporations and employers have dictated the 
stability and success of working and middle-class Americans--often 
without their best interests in mind. The PRO Act seeks to combat this 
injustice by providing increased opportunities for workers to organize, 
holding employers accountable for violations of workers' rights, and 
securing free, fair, and safe union elections.
  The timing of the vote on this legislation is crucial. We have 
watched as the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the existing 
inequalities in our economy. The rich have gotten richer, while the 
employees on the front lines have faced harsh conditions, risks to 
their health, and a minimal, at best, increase in pay. It is therefore 
critical that these workers be able to exercise their right to organize 
a union so that they can advocate as one for higher wages, better 
benefits, and safer working conditions.
  As a dues-paying, active member of the American Federation of 
Government Employees (AFGE), I have seen firsthand the important role 
that unions play in empowering workers across the country. And I will 
continue to be a strong advocate for workers' rights--because our 
country is only as strong as our workers.
  Madam Speaker, a strong middle class is essential to a strong 
economy. That is why I am proud to support the PRO Act and would 
encourage its immediate consideration in the Senate.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passage of 
the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a piece of legislation of 
which I am a proud co-sponsor. Importantly, this bill protects workers' 
rights to unionize, holds employers accountable for violating workers' 
rights, and ensures unions can have free, fair, and safe elections. By 
empowering workers to exercise their rights to organize, workers will 
be given the power to override ``right-to-work'' laws that prevent 
unions from collecting dues from the workers they represent.
  It is significant to me that this body is coming together to pass 
this legislation on the same day as Mr. Joseph ``Joe'' Girolamo's 100th 
birthday. Mr. Girolamo of Livonia, Michigan is a veteran of World War 
II and the son of Italians, family he had a chance to visit while 
serving overseas. In a recent interview with Hometown Life, Mr. 
Girolamo shared that after returning home he moved to Livonia with his 
late wife Lillian. They met playing music and settled down in 1953. Mr. 
Girolamo worked at the River Rouge complex in Dearborn. He witnessed 
workers being treated unfairly and became a union man, and spent years 
advocating for workers' rights. His daughter Joyce Hermann shared with 
Hometown Life, ``So, there were actually thugs and goons running the 
place. It was a difficult situation until the union came in. He made 
sure

[[Page H1154]]

everything was done by the book and his workers weren't doing anything 
unsafe. It was a really big change back then.''
  Earlier today as I wished Mr. Girolamo by phone a Happy Birthday and 
thanked him for his work with the American Legion and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, I got to listen to him play his harmonica and proudly 
informed him that today we were passing the PRO Act. He informed me he 
was smiling over the phone and glad to hear it.
  When I think about the legacy and shoulders of giants we stand on in 
the Congress, it's incredible patriots like Joe, who represent the best 
of America and Michigan. I am proud and grateful we were able to take 
another productive step in the direction of the working men and woman 
in this country and all they are counting on to earn a decent living 
and save for retirement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-10 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 
of House Resolution 188, shall be considered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only 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, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before 
the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time after debate for the chair of the 
Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer amendments en 
bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part B of House Report 
117-10, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor or their respective designees, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No 1.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 4, 9, 11, 
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, printed in part B of House Report 117-10, 
offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:


          amendment no. 1 offered by ms. bourdeaux of georgia

       On page 34, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 303. 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.).

       In the table of contents, after the matter relating to 
     section 302, insert the following:

Sec. 303. Rule of Construction.


            amendment no. 4 offered by ms. davids of kansas

       On page 3, in the table of contents, insert after the 
     matter related to section 302 the following:

Sec. 303. Rule of Construction

       On page 34, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 303. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall 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.


          amendment no. 9 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

       On page 33, line 13, strike ``Section 203(c)'' and insert 
     ``(a) In General.--Section 203(c)''.

       On page 34, after line 2, 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 employer, 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 
     paragraph (2)(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

[[Page H1155]]

     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.
       ``(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.''.


           amendment no. 11 offered by mr. levin of michigan

       Page 34, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 301. ELECTRONIC VOTING IN UNION ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Electronic voting system.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, subject to the provisions of this section, 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the National Labor Relations Board shall implement 
     a system and procedures to conduct representation elections 
     remotely using an electronic voting system.
       (2) Procedures.--The procedures under paragraph (1) shall 
     ensure that each employee voting in a representation election 
     may choose to cast a vote using either an internet voting 
     system or a telephone voting system.
       (3) National mediation board system.--If the Board does not 
     implement a system under paragraph (1) before the date that 
     is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Board shall enter into a temporary agreement to use the 
     system used by the National Mediation Board to conduct 
     representation elections for the period--
       (A) beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) ending on the date that is 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report.-- Not later than 180 days of the enactment of 
     this Act, and in each subsequent report under Section 3(c) of 
     the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing a description of the 
     following:
       (1) For each representation petition under section 9 of the 
     National Labor Relations Act filed--
       (A) the case name and case number;
       (B) the number of days between the petition and the 
     election;
       (C) the number of days between the stipulation or direction 
     of election and the election;
       (D) the method of the election;
       (E) the results of the election; and
       (F) the number of eligible voters, the number of voters 
     participating in the election, and the method by which each 
     of the voters submitted their vote.
       (2) The total cost of conducting all elections the Board 
     conducted through the system and procedures required by 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Electronic voting system.--The term ``electronic voting 
     system''--
       (A) includes an internet voting system and a telephone 
     voting system; and

[[Page H1156]]

       (B) does not include machines used for casting votes at a 
     polling site or an electronic tabulation system where votes 
     are cast non-electronically but counted electronically (such 
     as a punch card or optical scanning system).
       (2) Internet voting system.--The term ``internet voting 
     system'' means an internet-based voting system that allows a 
     participant to cast a ballot remotely using a personal 
     computer or other mobile electronic device that is connected 
     to the internet.
       (3) Telephone voting system.--The term ``telephone voting 
     system'' means a voting system in which participants may cast 
     a vote remotely using a telephone.
       (4) Remotely.--The term ``remotely'', used with respect to 
     voting in a representation election, means a vote may be cast 
     at any site chosen by a participant in such election.
       (5) Representation election.--The term ``representation 
     election'' means a representation election under section 9 of 
     the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159).

       On page 34, line 4, strike ``301'' and insert ``302''.

       On page 34, line 10, strike ``302'' and insert ``303''.

       On page 3, in the table of contents--
       (1) in the matter related to section 301, strike ``301'' 
     and insert ``302'';
       (2) in the matter related to section 302, strike ``302'' 
     and insert ``303''; and
       (3) before the matter related to section 302, as so 
     redesignated, insert the following:

Sec. 301. Electronic Voting in Union Elections.


           amendment no. 12 offered by mrs. mcbath of georgia

       On page 34, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 303. 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.

       In the table of contents, after the matter relating to 
     section 302, insert the following:

Sec. 303. Rule of Construction.


           amendment no. 13 offered by mrs. murphy of florida

       On page 34, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 303. GAO REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General, through the 
     Government Accountability Office, shall one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act commence a study on the impact 
     of Section 101(a) and Section 101(b) of this Act regarding--
       (1) the effect on coverage of employees under of the 
     National Labor Relations Act, and the impact from such change 
     in coverage, on their capacity in various sectors to form 
     unions and collectively bargain as a means to improve wages, 
     benefits, workplace safety, and other working conditions, and
       (2) the effect on employers and other enterprises regarding 
     the right of employees to organize and collectively bargain 
     over wages, benefits, workplace safety, and other working 
     conditions in such sectors.
       (b) Factors.--Such study shall identify, compare, and 
     analyze impacts from changes implicated by Section 101(a) and 
     Section 101(b) on--
       (1) flexibility for employees with respect to hours, 
     shifts, assignments and working arrangements;
       (2) rates of compensation, health care, and employee 
     benefits;
       (3) resolution of grievances and disputes, including 
     employers' ability to terminate and employees' right to due 
     process;
       (4) use of technology or algorithms, including the adoption 
     of new technology and algorithms; and
       (5) workplace safety and health.
       (c) Stakeholder Input.--In preparing the report, the 
     Government Accountability Office shall gather information 
     from impacted stakeholders, including various business 
     enterprises and labor organizations. In developing a list of 
     stakeholders, the Government Accountability Office shall 
     consult with the House Committee on Education and Labor and 
     the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
     Pensions.
       (d) Congressional Report.--Six months after the 
     commencement of the study, the Government Accountability 
     Office shall transmit its findings and report to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor 
     and Pensions of the Senate, and consistent with its policies, 
     make its findings and report available to the public.
       (e) Presidential Consideration.--The President, in 
     consultation with the Department of Labor and other agencies 
     as the President deems appropriate, shall, subsequent to the 
     issuance of such report, consider such findings, and within 
     60 days may recommend that the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate modify Section 101(a) or Section 101(b), or both 
     or make no recommendations.
       (f) Sense of the House of Representatives.--It is the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that the House of 
     Representatives shall consider whether to accept, reject, or 
     modify any recommendations received under (e), as it deems 
     appropriate.

       On page 3, in the table of contents, insert after the 
     matter relating to section 302 the following:

Sec. 303. GAO Report.


           amendment no. 14 offered by ms. newman of illinois

       On page 13, on line 17, insert before the period the 
     following: ``and to ensure that such notice is provided to 
     employees in a language spoken by such employees''.


          amendment no. 15 offered by ms. stevens of michigan

       Page 34, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 301. GAO REPORT ON SECTORAL BARGAINING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct 
     a review of collective bargaining at the sectoral level in a 
     geographically diverse set of countries where sectoral 
     bargaining is facilitated and prepare and submit to Congress 
     a report with respect to such countries that--
       (1) identifies, analyzes, and compares--
       (A) the laws and policies governing or related to 
     collective bargaining at the sectoral level;
       (B) the administrative systems facilitating such 
     bargaining; and
       (C) the procedures involved in sectoral bargaining;
       (2) to the extent practicable, consider reported effects of 
     the policies and procedures described in paragraph (1) on--
       (A) the wages and compensation of employees;
       (B) the number of 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
       (3) describes the methodology used to generate the 
     information in the report.
       On page 34, line 4, strike ``301'' and insert ``302''.
       On page 34, line 10, strike ``302'' and insert ``303''.
       In the table of contents-- .
       (1) in the matter relating to section 301, strike ``301'' 
     and insert ``302'';
       (2) in the matter relating to seciton 302, strike ``302'' 
     and insert ``303''; and
       (3) insert before the matter relating to section 302, as so 
     amended, the following:

Sec. 301. GAO report on sectoral bargaining.


           amendment no. 16 offered by ms. tlaib of michigan

       Page 11, line 5, insert ``as soon as practicable and not 
     later than within 120 days, absent extraordinary 
     circumstances or by agreement or permission of the parties,'' 
     after ``dispute''.


           amendment no. 17 offered by mr. torres of new york

       On page 33, line 13, strike ``Section'' and insert ``(a) 
     Section''.
       On page 34, after line 2, insert the following:
       (b) Section 203(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and 
     Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended in the 
     matter following paragraph (2)--
       (1) by striking the period at the end; and
       (2) by inserting ``and shall make such information 
     available to the public in a readily accessible and 
     searchable electronic format, and through a secure software 
     application for use on an electronic device.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my 
amendment in the en bloc package. If it is approved, I will vote for 
the bill.
  The PRO Act aims to protect the right of workers to decide whether to 
form a union that can negotiate with their employer over working 
conditions. It proceeds from the principle that America is stronger 
when the middle class is stronger, and the middle class is stronger 
when unions are stronger.
  This principle is personal to me. I grew up in Virginia, and my dad 
worked at a power plant and he was in a union. He was a refugee from 
Vietnam. He had an incredible work ethic, but he struggled with English 
and relied on the union to fight for him to have a living wage and good 
healthcare. This allowed our family to have opportunities we otherwise 
wouldn't have had.
  There are many provisions in the PRO Act I support. There are also 
provisions that give me pause, especially the changes made to the 
definitions of employee and joint employer in the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the Education and Labor Committee and 
Democratic leadership for working

[[Page H1157]]

with me to craft an amendment that addresses my concerns enough for me 
to support the PRO Act passage. My amendment requires GAO to prepare a 
report on the impact of these two changes on workers in businesses. The 
President is required to consider the report, and he can recommend that 
Congress modify one or both of these definitions.
  My amendment also expresses the sense of the House that Congress 
shall consider whether to accept, reject, or modify any recommendations 
received from the President. This is called evidence-based 
policymaking, and we should do more of it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for my amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat en bloc 
amendments. My Democrat colleagues are rushing a radical piece of 
legislation to the House floor without holding a single committee 
hearing or markup. Rushing sweeping, one-sided legislation to the floor 
without any prior debate or consideration this year silences Members of 
the minority. This is an outright assault on the legislative process 
and serves only to hide the Democrats' socialist agenda.
  There are 20 new members on the Education and Labor Committee on both 
sides of the aisle, not to mention the dozens of new Members of the 
House, and their constituents deserve to have their elected 
representatives examine this dangerous bill.
  Additionally, the last time the Education and Labor Committee held a 
hearing on any version of the PRO Act was July 2019. Since that time, a 
worldwide pandemic has devastated large sectors of the American 
economy. In light of this fact alone, Congress should hear from 
affected stakeholders before passing a radical sweeping bill.
  Even more concerning than the muzzle imposed by this sham legislative 
process on the minority party and business owners around the country is 
the underlying bill's silencing and disenfranchisement of workers. This 
far-reaching legislation is nothing more than a union boss wish list 
aimed at rewarding Democrats' big labor allies at the expense of 
American workers.
  Union membership in the United States has been decreasing for over 60 
years, and continues to plummet due to the modern economy and unions' 
own failings. But instead of increasing transparency and accountability 
to serve their members better, labor union leaders are demanding House 
Democrats pass the PRO Act to tilt the scales in their favor. Democrats 
are doing exactly that, no matter the cost.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that Federal law 
already protects the right of employees to organize, and Republicans 
respect that right. But any reforms to U.S. labor laws should help 
workers flourish in the modern economy. Unfortunately, the extreme bill 
before us today helps union bosses at the expense of workers.
  The slate of Democrat amendments included in this en bloc amendment 
are ploys disguised as policy intended to provide political cover to 
the Democrat Members who are uncomfortable voting for the job-
destroying underlying bill, and, in many cases, the amendments included 
make the bill even worse.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan en bloc 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support the PRO Act and its 
protection against executives and companies who violate workers' 
rights, its support for collective bargaining, and also its access to 
fair elections with unions.
  I rise to support my amendment, number 9. The Jackson Lee amendment 
is direct. The amendment explicitly extends whistleblower protections 
to employees, both employers, and unions, under the Labor Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act. I am grateful to the unions and to the 
committee for working with this very important amendment.
  It extends whistleblower protection to all employees of employers or 
of unions to encourage and empower them to come forward and make known 
that something is wrong.
  Ms. Lawson, who was in a fight for $15, worked for a fast food 
industry. She was sexually harassed. She needs that kind of protection. 
So this amendment is very strong and adds to this very strong 
initiative.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 
included in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 842, the 
``Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021,'' or ``PRO Act,'' which 
protects the basic right to join a union by (1) empowering workers to 
exercise their right to organize; (2) holding employers accountable for 
violating workers' rights; and (3) securing free, fair, and safe union 
elections.
  The LMRDA of 1959 protects union members through a ``bill of rights'' 
for union members, requires extensive reporting of union finances, and 
mandates transparency of arrangements between employers and anti-labor 
consultants.
  I am pleased that the PRO Act includes reforms to the LMRDA that 
clarify that employers must disclose arrangements with consultants on 
indirectly persuading employees on how to exercise their labor rights.
  Examples of indirect persuasion include planning employee meetings, 
training employer representatives, and identifying employees for 
disciplinary action or targeting.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 makes a simple common-sense 
improvement to the bill.
  The identical version of this amendment was made in order by the 
Rules Committee in the 116th Congress and adopted by the House on 
February 6, 2020, by a roll call vote of 404-18.
  Specifically, the amendment explicitly 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.
  Supreme Court decisions like Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S.__138 S. Ct. 
2448, 201 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2018), and many others, have severely weakened 
the ability for unions to be able to organize and bargain collectively, 
or to discharge an essential mediating function upon which a vibrant 
democracy depends.
  The PRO Act protects the workers who are trying to organize.
  But the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 extends whistleblower protections 
to all employees, of employers or of unions, to encourage and empower 
them to come forward and make known something wrong or unlawful that 
they have learned or observed.
  Let me give you an example.
  Last year, I met Kimberly Lawson, who is part of the Fight for $15.
  She also came to see me to advise me of the problems she has had with 
sexual harassment on her job in the fast-food industry.
  She told me, on the record, that if we could pass the PRO Act, she 
would not be alone trying to raise our hourly wage or face sexual 
harassment without a union to help her.
  Madam Speaker, this whistleblower protection is important because it 
gives workers like Ms. Lawson the ability to be able to report what is 
happening to them without losing or jeopardizing their jobs and the 
ability, like Ms. Lawson, to support her children on the income of a 
single mother.
  Our economy needs a strong middle class, and unions are essential to 
rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers 
and their families.
  When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they 
have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
  Protecting workers' rights to organize will help rebuild the middle 
class and improve the quality of life for workers and their families.
  Unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and 
improving the lives of workers and their families because they deliver 
higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
  Unions deliver bigger paychecks for both union and nonunion workers.
  Over the last eight decades, unions have consistently provided 
workers with a 10- to 20-percent higher wage.
  The benefits of union membership are so strong that even the children 
of union workers enjoy greater economic mobility.
  When union density is high, even nonunion workers receive higher 
wages.
  Unions provide workers with a voice on the job to bargain for better 
wages and safer working conditions.
  While the entire economy has suffered from massive job loss during 
the pandemic, union workers suffered fewer job losses because they were 
able to bargain with employers on how to respond to the pandemic.
  Unions deliver greater access to affordable health care and a more 
secure retirement.
  Private sector workers covered by a union contract are 27 percent 
more likely to be offered health insurance through their employer.

[[Page H1158]]

  More than 9 in 10 unionized private sector workers have access to a 
retirement plan, compared to just 65 percent of nonunion workers.
  Unions narrow both the racial wealth gap and the gender pay gap.
  About two-thirds (65 percent) of workers age 18 to 64 who are covered 
by a union contract are women and/or people of color.
  Union members of color have almost five times the median wealth of 
their nonunion counterparts.
  Unions are one of the most effective solutions for closing the gender 
pay gap.
  I urge all members to join me in supporting Jackson Lee Amendment No. 
9 by voting for the En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 842, the Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, of 2021.
  I want to remind us that, in the early 1900s, women worked in 
factories where they died. They simply died because there were no 
provisions, no protections; and they died with drastic fires and other 
devastating actions.
  Madam Speaker, I ask support of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for the 
Jackson Lee amendment from the Government Accountability Project. It 
reads that they think that this is an especially important initiative 
to be added. I ask that in support.


                            Government Accountability Project,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Lee: Thank you for your leadership 
     through legislation to add whistleblower protection rights to 
     the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 
     That law strives for union accountability to its members and 
     in management relations. Your bill reflects best practice 
     rights that Congress has passed 16 times since 2005 in laws 
     throughout the private sector. However, the reality is that 
     not only employers abuse power and undermine worker rights. 
     This legislation protects those who seek accountability 
     within and by organizations whose mission is to protect 
     employees.
       As summarized below, your legislation would honor best 
     practices by--
       prohibiting retaliation against applicants, employees or 
     former employees who are perceived as disclosing or assisting 
     to disclose violations of the Act's provisions;
       protecting both front line and management employees from 
     retaliation;
       extending identical protection to those who refuse to obey 
     orders to violate the law;
       providing an administrative remedy at the U.S. Department 
     of Labor, with the right to a jury trial in federal court if 
     there is not a timely decision;
       governing enforcement with realistic Whistleblower 
     Protection Act legal burdens of proof; and
       so employees do not lose by winning, providing ``make 
     whole'' remedies for those who prevail, including cancelation 
     of all career damage, compensatory damages and costs 
     including attorney fees.
       Unless there are loopholes in the political mandate for 
     accountability, this legislation should not be controversial. 
     It merely applies almost identical legal rights in the labor-
     management context that Congress has enacted since 2005 for 
     financial, food safety, consumer protection, energy, medical 
     insurance and transportation whistleblowers. Thank you for 
     your leadership. Please consider Government Accountability 
     Project on call for further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Devine,
                                                   Legal Director.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask support of the Jackson Lee 
amendment in the en bloc amendment No. 1.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the ``Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act of 2021, or ``PRO Act,'' which protects the basic 
right to join a union by (1) empowering workers to exercise their right 
to organize; (2) holding employers accountable for violating workers' 
rights; and (3) securing free, fair, and safe union elections.
  Our economy needs a strong middle class, and unions are essential to 
rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers 
and their families.
  The erosion of America's middle-class is a direct result of decades-
long assault on workers' rights, funded by wealthy special interests.
  When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they 
have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
  Workers seeking to organize a union frequently face a surge of 
intimidation and retaliation from wealthy special interests.
  After decades of anti-worker attacks, union membership is at historic 
lows and inequality is at historic highs.
  It is imperative that we begin to recognize that the American people 
support unions--over 64 percent of Americans and millennials appreciate 
the idea of having representation for better quality of life and work.
  When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they 
have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
  Protecting workers' rights to organize will help rebuild the middle 
class and improve the quality of life for workers and their families.
  Unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and 
improving the lives of workers and their families because they deliver 
higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
  Workers with strong unions have been able to set industry standards 
for wages and benefits that help all workers, both union and nonunion.
  Over the last eight decades, unions have consistently provided 
workers with a 10- to 20-percent higher wage.
  The benefits of union membership are so strong that even the children 
of union workers enjoy greater economic mobility.
  Unions provide workers with a voice on the job to bargain for better 
wages and safer working conditions, and never has it been more 
important that all workers have a voice in the workplace and access to 
a union.
  While the majority of workers who are currently working onsite at 
their workplaces believe they face considerable risk of COVID-19 
infection, Black and Hispanic workers are more likely to fear risks 
from work than are White workers.
  In fact, Black workers make up one in six of all front-line industry 
workers, putting them and their family members at greater risk of 
contracting and spreading COVID-19.
  Without unions, many workers are forced to work without personal 
protective equipment or access to paid leave or premium pay.
  When nonunion workers have advocated for health and safety 
protections or wage increases, they have often been retaliated against 
or even fired for doing so.
  Workers' lives and the health and safety of working families depends 
on their ability to have a say in how they do their jobs.
  While the entire economy has suffered from massive job loss during 
the pandemic, union workers suffered fewer job losses because they were 
able to bargain with employers on how to respond to the pandemic.
  Unions deliver greater access to affordable health care and a more 
secure retirement.
  Private sector workers covered by a union contract are 27 percent 
more likely to be offered health insurance through their employer.
  More than 9 in 10 unionized private sector workers have access to a 
retirement plan, compared to just 65 percent of nonunion workers
  Unions narrow both the racial wealth gap and the gender pay gap.
  The right to a union and collective bargaining is also directly 
relevant to our urgent national conversation around racial inequality 
in its various forms, including economic disparities by race.
  Unions and collective bargaining help shrink the Black-White wage 
gap, and this means that the decline of unionization has played a 
significant role in the expansion of the Black-White wage gap over the 
last four decades, and that an increase in unionization could help 
reverse those trends.
  About two-thirds (65 percent) of workers age 18 to 64 who are covered 
by a union contract are women and/or people of color.
  Union members of color have almost five times the median wealth of 
their nonunion counterparts.
  Unions are one of the most effective solutions for closing the gender 
pay gap.
  Madam Speaker, here are 36 reasons why Americans should be thankful 
for unions and remain committed to ensuring there will always be a 
strong organized labor movement in the United States:
  1. Weekends
  2. All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
  3. Paid vacation
  4. FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act)
  5. Sick leave
  6. Social security
  7. Minimum wage
  8. Civil Rights Act Title VII (prohibits Employer Discrimination)
  9. 8-Hour workday
  10. Overtime pay
  11. Child labor laws
  12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
  13. 40 Hour Work Week
  14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Camp)
  15. Unemployment Insurance
  16. Pensions
  17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
  18. Employer Health Care Insurance
  19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
  20. Wrongful Termination Laws
  21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  22. Whistleblower Protection Laws
  23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a 
lie detector test on an employee)

[[Page H1159]]

  24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
  25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
  26. Sexual Harassment laws
  27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
  28. Holiday Pay
  29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
  30. Privacy Rights
  31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave
  32. Military Leave
  33. The Right to Strike
  34. Public Education for Children
  35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and 
women equally for the same amount of work)
  36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
  I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 842, the Protecting 
the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, of 2021.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PRO 
Act and to these amendments.
  The PRO Act will ban right-to-work laws in 27 States. It will give 
unions millions more dollars to funnel to Democrats by requiring all 
workers to pay dues via payroll deduction, even if they don't support 
the union.
  From 2010 to 2018, unions sent $1.6 billion from employee dues to 
leftwing groups, such as Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation. 
The PRO Act will require companies to provide union organizers their 
private, personal contact information of employees so they can be 
pressured, harassed, and intimidated into supporting the union.
  It will eliminate secret ballots and replace those with card check, 
where union bosses can simply collect authorization cards supposedly 
from employees agreeing to organize. If the Union doesn't win the 
election, it puts the burden on employees to prove they didn't engage 
in unfair labor practices to influence the outcome.
  The PRO Act destroys the franchise model, independent contractor 
status, subcontractors, and gig workers by implementing a one-size-
fits-all new employee classification. It repeals the ban on secondary 
boycotts and subjects suppliers and affiliates to union pressure, 
harassment, and intimidation tactics just because they do business with 
the company that is under attack.
  It prohibits the replacement of striking workers, giving unions and 
employers risk-free leverage, unless the company closes; and eliminates 
the employer's ability to serve customers and operate during a strike. 
It massively increases fines and other penalties for employers.
  The PRO Act will cost American businesses $47 billion annually, and I 
urge its rejection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).
  Ms. NEWMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the millions of 
American workers whose rights have been undermined and attacked for 
decades in this country. I am from a union family.
  Americans who have been on the front lines of this pandemic since day 
one, yet they have been forced to work with lousy benefits, in unsafe 
conditions, and for insufficient pay. Too many of these workers don't 
have the ability to organize for stronger rights because too many don't 
even know their rights to organize.
  Many times, employers deliberately don't want their workers to know 
their rights to organize and they hide it. Other times, it is because a 
worker's rights are posted in a language that he or she does not speak.
  By passing the PRO Act, we will not only require employers to post 
notices informing workers of their rights to organize, but with the 
amendment I am proposing, we will also ensure that these notices are 
posted in the languages spoken by their employees, such as Spanish, 
Arabic, Polish, and any language, really. When one worker doesn't know 
their rights, the entire workforce is weakened.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and the 
PRO Act so we can truly restore workers' rights in this country. All 
workers have rights.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).
  Ms. BOURDEAUX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my 
amendment, which clarifies that the PRO Act does not expand the 
National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction over the smallest of 
small businesses, who help drive the economy in my district and across 
the country.
  The NLRB uses metrics to determine whether a company affects 
interstate commerce, and, thus, is subject to its enforcement and 
standards with different thresholds for different types of businesses. 
My amendment ensures that these thresholds do not change.
  In other words, my amendment provides certainty to the small family-
run businesses found throughout my district because the labor standards 
they are subject to will not change under this bill. My amendment 
protects our employees while maintaining stability for small businesses 
that are already under so much strain.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this en 
bloc amendment, including my amendment to develop a system and 
procedures to conduct union elections electronically.
  Last week, I was in Bessemer, Alabama, supporting workers fighting to 
form a union at an Amazon warehouse. Amazon, the company that got us 
all to stay home instead of going to a store in person, demanded an in-
person election for 5,800 workers in the middle of a COVID hotspot, but 
the NLRB ordered a safer mail ballot election instead. Amazon 
circumvented that ruling and had a mailbox placed in the parking lot 
under a tent covered in antiunion propaganda, and urged employees to 
vote there.
  This is why the PRO Act gives workers the right to choose the method 
of their own election, so they can vote away from such coercive 
environments.
  Electronic union elections aren't new. The National Mediation Board 
has conducted secure electronic elections in the rail and airline 
industries for almost two decades without a single problem.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
PRO Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, workers in our Nation deserve human 
dignity. That means the right to fight for safety and fairness in the 
workplace, as residents in my district know this all too well because 
we birthed the labor rights movement.
  One of the most important provisions in the PRO Act provides for 
mediation and arbitration if the employer and union cannot agree to a 
first collective bargaining agreement.
  My amendment guarantees that there will be no undue delay providing 
workers that agreement. Currently, almost 50 percent of unions fail to 
reach an agreement within a year with the employer. So my amendment 
specifies that the arbitration panel must issue a decision within 120 
days. This furthers the core purpose of the bill by preventing 
employers from delaying this and putting the harm on workers.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, a law is only as strong as the 
power to enforce it. For far too long, the NLRB has been too powerless 
to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. For too long, workers have 
been left to largely fend for themselves in the face of retaliation and 
intimidation and arbitration.
  The PRO Act would breathe new life into the National Labor Relations 
Act. It would empower the NLRB to impose civil penalties on and empower 
workers to seek punitive damages against retaliatory employers. Most 
importantly, the PRO Act would preempt the Orwellian right-to-work laws 
so that union organizing is given the freedom

[[Page H1160]]

to flourish everywhere in the United States.
  The PRO Act requires an employer to disclose every time it seeks the 
services of a professional union-buster.

                              {time}  1430

  I am proud to introduce an amendment that requires DOL to make these 
disclosures available through an app. App-based notification would 
empower essential workers to be vigilant in defending their essential 
right to organize.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, these amendments will provide whistle-blower 
protection for workers, expose violations of the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act, require the Department of Labor to make 
employment arrangements and payments to union avoidance firms available 
and more accessible, clarify that nothing in the bill would expand the 
National Labor Relations Board's jurisdictional standards, direct the 
NLRB to establish a system of electronic voting in representation 
elections, clarify that nothing in the bill will be construed to amend 
the definition of employer or employee in any provisions of State law, 
direct the GAO to produce a study of the use of sectoral bargaining in 
peer nations, require that workers are informed of their rights under 
the bill in a language that they actually speak, direct the GAO to 
produce a study of the impact of the PRO Act's changes to the 
definitions of employee and employer, adds a 120-day timeline for the 
arbitration process when workers and employers are unable to reach a 
first bargaining agreement, and confirms that the bill will not affect 
existing provisions for worker privacy.
  These amendments make meaningful improvements to the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on en bloc 1, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, as the party that claims to champion the working 
class, Democrats have certainly missed the mark with this bill.
  H.R. 842 will force employers to hand over workers' private, personal 
information to union organizers without workers having any say in the 
matter or making sure their information will not be shared with others. 
This would make it even easier for union organizers to target, harass, 
and intimidate workers.
  H.R. 842 also overturns all State right-to-work laws. These 27 State 
laws 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 is astonishing since we know that from 
2010 to 2018 unions spent $1.6 billion in member dues on hundreds of 
left-leaning groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Clinton Foundation, 
and the Progressive Democrats of America without consulting their 
members.
  The PRO Act will also undermine workers' right to vote by secret 
ballot by imposing a biased card-check scheme in which workers could be 
unionized without the union winning a secret ballot election. Every 
Member of Congress is elected by secret ballot, and House Democrats 
elect their own caucus leadership by secret ballot; yet they want to 
deprive American workers of that same protection by passing the PRO 
Act.
  The bill also deprives individuals of entrepreneurial opportunities, 
the ability to set their own hours, and the flexibility to care for 
children and family members by creating burdensome and discredited 
legal standards for determining joint employment and independent 
contractor status. The PRO Act means the elimination of the franchise 
industry and sharing economy as we know them.
  The bottom line is the underlying bill is shameful, and so is the 
process under which it is being considered. The Democrats' en bloc 
package of amendments does nothing to change that. H.R. 842 is radical, 
backwards-looking legislation which will diminish the rights of workers 
and employers while harming the economy and providing a political gift 
to labor union special interests.
  We are better than this.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this en bloc 
package, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 
8, 10, 18, and 19, printed in part B of House Report 117-10, offered by 
Mr. Scott of Virginia:


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Allen of Georgia

       Page 3, in the table of contents, strike the item relating 
     to section 111.
       Beginning on page 32, line 5, strike section 111.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky

       In title II of the bill, strike Sec. 202.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Fitzgerald of Wisconsin

       Page 33, line 13, strike ``Section 203(c)'' and insert 
     ``(a) Report to Employers.--Section 203(c)''.
       Page 34, after line 2, add at the end the following:
       (b) Right not to Subsidize Union Non-representational 
     activities.--Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and 
     Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 411 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 106. RIGHT NOT TO SUBSIDIZE UNION NON-REPRESENTATIONAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``No employee's union dues, fees, or assessments or other 
     contributions shall be used or contributed to any person, 
     organization, or entity for any purpose not directly related 
     to the labor organization's collective bargaining or contract 
     administration functions on behalf of the represented unit 
     employee unless the employee member, or nonmember required to 
     make such payments as a condition of employment, authorizes 
     such expenditure in writing, after a notice period of not 
     less than 35 days. An initial authorization provided by an 
     employee under the preceding sentence shall expire not later 
     than 1 year after the date on which such authorization is 
     signed by the employee. There shall be no automatic renewal 
     of an authorization under this section.''.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Fulcher of Idaho

       Page 14, beginning on line 22, in section 105, redesignate 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     respectively.
       Page 14, line 25, insert before paragraph (2) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That an employer's voluntary 
     recognition of a labor organization as exclusive bargaining 
     representative of an appropriate unit of the employer's 
     employees under this subsection, and any collective-
     bargaining agreement executed by the parties on or after the 
     date of voluntary recognition, will not bar the processing of 
     an election petition unless (1) the employer and labor 
     organization notify the Regional office that recognition has 
     been granted; (2) the employer posts a notice of recognition 
     (provided by the Regional Office) informing employees that 
     recognition has been granted and that they have a right, 
     during a 45-day period to file a decertification or rival-
     union petition; and (3) 45 days from the posting date pass 
     without a properly supported petition being filed.'';
       Page 19, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(9) Whenever any party to a representation proceeding 
     files an unfair labor practice charge together with a request 
     that it block the election process, or whenever any party to 
     a representation proceeding requests that its previously 
     filed unfair labor practice charge block the election 
     process, the party shall simultaneously file, but not serve 
     on any other party, a written offer of proof in support of 
     the charge. The offer of proof shall provide the names of the 
     witnesses who will testify in support of the charge and a 
     summary of each witness's anticipated testimony. The party 
     seeking to block the election process shall also promptly 
     make available to the regional director the witnesses 
     identified in its offer of proof. The regional

[[Page H1161]]

     director shall continue to process the petition and conduct 
     the election. If the charge has not been withdrawn, 
     dismissed, or settled prior to the conclusion of the 
     election, the ballots shall be impounded until there is a 
     final determination regarding the charge and its effect, if 
     any, on the election petition or fairness of the election.''


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

       Page 14, line 23, strike ``Section 9'' and insert ``(a) In 
     General.--Section 9''.
       Page 21, after line 7, insert the following:
       (b) Prohibition of Neutrality Agreements.--Section 302 of 
     the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 186) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``or deliver'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``provide, or deliver''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) As used in this section, the term `thing of value' 
     includes organizing assistance.''.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hern of Oklahoma

       Page 3, in the table of contents, after the item relating 
     to section 302 add at the end the following:

Sec. 304. Effective date.

       Page 34, after line 13, add the following:

     SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE.-

       This Act (and the amendments made by such Act) may not take 
     effect until the Secretary of Labor certifies that this Act 
     will not have an adverse impact on rates of employment in the 
     United States.


         Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Keller of Pennsylvania

       Page 6, strike lines 16 through 19 and redesignate 
     subsequent subparagraphs accordingly.
       Page 31, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 
     32, line 4, and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly.


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan

       Page 18, beginning on line 14, strike ``not later than 
     eight days after a notice of such hearing is served on the 
     labor organization'' and insert ``not earlier than 14 days 
     after a petition for an election under paragraph (1) is 
     filed''.


        Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

       Page 3, in the table of contents, amend the matter relating 
     to section 111 to read as follows:

Sec. 111. National right to work

       Beginning on page 32, line 5, amend section 111 to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 111. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK.

       (a) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking ``except to'' and all that 
     follows through ``authorized in section 8(a)(3)''.
       (b) Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``: Provided, That'' 
     and all that follows through ``retaining membership''.
       (c) Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or to discriminate'' 
     and all that follows through ``retaining membership''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated under section 104, 
     by striking ``covered by an agreement authorized under 
     subsection (a)(3)''.
       (d) Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 158(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), respectively.
       (e) Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) is 
     amended by striking paragraph Eleventh.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican en bloc 
amendments.
  Madam Speaker, of the 58 amendments submitted by Republicans, 
unfortunately only nine were made in order, and I remind my colleagues 
that no committee markup was held on the bill, which prevented any 
amendments from being considered prior to today.
  The Republican amendments highlight the radical and flawed approach 
H.R. 842 takes which would completely unbalance American labor law in 
favor of unions while diminishing worker freedom.
  I will briefly mention several of the amendments which are included 
in this en bloc package: Mr. Allen's amendment strikes the provision 
that overturns 27 right-to-work laws which ensure workers do not have 
to join or pay dues to a union if they choose not to.
  Mr. Comer's amendment strikes the provision that would require 
attorney and consultants to disclose to the Federal Government the 
agreements they have with employers even if the attorney or consultant 
never has any contact with employees.
  Mr. Fitzgerald's amendment protects worker paychecks by requiring 
that unions receive express consent to spend their money on activities 
unrelated to collective bargaining, such as politics.
  Mr. Good's amendment highlights the often coercive nature of so-
called neutrality agreements entered by an employer and union during an 
organizing drive.
  Representative Keller's amendment removes the provision that would 
allow intermittent strikes which would be incredibly disruptive to 
small businesses, and the amendment also removes the provision that 
would prohibit employers from replacing workers permanently to keep 
businesses open.
  Representative Walberg's amendment would give employers a reasonable 
amount of time to prepare for a free election hearing which is 
especially important for small businesses who have no HR personnel or 
in-house attorney.
  Mr. Wilson's amendment would ensure that workers across the country 
do not have to join or pay dues to a union if that is their choice.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about complaints about the dues 
but what we don't hear are complaints about the higher salaries, safer 
workplaces, and better benefits that are accrued by virtue of 
investments from the unions. They enjoy those benefits, so it is not 
unreasonable to expect people to pay a fair share of those costs.
  Now, fair share does not include the political activities, does not 
include the annual holiday parties, but those services that the union 
is obligated by law to provide, negotiating salaries, negotiating a 
safe workplace, individualized representation when necessary, whatever 
they do for union members they have to do for nonunion members, a fair 
share of those expenses is not unreasonable.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that we would defeat these amendments that 
would undermine that idea, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I stand here today disappointed but not 
surprised that my Democratic colleagues and their union boss allies 
want my home State of Georgia to look just like New York and 
California.
  This is made abundantly clear in the PRO Act where the bill outright 
bans State right-to-work laws.
  I can tell my colleagues one thing: Not on my watch.
  Georgia has been a proud right-to-work State since 1947, and it is 
one of the many reasons workers have prospered. That is why I rise 
today to offer my straightforward amendment that strikes the ban on 
right-to-work States.
  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 do not adopt my amendment.
  It is a no-brainer: workers should be in control of their earnings 
and how they spend it. Americans want choice.
  I urge my colleagues to support worker choice and vote ``yes'' on my 
amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan.)
  Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, it is interesting today listening to the 
debate. I didn't hear anything about workers, trying to actually help 
workers get a better wage or better benefits or better safety in their 
workplace from people on the other side of the aisle.
  But what I have heard over and over and over again are Planned 
Parenthood, the Clinton Foundation, and Progressive Democrats of 
America which, by the way, Madam Speaker, don't appear anywhere inside 
this bill today.
  I guess if you can't talk about what you are going to do on behalf of 
workers, you are going to talk about Planned Parenthood, Clinton 
Foundation, and Progressive Democrats of America, which, by the way, I 
would

[[Page H1162]]

argue the free time they have given them this afternoon on national TV 
is probably more than the donations that actually came from union 
organizations.
  The bottom line is the other party here across the aisle has over and 
over said they want to rebrand themselves as the workers' party, and 
yet they haven't done a thing today to prove they care about workers. 
They have certainly proven for the bosses and corporations that they 
are best buddies, BFFs forever, but on behalf of workers it is this 
side of the aisle that is doing all the heavy lifting.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, my amendment protects the ability of 
employers to receive advice from an attorney or consultant regarding 
unionization without the attorney or consultant having to disclose the 
relationship to the Federal Government when the attorney or consultant 
will have no contact with the employer's employees.
  Congress has no business forcing attorneys to report on an attorney-
client relationship when the attorney will not be speaking with 
employees. Even the left-leaning American Bar Association opposed the 
Obama persuader rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same by 
approving this amendment and protecting the First Amendment rights of 
employers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, over 500 attorneys, including 244 Members of the 
American Bar Association, submitted a letter in support of the 
persuader rule. It does not require the disclosure of legal 
representation but only of persuader activities.
  Employers hire union avoidance persuaders to consult with them, 
according to the Department of Labor in 2016, and between 71 and 87 
percent of union elections persuaders produce antiunion literature and 
materials, write speeches and statements, and identify prounion 
employees for discipline or reward. The employees often do not know 
that their employer has retained such consultants in its campaign 
against the union. It is one of the things that they ought to have to 
disclose.
  So, Madam Speaker, I hope that we will defeat this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, amendment No. 19 amends 
section 111 and replaces the text with the National Right to Work Act. 
Section 111 takes away the freedoms of hardworking Americans and 
overrules State right-to-work laws of 27 States enthusiastically 
enacted by voters.
  American workers should not be forced to pay fees to a labor 
organization. American workers should not be forced to have a union 
represent them. American workers should not be forced to have their 
money go to political candidates they do not support. American workers 
deserve freedom, and this amendment delivers that.
  Right-to-work States like South Carolina have seen firsthand the job 
creation and robust economy that develops when we expand freedom for 
jobs. It was crucial for South Carolina in our journey to become the 
leading manufacturer and exporter of tires with Michelin, Bridgestone, 
Continental, and Giti, while also being the largest exporter of cars in 
the United States with BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes vans.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment would strike the 
bill's provision that allows unions to collect a fair-share fee for 
services they are legally required to provide, and create, in its 
place, a national right-to-freeload scheme.
  This is a blatant attempt to undermine unions by making it harder to 
collect reasonable fees for the services they are required by law to 
perform equally for union members and nonmembers alike.
  Let us understand where so-called right-to-work laws come from. They 
have nothing to do with a right to a job. Their history is rooted in 
Jim Crow-era laws designed specifically to prevent White and Black 
workers from organizing together in the same union.
  Last week, I was in Alabama, supporting an overwhelmingly Black group 
of workers in their effort to form a union. I saw how difficult this 
was in a so-called right-to-work State. These laws are vestiges of a 
racist past, and it is time we reject them.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman giving me some time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, H.R. 842 codifies the one-sided Obama-era 
ambush election rule, which deprives employees of the necessary time to 
learn about the potential implications of refraining from or joining a 
union.
  My amendment ensures workers have appropriate time to learn the pros 
and cons of an enormously important decision affecting their careers, 
their families, and their livelihoods.
  Unions often begin organizing campaigns weeks or even months before 
employers are made aware of this activity, creating a scenario in which 
workers are only hearing one side of the issue, like the other side of 
the Chamber today is trying to get across.
  Additionally, H.R. 842 imposes a complex scheme of new regulations 
and penalties on employers of all sizes. Small businesses lacking 
internal human resources or legal departments would be most harmed by 
this ambush election.
  Providing appropriate time for workers to hear both sides and inform 
themselves does not substantially change the organizing process. It 
merely creates a more informed electorate.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, this amendment that I authored would 
prohibit labor organizations from using union dues and fees collected 
from workers for non-collective bargaining purposes without the written 
consent of the employee. No employee should be forced to subsidize 
political positions they disagree with at the cost of employment.
  According to the Center for Union Facts, 43 percent of union 
households voted Republican, yet 86 percent of the union political 
support went to Democrat candidates in 2016. Clearly, there is a strong 
difference of opinion between union bosses and union members on the 
best pathway forward, but union bosses continue to spend their members' 
money with little accountability.
  Workers across Wisconsin and this country pay annual union dues to 
labor organizations in exchange for representation, not to line the 
pockets of the politicians. This amendment would stop unions from 
sending workers' hard-earned money into a black hole and ensure that 
the voices of workers are being heard.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Employees 
nationwide deserve to have a say in how their money is spent.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, my amendment maintains longstanding 
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 is to 
eliminate ``substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.'' 
During the economic chaos of the 1930s, Congress passed the NLRA, which 
struck a careful balance by protecting workers' ability to strike while 
not protecting the practice of intermittent strikes that create 
upheaval and uncertainty.
  The PRO Act 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. Allowing intermittent strikes and 
banning permanent replacements would be devastating to

[[Page H1163]]

our economy, our global competitiveness, and the incentive to invest in 
American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to 
prevent dangerous disruptions to our economy.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment seeks to hinder 
workers' First Amendment right to assemble peacefully to better their 
workplace situation.
  No worker wants to go on strike. No worker wants to forgo a paycheck 
so they can walk a picket line, often in the frigid cold of winter or 
in the burning sun in the summer. Workers strike because they are left 
with no other option.
  The right to withhold labor is a core right, supposedly protected in 
our labor law, and the PRO Act would restore that fundamental right 
because, in practice, it has been gutted.
  I actually agree with the gentleman that what we need is to restore 
the balance that the National Labor Relations Act sought to create when 
it was passed in 1935.

  The things we are changing aren't the National Labor Relations Act 
that was passed. It is not that balance. It is the ways that employees' 
freedom to withhold their labor has been gutted in the interim by State 
and Federal courts and by this body.
  We need to restore workers' freedom to withhold their labor in order 
to improve their situation. That is all this bill does. Let's get back 
to that balance.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the right to organize is 
appropriately protected in America, the right to organize fairly, 
honestly, and transparently.
  My amendment would provide greater fairness and transparency by 
prohibiting so-called neutrality agreements. These prevent an employer 
from saying anything negative about the union and ensure that workers 
only hear one side, the union boss's side.
  Neutrality agreements often include card check in lieu of a secret 
ballot, permit unions access to company property for organizational 
efforts, and give private employee contact information to the unions. 
The company, which was inevitably threatened with retaliatory 
consequences if they didn't agree to the neutrality agreement, will 
often provide the unions with a captive audience on company time to 
present the prounion argument.
  Neutrality agreements are grounded in the same leftist view that 
companies are trying to take advantage of their employees. Neutrality 
agreements should be prohibited. Employees should be permitted to hear 
both sides, pro and con, regarding organizing, and then permitted to 
make informed decisions by secret ballot.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment is truly amazing 
to me as a longtime union organizer. It seeks to undermine the freedom 
of contract, the ability of employers and unions to agree on how to 
handle a situation freely together.
  The shock of giving the employees' addresses and other contact 
information: That is required in every NLRB election, and it has been 
since the Excelsior Underwear case many decades ago.
  The shock of letting the workers have access to hearing from the 
union on company time: The current law is that employers can force 
employees, on company time, to listen to antiunion propaganda the 
entire time. If you refuse to go, you could be fired. But if an 
organizer tries to step on the premises of the employer, they could be 
arrested.
  I have been arrested for trying to talk to workers. It was on a 
public sidewalk, but the police said we were too close. Anyway, that 
was thrown out, as it should have been. We were exercising our First 
Amendment rights.
  In any event, this amendment is truly astounding in a capitalist 
society. We need to let parties be free, and I urge rejection of the 
amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman so much 
for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, at base, what we are talking about here is whether 
workers in this country are free to come together and form a union. All 
of these amendments are designed to undermine that right.
  Let's get back to the basic concept of a free market for workers, 
where they, prounion or antiunion, can decide amongst themselves 
whether they want to form a union or not, and not have the person in 
the world who has the most power over them, their boss, who decides 
their wages and their hours, to pressure them, to force them to listen 
to things, to subject them to propaganda.
  The PRO Act simply creates freedom for workers to form unions, at 
long last, so that the workers who want to form a union can do so 
freely.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues for offering 
these thoughtful amendments, which would protect the interests and 
rights of workers and employers alike. They negate some of the worst 
aspects of the PRO Act.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the PRO Act 
gives workers the right to form a union. That right has been around 
since the 1930s, Madam Speaker. Workers are already free to form a 
union, and Republicans do nothing to try to stop that freedom.
  What the underlying bill does, however, is take away the freedom not 
to belong to a union. That is a fundamental freedom in this country, 
and we ought not to be taking that away from the American workers.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Republican en bloc amendments and a 
``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, as a group, these amendments would erode workers' 
rights, slow down elections, allow workers to freeload, or even 
prohibit employers from agreeing not to interfere with the election. I 
would hope that we would defeat these amendments, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 
842 is postponed.

                          ____________________