[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 9, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4029-H4037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5408, FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the
unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res.
1140) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5408) to accelerate
workplace time-to-contract under the National Labor Relations Act, on
which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 215]
YEAS--221
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Bresnahan
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lawler
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Mejia
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Min
Moore (WI)
Moore (WV)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Van Drew
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NAYS--201
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
Langworthy
Latta
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOT VOTING--8
Barr
Haridopolos
Kean
Mace
Mast
McDonald Rivet
Moulton
Norman
{time} 1730
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of North Carolina). Pursuant to
House Resolution 1140, the House will proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 5408, which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1140, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Faster Labor Contracts
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Employees in the United States have a right to organize
collectively in order to secure higher wages and other
benefits, and regularly exercise that right by voting to be
represented by a labor organization in their workplaces.
(2) A successful vote in favor of representation by a labor
organization does not immediately lead to an agreement
between the parties. Often the negotiation process is
difficult and protracted, taking a year or longer.
(3) Research indicates that these contracting delays are
increasing over time. A Bloomberg Law study from 2021 found
that the average number of days between a vote in favor of
representation by a labor organization and a contract entered
into between the parties was 465 days.
(4) Delays in the processing of collective bargaining
contracts primarily benefit employers opposed to
representation by the labor organization. The employers can
use those delays to sap labor organization resolve and secure
more favorable terms for the employer.
[[Page H4030]]
(5) In order for employees in the United States to fully
enjoy the benefits guaranteed to them by Federal labor law,
those employees must be able to promptly secure a first
contract following the legal recognition or certification of
a labor organization, and Federal labor law ought to
facilitate this expediency.
SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended--
(1) 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 the 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 representative 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)'' each place it appears
and inserting ``paragraph (1)(C)'';
(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 an individual or
labor organization as a representative as provided under
section 9(a), 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 provided under section 9(a), or within such
further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall
meet and begin bargaining collectively, and shall make every
reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective
bargaining agreement.
``(B) If after the expiration of the 90-day period
beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or
such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the
parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may
notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service that a
dispute exists, and may request mediation. Whenever such a
request is received, the Service shall promptly communicate
with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and
conciliation, to secure an 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 3-person arbitration panel established in
accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the
Service, with one member selected by the individual or labor
organization, one member selected by the employer, and one
neutral member mutually agreed to by the parties. The
individual or labor organization and the employer must each
select the members of the 3-person arbitration panel within
14 days of the Service's referral; if the individual or labor
organization or the employer fail to do so, the Service shall
designate any members not selected by the individual or labor
organization or by the employer. A majority of the 3-person
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.''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``clause (B) of the last
sentence of section 8(d) of this Act'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(2)(B)''.
SEC. 4. GAO REPORT EXAMINING AVERAGE WORKPLACE TIME-TO-
CONTRACT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report examining the average number of
days between--
(1) the date on which an individual or labor organization
is certified or recognized as the representative of employees
under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 159(a)), following the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(2) the date on which the parties enter into an initial
collective bargaining agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5408.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5408, the so-called Faster
Labor Contracts Act. I will give credit to whoever named this bill
because it certainly accomplishes two things faster: It fast-tracks
government intrusion into private workplaces, and it erodes workers'
rights faster than we have ever seen before.
Under the FLCA, if the private parties involved do not reach a first
contract on an accelerated timeline, a government-appointed arbitration
panel steps in and imposes one.
The panel does not merely recommend contract provisions or serve as a
neutral entity while parties work to reach an agreement. Instead, it
imposes a contract on employers and employees for at least 2 years
without their consent.
Let's call this bill what it really is: a massive expansion of
Washington's power over American workers and job creators.
It is the latest attempt to put workers under the thumb of Federal
bureaucrats. Under the bill, government bureaucrats can parachute into
workplaces they have never set foot in, override the voice of the
workers and industries they know little about, and leave them with
contracts that may not serve their interests.
Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers
that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency. I may be
misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it
does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own
contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake
in the outcome.
As for efficiency, this bill inserts the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, FMCS, an agency that President Trump rightly
sought to eliminate for its corruption into the bargaining process.
Reports came out last year about the agency's alleged mismanagement
of funds and other fraudulent activities. Now we are expected to give
this agency a role in deciding workers' wages, benefits, scheduling
rules, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions whenever
contract negotiations extend beyond an arbitrary time frame.
I really doubt this agency will be able to do much, if anything,
efficiently. If the bill supporters truly care about efficiency--and I
believe they do--this is a strange way to show it.
For more than 90 years, Federal labor law has required employers and
unions to bargain in good faith. Despite what supporters of this bill
seem to suggest, that system is still working today. Whether it is the
Teamsters, UPS, or United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers,
countless agreements across the country have been reached because both
sides negotiated compromise and arrived at terms that made sense for
their unique workplaces.
Under this bill, small businesses, in particular, could be forced
into long-term, expensive, one-size-fits-all contracts written by
bureaucrats. Those contracts could mandate spending that small
employers cannot sustain, threaten jobs, kill growth, and in some
cases, shut businesses down entirely.
Mr. Speaker, simply put, the FLCA is not proworker. It is an
ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help,
empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative
process that has long-defined American labor relations.
Ultimately, workers value having a voice in workplace decisions.
[[Page H4031]]
The Trump administration has prioritized putting America's workers
first and strengthening the Nation's workforce. This bill goes directly
against the President's vision for America: to have the most capable
and competitive workforce in the world.
It takes decisions out of the hands of workers and job creators and
places them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need government-imposed contracts. We do not
need bureaucrats writing workplace rules. We certainly do not need a
bill that claims to champion workers while stripping them of their
ability to approve contracts that govern their livelihoods, whether
they understand that or not.
If Congress truly wants to support American workers, we should
strengthen workplace democracy, protect workers' rights, and encourage
honest bargaining--not replace negotiation with government mandates.
The FLCA is wrong for workers, wrong for businesses, wrong for the
economy, and wrong for the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1740
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor
Contracts Act, which ensures that workers can quickly and efficiently
reach a first contract between a union and their employer.
It is also one of the many important provisions of the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which critically bolsters
working people's ability to organize and form a union while holding
union-busting employers accountable.
This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require
employers to begin negotiations with a newly certified union within 10
days. This bill further provides that if no agreement is reached after
90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service. If mediation fails after 30 days, the dispute
will be referred to an arbitration panel selected by the union and
employer to secure an initial contract.
For too many workers, the hard work doesn't end when they vote to
form a union. It just begins. Reaching a first contract to form a union
can take months, even years. In some cases, it never happens at all. It
is not unusual for workers to sit through endless delays and other
dilatory tactics by employers, including shifting proposals and stalled
negotiations. Workers endure all of this while trying to balance their
jobs, their families, and their livelihoods.
When workers choose to organize, they are choosing a unified voice to
negotiate for their rights with management. Without a first contract,
that voice can be effectively silenced. Dragging out negotiations gives
corporations a long chance to break up a union.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act brings accountability to this process.
It sets up reasonable timelines and ensures that both sides engage in
serious, good-faith negotiations. It helps prevent delay tactics and
keeps the focus where it belongs--on reaching an agreement that works
for everyone.
This bill is about making the right to organize real, not
theoretical.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norcross for his leadership on this
issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on
Education and Workforce.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Faster Labor Contracts Act.
Republicans should always be proworker, and we are always proworker;
but being proworker does not mean handing more power to Washington, and
it certainly does not mean taking decisions away from the workers
themselves.
Yet, that is exactly what this bill does.
For nearly 90 years, Federal labor policy has been guided by a simple
principle: workers and employers should determine the terms of
employment through voluntary, good-faith bargaining.
That framework, established under the National Labor Relations Act,
has governed labor relations for generations.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act turns that principle on its head. If
negotiations fail to conclude within a federally prescribed timeline,
government-appointed arbitrators are empowered to impose wages,
benefits, schedules, and workplace rules for years to come. In other
words, this bill replaces negotiation with compulsion and substitutes
private agreements with Federal mandates. Most concerning, workers
themselves may be bound by contracts they never approved.
Under the FLCA, employees would lose one of the most fundamental
rights they have today: the ability to vote on the terms and conditions
governing their own employment.
This is not proworker. It is progovernment, and Congress should not
be in the business of silencing workers or stripping them of their
voice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on
Education and Workforce and the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when a union wins more fair pay and better working
conditions for its members, it sets the bar higher for everyone. Even
if you are not part of the union yourself, you can still thank
organized labor for negotiating some of what is in your contract.
For millions of workers, the first contract can take years to
negotiate if an employer decides to play the waiting game. Some
negotiations collapse before the contract ever becomes law. In fact,
that is exactly what many corporations are banking on.
If we can't count on billionaires negotiating ethically, and we can't
count on existing rules to stop employers from running out the clock,
what can we count on?
We can count on ourselves to fight back. My Faster Labor Contracts
Act is what an unprecedented coalition of lawmakers, labor leaders, and
workers across this great Nation are now fighting back with.
We are proposing that workers get a choice. If an employer won't
meaningfully come to the table, my legislation would give workers and
employers the option to invoke hard deadlines. It is an option. It is
not mandatory. If the bill offers a clear path to a first contract, and
it doesn't pass, this has an end to it.
It is a really simple change. Yet, by leveling the playing field, the
Faster Labor Contracts Act would be the most significant new protection
for workers since before World War II.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bobby Scott and my friends on
both sides of the aisle for helping get this Faster Labor Contracts Act
to this point. Let's pass it out of the House, get it over to the
Senate, and send it to the White House to be signed.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my good friend and colleague from
New Jersey, the sponsor of this bill, and his desire to move processes
forward. I just have a significant concern that it is short-sighted to
think that government intrusion into this process will ever work in the
end and what would be considered optional wouldn't eventually become
mandatory in the fact that the workers themselves aren't making these
decisions, that the best interests of the union leadership may be
carried on, but not the workers'. That is my concern.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen), a man who knows what it means to be involved in negotiations
from both sides.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5408, the Faster
Labor Contracts Act.
Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this House majority and the
Trump administration, we are working to deliver
[[Page H4032]]
a 21st century economy that benefits the working class. We are putting
workers first and giving them the freedom to champion their own future
and achieve the American Dream.
This legislation before us today, to put it simply, is a significant
step backward. There is a reason this bill is opposed by hundreds of
organizations and stakeholder groups, including H.R. professionals,
franchise businesses, retailers, and more.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act would allow government-appointed
arbitrators to impose a union contract on workers and employers if the
two sides cannot reach an agreement on their own.
At its core, H.R. 5408 rips power away from workers and job creators
and lays it in the lap of the Federal Government. I can tell you
firsthand that the hardworking Georgians I represent want no part of
this.
Georgia has been named the number one State to do business for 12
consecutive years. We are a right-to-work State. One reason for that is
that we have great State-level leadership that rejects destructive
policies like this.
Current law already requires employers and unions to bargain in good
faith and provides remedies for parties that refuse to do so.
The goal of this body should be to fuel growth for Main Street, not
force employees and employers into union contracts without their
consent.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is bad for our economy, bad for
American workers, and I strongly urge a vote in opposition.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a son of the labor movement and co-chair of
the Congressional Labor Caucus in strong support of the Faster Labor
Contracts Act.
When workers come together to form a union, they are not asking for a
handout. They are asking and fighting for what they have already
earned: better wages, safer working conditions, stronger benefits, and
the dignity of having a voice on the job.
Collective bargaining is a fundamental right, guaranteed under
Federal law, and it is one of the most powerful tools working people
have.
{time} 1750
Mr. Speaker, winning the union election is supposed to be the end of
the fight. Instead, for far too many workers, it is just the beginning.
It is just the beginning because current law provides no meaningful
timeline for reaching a first contract.
Employers who want to stall can stall for months, even years, all
while workers wait. Here is the number that should outrage every Member
of this body: 458 days. On average, it takes 458 days to reach a first
contract after workers have already voted.
Think about that. More than 1 year after workers have spoken clearly
with their vote, they are still waiting. They are still waiting for the
wages that they organized to win. They are still waiting for the
benefits that their families need. They are still waiting for basic
dignity on the job.
Too often, that delay is not an accident. It is a strategy to wear
workers down and to preserve the status quo.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act, introduced by my friend and fellow
co-chair of the Labor Caucus, Representative Norcross, closes that
loophole. It does not guarantee any particular outcome at the
bargaining table. It simply ensures that both parties show up and
negotiate in good faith on a reasonable timeline.
A right delayed is a right denied. Workers cannot wait. Families
cannot wait.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Faster Labor
Contracts Act and to bring this PRO Act to the floor for its full
approval.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we talked about efficiency and moving the issue forward
400-some days, but this bill is being rushed. It is being rushed in
other ways. It requires a report from the Government Accountability
Office, examining the length of time between recognition of a union in
the workplace and the initial collective bargaining agreement. However,
that report will not be issued until 1 year after enactment of the
bill.
We are passing a bill that could impact millions of employers and
employees, only then to request a report to understand the alleged
issue that this bill aims to address.
I think back to the 2010 ObamaCare vote, when Members of this body
were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. We face
a similar question today.
Why must we vote on a proposed solution before we even know the
problem? Instead, let us do the reasonable thing before this bill goes
to a vote.
That is just something we ought to consider, especially when we have
the opportunity to do that, as opposed to pushing this directly to the
floor without even having a GAO study beforehand.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Miller), a great member of our Education and Workforce Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I join the majority of my Republican colleagues in
voicing strong opposition to H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act.
This bill puts the selfish needs of the union bosses above the
welfare of American workers. It would force employers to begin
bargaining with new unions within 10 days of certification. It would
force Federal mediation to intervene if no contract is signed. It would
force the arbitrated contracts to last 2 years, and they cannot be
appealed.
Let me be clear. Employers and unions already meet at the negotiating
table. There is no need to use government overreach to force labor
negotiations.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is bad for employers, bad for
employees, and bad for the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote
``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, and I salute Mr. Norcross and Mr.
Scott for their outstanding leadership on this bill.
Across America, workers exercise one of the most fundamental rights
protected under our labor laws--namely, the right to organize and
bargain collectively. Yet, far too often, after workers vote to form a
union, they are forced to wait months and even years before seeing the
benefits of that decision.
In fact, the average time to secure a first contract exceeds 450
days. During that time, workers can face uncertainty, delays, and
frustration while negotiations drag on with no clear path to
resolution.
There are countless examples. A few years ago, in my home State of
Illinois, Teamsters drivers at XPO Logistics in Aurora voted to form a
union. Yet, more than 1 year after they voted, they were still fighting
simply to get the company to come to the bargaining table.
Those workers had exercised their legal right to organize, but they
remained without a first contract and without the certainty that they
voted for.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act addresses this problem with a
straightforward and commonsense framework. It requires newly certified
unions and employers to begin bargaining promptly. If negotiations
stall, the bill provides mediation and, if necessary, a neutral
arbitration process to help both sides reach an initial agreement.
This bill ensures that when workers make their voices heard through a
lawful election, that decision is respected. Workers deserve to know
that their vote to organize will not be rendered meaningless by endless
delays.
That is what this bill provides. It is practical, bipartisan, and
strengthens confidence in our labor system, supporting working families
and helping to create more stable workplaces.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Faster
Labor Contracts Act.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Onder), another great member of the Education and
Workforce Committee.
[[Page H4033]]
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Members from both sides of the aisle will head
to the field for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. It is a great
tradition in Washington, reminding us that no matter how intensely we
disagree, we believe in the basic American principle of fair play.
I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that completely
upends the rules of fair play for Americans, the Faster Labor Contracts
Act.
To understand why this bill is so dangerous for our workforce, let's
stick with the baseball analogy for a second.
Imagine a tie game, the bottom of the ninth, a close play at the
plate, and the call is challenged. In Major League Baseball, we know
how the replay review works. It goes to a centralized room in New York
filled with veteran umpires who have spent decades in the field. Both
teams accept the final decision because they trust the expertise of the
people making the call.
Now, imagine if the MLB suddenly changed that rule. Imagine replay
reviews were handed over to a rushed, three-person panel, with one
reviewer picked by the home team and one picked by the away team. A
third tie-breaking member is chosen at random from the stadium's front-
office staff. They are then given a 2-minute clock to issue a final,
unappealable ruling.
None of us would accept it. The fans would protest, and the integrity
of the game would be destroyed.
Yet, remarkably, that is exactly the framework this legislation wants
to force upon collective bargaining in the American workplace. The
Faster Labor Contracts Act invites Federal bureaucrats directly into
private negotiations and empowers them to dictate contracts between
employers and employees.
Under the text of this bill, once the union is certified,
negotiations must begin within 10 days. The parties are then given a
rigid window of just 90 days to reach a first contract.
If they cannot reach a deal in that brief window, the bill forces
them into mediation, but it only gives the process 30 days. If the
mediation doesn't resolve every single issue in those few weeks, a
government-imposed, binding arbitration automatically kicks in.
Just like that hypothetical baseball panel, a three-person
arbitration board takes over. The employer picks one, the union picks
one, and a third so-called neutral arbitrator is selected. If the
parties cannot agree on those selections within 14 days, the Federal
mediation conciliation panel steps in and chooses all three arbitrators
for them.
This panel is given sweeping, unprecedented power to dictate wages,
benefits, safety procedures, leave policies, and virtually every term
of employment.
{time} 1800
Then comes the worst part of all. These three-person panel votes, and
that contract becomes legally binding for a full 2 years.
What about the rank-and-file workers, the men and women on the
factory floor and on the construction sites? They are completely shut
out of the process. Under this bill, the workers are denied the right
to vote on the very contract that governs their work lives. There is no
ratification vote, and there is no right of appeal.
Think about that. The moral argument for labor unions is to give
workers a collective voice, but this bill strips them of that voice and
hands it over to a panel of outside lawyers and bureaucrats.
Last spring at a Senate hearing, an International Association of
Machinists shop steward testified on this point. He warned that
removing the right of workers to ratify their own contract removes
democracy from the workplace. He said: Giving the worker a say is the
whole point of a union.
If we value the voices of working people, we should not support a
bill that silences them.
Our government already furnishes help and protection through the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which employers, employees,
and unions can voluntarily utilize to resolve disputes. We do not need
a heavy-handed law that prioritizes speed over fairness, centralization
over consent, and government control over workplace democracy.
Let's keep the Federal Government out of the dugout, and let's let
American workers and businesses call the balls and strikes themselves.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of
Teachers.
AFT,
Washington DC, June 9, 2026.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFT's more than 1.8
million members working in education, healthcare and public
services, I write to strongly encourage you to vote yes on
the Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408).
We believe that workers, no matter where they work, whether
in the private sector or the public sector, deserve labor
laws that meaningfully protect them and preserve their
ability to join a union and collectively bargain. While the
majority of AFT members work in the public sector, the AFT is
the second-largest nurses' union in the country and
represents more than 75,000 educators in charter schools who
are considered private sector employees.
For many years, we have strongly supported the robust and
comprehensive labor law reforms in both the Protecting the
Right to Organize Act and the Public Service Freedom to
Negotiate Act, and we have urged Congress to pass both bills.
The National Labor Relations Act, originally enacted in 1935,
has never significantly been reformed; the need to do so is
undeniable. As unionization rates across the U.S. economy
have declined, from over 30 percent in 1954 to 11 percent in
2024, our country has seen income inequality skyrocket. A
recent report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that
more than 60 million Americans would join a union if given
the choice. Yet, despite the popularity of unions, too many
workers face insurmountable barriers when trying to organize
a union, a direct result of the failure to reform American
labor laws. Workers trying to form a union are faced with
firings, harassment and captive audience meetings. And if
workers prevail and the majority vote to form a union, many
employers simply refuse to bargain a first contract. The
Faster Labor Contracts Act would require employers to bargain
a first collective bargaining agreement in good faith. If no
agreement is reached after three months, the employer and the
union would enter mediation, and if mediation fails within 30
days, they move to binding arbitration.
Absent congressional action on the PRO Act or PSFNA in the
short term, we believe that individual provisions of either
bill that have bipartisan support, such as the Faster Labor
Contracts Act, should move forward.
For this reason, we call on all members of the House to
vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R.
5408). It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms,
but it is an incredibly important step in the right
direction.
Unions enable working people to have a voice on the job and
the power to act collectively. Whether it is a decent wage or
safety on the job, workers have a better shot at better
working conditions when they can form a union and
collectively bargain. By standing together, union members
earn higher wages and are more likely to have employer-
provided healthcare, pensions and benefits such as paid sick
and family leave. Data shows that the average median union
worker is paid approximately 20 percent more than the median
nonunion worker.
Under current law, for far too many workers, including many
who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by
employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics
and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers
have voted to unionize.
Over the last few years, healthcare professionals
organizing the AFT in Oregon have encountered yearslong
delays from their employer when they tried to bargain a first
contract in good faith. In K-12 charter schools, we have
repeatedly experienced employers who, in the face of
resounding pro-union elections, turn their energies toward
wearing down a new union by refusing to negotiate a first
contract. We have seen an unwillingness to come to the
bargaining table in Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, New York,
Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yearslong delays or outright refusals
to bargain are meant to send a message to workers that their
voice and their vote do not matter and that there is no point
in forming a union.
We believe that ultimately the package of reforms contained
in both the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to
Negotiate Act are critical for working families in this
country and their communities, and we will continue to fight
for these reforms. However, we recognize that progress is
often achieved in incremental steps; making progress in one
area while continuing to organize and work for additional
gains in other areas is often how meaningful change is
achieved.
All workers, no matter where they are employed, deserve a
voice on the job and should have the freedom to join together
and bargain with their employer. We look forward to working
with lawmakers, no matter their political party, to advance
labor law reforms for all workers.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President, AFT.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The letter says, in part: ``For this reason,
we call
[[Page H4034]]
on all Members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor
Contracts Act. It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms,
but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction.''
The letter goes on to say: ``Under current law, for far too many
workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is
marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics
and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to
unionize.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hoyle).
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is hard enough to form a union,
and in this building and in States across the country, we see efforts
every day to make it even more difficult.
We are seeing yet another strategy to delay and deny union
representation from workers who have overcome every hurdle to vote to
belong to a union.
The average time between forming a union and a contract being signed
is 458 days, and it is 548 days for nonprofits. Workers should not have
to wait years after forming a union to get a contract, and employers
should not be able to move the goalposts after the decision has been
made to form a union.
My friend Representative Norcross brought forward the Faster Labor
Contracts Act to address this issue, and I am proud to speak in favor
of this bill.
Being proworker does not mean being antibusiness. Being probusiness
shouldn't mean being antiworker. When workers do well and have a clear
path to the middle class, have access to family-wage jobs, and safe
working conditions, our economy thrives and our businesses do better.
I am a Member of Congress as a third-generation union member. Because
my father and grandfather fought for or won better wages, hours, and
working conditions with their unions, I am able to be here today.
This bill corrects a loophole and gives a timeline to negotiate a
contract. That is what it does.
This is a proworker bill, and should not be a partisan issue, and it
is not. We have Republicans who have stood up for workers as well.
Either you stand with workers or you don't. Today, I am proud to stand
with the workers of this country and support this very good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Fine), one who stands up for workers and is a great
participant in the Education and Workforce Committee as well.
Mr. FINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-
called Faster Labor Contracts Act.
I used to run businesses. That is what I was good at, and I
understand the importance of collective bargaining, but I also know
that the process shouldn't be rushed.
Labor contracts are not minor administrative details. These are life-
changing agreements. But this legislation imposes rigid timelines and
artificial deadlines that could actually hurt both parties.
Negotiations take time because real compromise takes time. Workers
deserve the opportunity to organize, consult with representatives, and
review proposals carefully.
The current law provides the right incentives for good-faith
bargaining, but the Faster Labor Contracts Act does not do that. It
does not even promise a quicker turnaround for labor contracts. It just
promises that a third party will step in sooner.
The bill gives union workers and employees 90 days to reach an
agreement before being referred to mediation and then 30 additional
days before going to arbitration. But there is no time limit on the
arbitration, which could last for months or even years.
Think about that. The only participants who do not face a deadline
under the bill are the arbitrators the government is forcing employers
and employees to submit to.
Despite the name of the bill, there is no guarantee the process will
actually become faster. There is only a guarantee that workers and
businesses may have no say in the final product.
This bill doesn't promise higher wages. It doesn't improve workplace
safety. It doesn't strengthen retirement security. It does not protect
healthcare benefits. What it does do is place private negotiations on
an accelerated timetable that increases pressure on workers to settle
before they have fully fought for what they deserve.
This is a bad idea, and I hope that we vote it down today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).
Mr. MENEFEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Faster Labor
Contracts Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am just astonished to hear my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle argue that this bill was rushed when they failed to
take it up in committee, when we all know that under their leadership,
the committee has focused on attacking unions and attacking trans kids.
Maybe if they focused more on education and workforce, we would see
more bills like this come to the floor through a proper process that
actually helps unions.
I represent Houston and the longshoremen on the Ship Channel, like my
grandfather; freight drivers; steelworkers; and electricians. These are
folks that without them, this country would come to a screeching halt.
Right now, when those workers vote to form a union, what the law
requires is that the employer bargain in good faith. That is exactly
what the law requires, but we all know that is not what happens in real
life.
In reality, employers stall. They run out the clock. That is why the
average time between a union vote and the first contract is over a
year, a year when the bosses hold all of the cards. That is a loophole
that lets employers act in bad faith. All this bill does is close it.
It sets clear deadlines; a fair process; mediation, if needed;
arbitration as a backstop; and it only applies to first contracts. It
is focused, and it is reasonable.
When workers follow the rules, the rules have to work for them. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues
across the aisle to spend better time when they are managing their
committees.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a former union steelworker, I certainly understand
the value that unions play in the workplace. I also understand the
value that employers play in the workplace. I sometimes have my
concerns about union officials and where they put their greatest agenda
items at and the greatest concerns.
Unions can only force workers to pay dues or fees if there is a
signed contract in effect. This means that between the time a union is
certified and when a first contract is signed, the union is not getting
paid to represent workers.
Once the dues spigot is open, nearly all unions funnel that money to
opposing President Trump and the Republican Party goals to lower taxes
and make the American Dream affordable.
For decades, unions have increasingly spent more of their money on
political campaigns--it is part of the record--and fringe social issues
with a paltry sum spent on actually representing their members at the
bargaining table and fighting for their rights.
{time} 1810
From 1990 to 2010, the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, AFSCME, was the second largest political donor on
record, but spent 98 percent of its dollars on the other party,
Democrats.
President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of
dollars of union dues from unions like the SEIU, United Electrical
Workers Union, and United Auto Workers are going to a pro-Hamas, anti-
Israel agenda.
President Trump has fought to get DEI initiatives out of our schools,
workplaces, and government agencies. Union money has been propping up
that agenda for more than a decade. These are hard truths.
President Trump supports a pro-life policy, but union money flows
into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations.
Union-funded House Democrats have not spent their time fighting for
workers like they promise. Instead, they have spent their time
undermining President Trump's agenda and trying to get him removed from
office. These are hard truths.
[[Page H4035]]
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is just the latest attempt to
undermine the President and his proworker agenda. It will go to union
leadership. They will still be pulling it in while the bureaucrats make
decisions for the employees.
I urge colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5408, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), the vice ranking member of the
Committee on Education and Workforce.
Mr. CASAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for us to pass the Faster Labor
Contracts Act tonight in the U.S. House to uphold the fundamental right
for all American workers, the right to bargain collectively for a fair
contract.
American workers marched, bled, and died for the right to form a
union. They marched, bled, and died for the right to join together and
bargain for fair wages and working conditions.
However, for far too many Americans, that right exists in name only
because far too often employers drag out contract negotiations for
weeks, months, and then years. On average, it takes more than 465 days
to secure a first union contract. That is 465 days that workers go
without fair wages, benefits, and the protections that they have
earned. That is unacceptable.
Today, we say: When you exercise your fundamental rights to organize
a union, you deserve a contract without needless delay. After we do our
job in the House, the Senate should pass this bill without delay.
I am very grateful to the ranking member and to Mr. Norcross for this
effort. I also want to say a word about how the bill came to the floor.
The bill itself is critically important, but today's vote is about more
than any one bill.
After the Speaker refused to bring the bill to the floor, working
people got to work and organized 218 signatures needed to force this
vote. This vote sends a clear message that when working people stand
together, we can win under the most difficult of circumstances.
It is happening more and more. Just this Congress, we have stood
together to demand a vote on collective bargaining for Federal workers,
the right to form a union, affordable healthcare, defense for the
people of Ukraine, and the rights of those with temporary protected
status.
The vote sends a message that the Speaker may hold the gavel, but in
the United States of America, working people are still in charge.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a great member of the Education and Workforce
Committee.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
fighting this onerous bill. I will add in addition to all the other
things he pointed out, the candidates that the unions back usually are
in favor of big welfare. I think part of that is because people, I am
sure, on welfare are more likely to vote Democratic, so they like a lot
of people taking advantage of that system.
When I look at this bill, I wonder which planet the drafters were
from. I love to get around my district and talk to my employers, the
factories, and the warehouses. Again and again, I find happy and well-
paid people.
This bill was drafted by somebody who wants as many businesses, I
think, to be in a confrontational mode of using the government to
negotiate an arbitration on this contract or that contract or how we
are going to be able to run the factory, which is a primary way that
you can make American business less competitive.
You also see, as other speakers have pointed out, that we have a
situation here in which government officials are going to impose a
contract. In other words, government officials are going to determine
how a factory is run. I can't think of a way to make American business
less competitive.
I encourage my colleagues to tour a nonunion factory sometime over
the weekend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, sir. The minority side has 15\1/2\
minutes remaining. I believe the majority side has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you say that again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Your side has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining,
sir.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).
Mr. MRVAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scott and
Representative Norcross for bringing this to our attention.
The men and women who pour our steel and power our grid built the
middle class with a union card in their pocket. This bill makes sure
the next generation of workers can earn one without waiting to be heard
for months, years, or decades.
I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 5408, the Faster
Labor Contracts Act.
My good friend, the chairman of the Education and Workforce
Committee, mentioned this administration and how much they like the
working public, working men and women. It was in March and on Labor Day
that they stripped collective bargaining in the greatest historical
moment in stripping collective bargaining from the workforce of Federal
employees to the tune of 445,000 Federal workers. Therefore, when we
talk about union workers and working men and women, this administration
made history by stripping collective bargaining from almost half a
million people.
Throughout my career as a public servant, I have been proud to stand
shoulder to shoulder with all members of organized labor because
working families are worth fighting for. They are the foundation of the
strength of our communities, our workforce, and our economy.
It is because of decades of their efforts and their advocacy that
they have built not just our infrastructure--our roads and bridges and
waterways--but they have built our middle class through promoting safe
working conditions, affordable healthcare options, and a sound
retirement.
When workers vote in the affirmative to form a union, the government
should ensure that businesses immediately acknowledge and respect their
voice. I applaud the leadership of Representative Norcross in this
bipartisan process. There are Republicans who crossed over to vote for
this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MRVAN. There were Republicans who crossed over to allow this bill
to come to the floor--again, in a bipartisan process to bring this
matter to a vote because working men and women matter. In northwest
Indiana, they are worth fighting for.
I encourage all my colleagues to support this important measure.
Again, this administration made history by cutting collective
bargaining to over half a million Federal employees and did that on
Labor Day.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, through you to my friend from the region
where we both grew up, Hammond, South Side of Chicago, Calumet City,
steel area and all the rest, I just make one point: Our President is
clearly for private sector workers, very much so.
When he dealt with the Federal Government, it follows the pattern of
trying to reduce the cost, the size, the scope of the Federal
Government. In fact, that is what we are talking about here, of
expanding the scope of the Federal Government to come in and force on
employees and employers contracts that in many cases they will not have
voted on. I just remind my good friend of that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1820
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend from
Virginia for allowing me the time. I shall return some of it to the
gentleman.
First, an acknowledgment: I am a dues check-off member of AFSCME. I
am proud to have been a member of this union for more than 20 years,
and I rise to say that I support the legislation.
More importantly, I rise to say that we should not engage in
insidious prevarications to solicit the support of
[[Page H4036]]
legislation. It is not true, and I defend all the unions, especially
SEIU and AFSCME. It is not true that any of those unions support Hamas.
That is below the belt. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that
any of the unions support Hamas. When I heard that, it really touched a
nerve.
We can debate these issues without the prevarications that can become
incitive.
This is about whether we should have collective bargaining, that it
should be fair, and that the industry and labor should compromise and
work together. I can support compromise, but I cannot support language
indicating that labor unions are supporting Hamas. It is not true.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, just to bring clarity, my exact words were:
President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of
dollars of union dues from unions like SEIU, the United Electrical
Workers, and the United Auto Workers are going to support a pro-Hamas,
anti-Israel agenda. I stand by that.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, when workers vote to form a union, they don't want their
first contract to come in years after endless stalling by an employer
negotiating in bad faith. They want a voice in the workplace.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act helps prevent these delay tactics and
smooths the transition to an organized workplace. As the saying goes,
forming a union should be a right, not a fight.
This legislation is an important first step toward ensuring that
workers can more easily form a union and negotiate for higher wages,
better benefits, and safer workplaces. Unions are critical to leveling
the playing field and addressing rising economic inequality. This bill
will help achieve these goals, but we cannot stop here. We must also
pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to
comprehensively advance workers' rights.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill asks us to believe that workers are empowered
when their right to vote on a contract is taken away and handed to a
government-appointed arbitrator. That is not empowerment. That is
Washington deciding it knows better in the end than people actually
doing the job.
For decades, employers and unions have negotiated contracts through
good faith bargaining. Certainly, it is not always easy, but it works
because the people closest to the workplace are the ones making the
decisions. This bill replaces that process with Federal intervention
and a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Congress is being asked to make these sweeping changes without the
scrutiny they deserve--no committee process, no serious examination of
the costs, and no opportunity to fully consider the consequences.
Workers deserve a voice. Businesses deserve certainty. The American
people deserve better than rushed legislation that puts bureaucrats in
charge and leaves everyone else with the bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will include a letter at a later time raising
concerns about H.R. 5408 from G. Roger King, senior labor and
employment counsel at CHRO Association, and Alex McDonald, co-chair of
the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crank). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1140, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 216]
YEAS--230
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Bresnahan
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carey
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
LaLota
Landsman
Langworthy
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lawler
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Malliotakis
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Mejia
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Min
Moore (WI)
Moore (WV)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Rulli
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stauber
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (OH)
Underwood
Van Drew
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NAYS--193
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Gill (TX)
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
Latta
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
[[Page H4037]]
NOT VOTING--7
Carter (GA)
Dunn (FL)
Kean
Khanna
Mace
McDonald Rivet
Norman
{time} 1905
Messrs. SMUCKER, WITTMAN, FITZGERALD, COMER, and RUTHERFORD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MEEKS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________