H.Res. 188

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today, the Committee on Rules met and reported House Resolution 188, providing structured rules for consideration of H.R. 842, H.R. 8, and H.R. 1446.

For H.R. 842, the rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes in order 19 amendments, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

For H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, the rule makes in order eight and four amendments, respectively, and provides 1 hour of debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule further provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit for each bill.

The rule also adds an additional minority member to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority from March 13 through April 22, and activates the Consensus Calendar.

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to be on the floor and present in almost a year. A year ago, as some of you know, I had an accident and proceeded to spend 6 weeks in the George Washington University Hospital intensive care unit, 4 of those weeks on a ventilator.

My sons came from California to be told by the doctors in a windowless room at George Washington that I had about a 10 percent chance of survival. The next day, they got a phone call, expecting to hear that their dad had died. Instead, the doctor told them that I was doing better.

Madam Speaker, I know that you know how grateful we are to have the wonderful gift of life, to share it with our children, and to be here in this sanctum sanctorum of American democracy. I am grateful. I am grateful to my staff, to the providence of our creator, and to my family.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is struggling, and not only because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Nation needs bold, meaningful changes to make a real difference for average Americans. That is what the three bills before us today do. Each addresses its own epidemic: gun violence; inequality; and, unfortunately, an ugly part of human nature, greed.

Madam Speaker, nearly 40,000 people died from firearm injuries in the United States in 2019. History would show that enacting smart, evidence-based policies based on public health premises reduces this sad phenomenon.

Madam Speaker, 22 percent of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. That means that millions of Americans got millions of guns with no questions asked. Approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained through private party transfers, which currently do not require background checks.

Ninety-six percent of the inmates surveyed, who were prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime, had obtained their firearm from an unlicensed private seller, avoiding the background check altogether.

In California, where I am proud to live and serve, all private gun sales must be completed through a licensed firearms dealer, requiring a background check--a universal background check and a mandatory waiting period. Not coincidentally--and the public health experts will let us know through their evidence-based research--California has the ninth- lowest rate of gun violence across the United States. Gun killings in Connecticut, similarly, fell by 40 percent after it required a mandatory background check and a gun safety course before the purchase of a gun.

We know what we need to do to help protect millions of Americans. Universal background checks are supported by decades of evidence. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 8, institutes universal background checks.

Additionally, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, H.R. 1446, ends the arbitrary rule that if a background check hasn't been completed in 3 days, the gun can be sold regardless.

I proudly support these bills because the evidence is clear that they will make our communities safer and save lives.

Madam Speaker, next, the rule will allow us to consider the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act. The rise in inequality in this country has coincided with a decline in union membership. By most estimates, declining unionization accounted for about one-third of the increase in inequality--one-third--from 1980 through the 1990s through today.

If you watch the data over the years, as States move as a group toward less union coverage, those same States have much worse income inequality. You cannot address inequality without increasing access for working people to representation. Unions do not only raise wages for the workers they represent, but they have also been shown to moderate the compensation of executives.

On top of the obvious benefits you think of that are associated with the labor unions, like higher wages, safer workplaces, some of the others that come along with union membership also help address the inequities in our society.

Union workers are more likely to receive paid leave, are up to 28 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and are up to 54 percent more likely to be enrolled in employer-sponsored pensions. Not only do workers have better access to pensions, but their employers contribute an average of 28 percent more toward those pensions, retirement security for Americans, than nonunion employers.

As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I know that the PRO Act simply updates labor law to ensure that workers in today's economy are able to create and join labor unions to receive the same kinds of protections they see in other sectors. Nothing more.

As President Eisenhower once said during the largest expansion of the American economy in history, when labor unions had one-third of the workforce: ``Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article published in the March 3 USA Today titled: ``Congress renews gun safety push with background check bills.''

[From USA TODAY, Mar. 3, 2021]

Congress Renews Gun Safety Push With Background Check Bills

(By Amanda Becker)

Congressional lawmakers this week revived an effort to

enact significant gun safety laws for the first time in more

than 25 years by introducing bills to establish a universal

background check system that has broad support from the

public.

The bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would

extend current federal background check requirements to

transactions conducted by unlicensed and private sellers.

Legislation was reintroduced in Congress to extend

background checks to transactions conducted by private and

unlicensed gun sellers.

The gun safety group Giffords estimates that 22% of U.S.

gun owners purchased their last firearm without completing a

background check. Polling shows that more than 90% of

Americans support a universal background check system.

The measures are what gun safety advocates predicted would

be a first step in pursuing new gun laws now that Democrats

control the White House and both chambers of Congress. In

recent years, gun safety bills stalled even when they had

bipartisan public support, in part because Republican

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not bring them up for

votes when he led the Senate from 2015 to 2021.

Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who chairs a

congressional gun violence prevention task force, on Tuesday

reintroduced bipartisan House legislation that would require

background checks for all firearm sales. The House first

passed the bill in 2019, one year after a mass shooting at

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida,

left 17 dead.

``Time and time again, we have seen that the American

people want universal background checks, in fact public

polling shows that the majority of people, Democrats,

Republicans and independents, support this,'' Thompson said

in a statement.

The Senate is evenly split between Democrats and

Republicans, and the measure would have to pick up bipartisan

support to pass that chamber given that most legislation must

clear a 60-vote threshold.

``This Congress we will finally bring common sense gun

reforms up for a vote in the House and the Senate, and the

single most popular and effective proposal we can consider is

universal background checks,'' Murphy said in a video about

the effort.

When the House passed background checks legislation in

2019, the bill ran aground in the then Republican-controlled

Senate, where McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, did not bring

it up for a vote.

``Now, with Senate Democrats in the Majority, we have the

opportunity to act on this overwhelmingly popular, lifesaving

legislation to protect American communities,'' Senate

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on the

bill's introduction.

Advocates for new gun safety laws have hoped that with

President Joe Biden in the White House and Democrats

controlling the House and Senate, there is an opportunity for

action. The NRA is also grappling with multiple crises: New

York's attorney general is investigating whether its leaders

misappropriated more than $60 million for personal use, and

the NRA filed for bankruptcy in January. Its remaining

officials insist the organization remains solvent, and it

plans to reincorporate in Texas.

``This is the moment,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of

Moms Demand Action, a grassroots organization started in late

2012 that now has nearly 6 million supporters.

``We have a trifecta and they have a mandate to act on

this. We have a grassroots army to support them and the NRA

is weaker than they've ever been,'' she added.

Already this week, Rep. Jim Clyburn, a key Biden ally from

South Carolina, reintroduced a bill that would close the so-

called ``Charleston loophole'' that allows firearm purchases

to move forward after three business days, even if a

background check has not been completed. It is named for the

2015 mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal

Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine died after

the gunman was able to purchase a firearm when the three-day

window expired.

Last month, to mark the third anniversary of the Parkland

shooting, Biden called for the passage of ``common sense''

gun safety laws. He cited a background checks bill among his

top priorities.

The last major law passed to curb gun violence was the

Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by Democratic President

Bill Clinton in 1994. But even that had a 10-year sunset

provision that has since expired. Several attempts to renew

it, including by President Barack Obama in 2013 after Sandy

Hook, all derailed in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Groups pushing for gun safety measures told The 19th

earlier this year that a background check bill would probably

be the starting point early in the Biden administration

because it has broader bipartisan support than other

measures. President Donald Trump acknowledged in 2019 that

there was a ``great appetite'' for such a proposal after mass

shootings in Ohio and Texas, as did McConnell, though he did

not go on to bring it up for a vote.

A ``red flag'' bill giving courts the power to temporarily

confiscate firearms from individuals deemed at risk or anti-

gun trafficking legislation could be taken up next, the

advocates said.

Biden advisers Susan Rice and Cedric Richmond met last

month with gun safety groups that included Everytown for Gun

Safety, Moms Demand Action, Giffords and Brady to discuss

background checks, the proliferation of so-called ``ghost''

guns (homemade firearms or those with serial numbers removed)

and violence intervention programs, the White House said.

Biden has also pledged to work with Congress to reauthorize

the Violence Against Women Act, which he worked on as a

senator in the 1990s. In 2019, the House approved a VAWA

provision to close the so-called ``boyfriend loophole'' that

allows current and former unmarried partners convicted of

abuse and stalking to continue to purchase firearms. That

effort also stalled in the Senate. Democratic House leaders

said this week they will be taking up VAWA reauthorization

later this month.

Madam Speaker, more than 90 percent of Americans support a universal background check system. Passing this legislation is simply common sense, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague and friend on the Rules Committee that we should enforce existing laws. In States like California where we have universal background checks, we have seen that gun violence has gone down, as I said in my earlier remarks. We have also seen that 30 percent of the guns used in criminal activity are actually imported into the State from other States.

To the previous comments that we need a national standard, that is why we need a national standard. It doesn't mean that States like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts can't do these things, and it is a good laboratory, as Justice Brandeis said, that States should be the laboratory for innovation. We know these things work. So I would agree that we should enforce and get the revenue, the existing law.

But clearly, eliminating the background checks loophole would help make Americans safe.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have one comment. The idea of opinions in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, there are 13 States, as I understand it, right now, who have universal background checks. All of them are working consistent with upholding the Second Amendment. Californians who have a universal background check can go out and legally buy a gun. It just decreases the number of deaths and injuries when you have this kind of law, Madam Speaker.

So I agree with the gentleman who spoke and said it shouldn't be about opinion. Neither of us decides what is constitutional in this instance. The courts do, and the courts have allowed local and State governments to implement these commonsense laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a correction. The bill doesn't say indefinitely for the background checks. It says 10 days with the availability of an additional 10 days for a maximum of 20 days. So it is not indefinite.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that having a gun in your home actually makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Of the over 40,000 Americans who lost their lives from gun violence in 2018--the last year we have up-to-date statistics--two-thirds of those were by suicide. This is one of the big contributing factors to what are the so-called diseases of despair which happen everywhere in this country right now in these difficult times, and it has gotten worse under COVID. But the proximity to the guns actually leads to more of an opportunity for people to be the victim of gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 18 Washington Post editorial titled: ``Maryland just closed a gun loophole. The state is safer for it.''

[From The Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2021]

Maryland Just Closed a Gun Loophole. The State is Safer for it.

(By Editorial Board)

Given America's lurid history of gun violence, it is

confounding that buyers can purchase firearms in some places

without background checks. It's even more astonishing that it

remains the case in a liberal stronghold such as Maryland,

which suffered its own recent trauma owing to a deranged

gunman bent on mass murder.

Lawmakers in Annapolis last week finally closed a loophole

in state law that waived background checks for buyers who

make private purchases of shotguns and rifles. Sales of

handguns as well as shotguns and rifles from licensed dealers

in Maryland have long been subject to mandatory checks

through a federal database, but long guns were exempted when

the transaction took place through private dealers, including

those at gun shows.

The Democratic-controlled legislature pushed through the

change this month by overriding a gratuitous veto cast last

year by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, who made no public

argument to defend the loophole beyond the fact that he had

not proposed closing it. The change takes effect next month.

Gun rights advocates and their Republican allies in the

legislature characterized the legislation as an assault on

rural Maryland's way of life and a burden for hunters. In

fact, whatever (probably slight) inconvenience some sportsmen

might undergo because of the new law is outweighed by the

obstacle it may pose for buyers who have no business owning

firearms.

It does not take a feat of imagination to foresee an act of

gun violence carried out by someone who, stymied by a

background check conducted by a licensed dealer, turns to a

private seller instead. Less than three years ago, a gunman

nursing a grievance massacred five people and injured two

others on a rampage through the newsroom of the Capital

Gazette newspaper, in Annapolis. He used a shotgun. As it

happens, he passed a background check when he purchased it; a

previous conviction, in 2011, for criminal harassment, was a

misdemeanor, not serious enough to forbid the sale. Yet even

if he had been convicted of a felony, he might still have

obtained a weapon easily by seeking out a private dealer--

through an online inquiry, for instance. The chances that

such a gunman would now succeed are diminished in Maryland.

No legislative measure is foolproof, and none will reliably

defeat a determined gunman. The idea of gun control, rather,

is to build a matrix of laws that deter and detect

individuals who, were they to obtain a firearm, would pose a

threat to themselves or others. Maryland's new law advances

that cause.

Madam Speaker, this isn't about taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans. Those claims are nonsense. This is about protecting the lives of all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my friends and colleagues that, again, even Justice Scalia, in the Heller majority decision, said that local and State governments could enact reasonable gun violence protection laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a brief comment. In that same decision of Justice Scalia that I mentioned earlier, he said that Second Amendment protections are not unlimited, and that is the point of this bill. They have been done. They have been done constitutionally, as I said, by 13 States. And they statistically work.

I, too, have been robbed at gunpoint, but I didn't have to have a gun to survive. That was providence and the San Francisco Police Department.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On the last point, I would just say that in California, in particular, in my district, having had multiple conversations with teachers, their labor representatives, and superintendents, we are getting schools back open, but we are doing it in a way to make sure that it is done efficiently and safely for everyone, the students, most particularly, their families, and their teachers.

We have come so far in this country, those of us who have listened to the science and the Centers for Disease

Control. We just want to make sure it is done right, in the most efficient, effective way for the kids.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Nicely done.

First, on the gun bills, of course, we are all respectful of the Speaker pro tempore's courage and the experience that she has had. For those of us who have had family members who have lost their lives because of gun violence--my dad is buried over at Arlington. He is a combat veteran from World War II who, a little over 30 years ago, took his own life.

As we know, the tragedies of homicide, as the Speaker pro tempore knows personally, and losing a loved one, as I know from losing a loved one to suicide--suicide is two-thirds of the total of people who die-- both are awful.

All we are trying to do, at least in my mind, is listen to the research, listen to the examples of other developed countries and other States, and implement public health policy. It informs us that if we do it, we will save lives and injuries, and we will save billions of dollars that all of us pay for.

All of us respect the Constitution. We took an oath to it. All of us respect the Second Amendment. We might not have all agreed if we were there, but it is the law. The courts have allowed us to implement these laws, and they work.

I really don't understand, and maybe it is because of my own personal belief and also from my experience as a city council member, a mayor, a member of the California Legislature, and now in Congress, why we don't follow the research and the evidence that it saves lives, out of respect for all those people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

Then, on the PRO Act, as a former member of a Teamsters union, that job helped me to get through college when my dad had lost his job. I loaded trucks. It was that union that provided me protection and enough for myself and my coworkers.

When I moved to San Francisco, I didn't have any money. I got a job in a hotel restaurant business, and I was in that local. Then, I was able to save enough money to go open my own businesses.

There have been some comments that somehow this bill would hurt small businesses. The reality is that people organize in environments where their employer is not treating their employees appropriately.

We know the inequality that Ms. DeLauro talked about, this historic inequality that is strangling our country and hurting so many working Americans, destroying the middle income that we have all benefited from, that opportunity to move up and to give to our kids something better than we had. That is the legacy of this country, and labor unions are a big part of that, and entrepreneurs and individual business owners are a big part of that. But it is the balance between these two.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said a long time ago, and he wrote a boring book about this, but it is interesting: Wages and capital have to have countervailing institutions. They have to balance each other.

As my friend from Minnesota said, it is a balance. Right now, after 50 years of attacks, starting with President Reagan, the working people in this country don't have the voice they once had. That not only hurts them and their kids; it hurts all of us.

When you have a robust middle class, and you have workers represented appropriately and proportionately, the country grows; there is more money to spend in businesses like mine; and there is a camaraderie, having teamwork. A good employer knows that, whether they have a unionized workforce or a nonunionized workforce.

Your employees are what make your business work. That is what gives you goodwill. That is what Americans took so much pride in, in the 1950s and 1960s, after World War II, after we had come to the great country we were after World War II, with a middle class that no one has ever seen on this planet. Since then, we have eroded that middle class.

The one most important thing to improve our economy is to give working Americans a voice. Let them join together. Let it be fair. A good employer will respect that and work with that.

As Eisenhower said, as I quoted in my opening, only a fool would try to keep a working American from organizing into a union.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is available on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the co-chair of the Labor Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No 1.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I am using my inside voice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Indiana an additional 15 seconds.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

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.