Floor Statements

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

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

Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues for offering these thoughtful amendments, which would protect the interests and rights of workers and employers alike. They negate some of the worst aspects of the PRO Act.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the PRO Act gives workers the right to form a union. That right has been around since the 1930s, Madam Speaker. Workers are already free to form a union, and Republicans do nothing to try to stop that freedom.

What the underlying bill does, however, is take away the freedom not to belong to a union. That is a fundamental freedom in this country, and we ought not to be taking that away from the American workers.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Republican en bloc amendments and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

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

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on February 26, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 41; YEA on Roll Call No. 42; YEA on Roll Call No. 43; YEA on Roll Call No. 44; and NAY on Roll Call No. 45.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding, and I completely agree with him on his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, yet another harmful bill that has been rushed to the House floor without thorough bipartisan consideration. It claims to strive for equality, but, in practice, this bill undermines the constitutional religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans.

Once again, abandoning long-established House procedures, Democrats are pushing a conveniently titled bill without convening one hearing or markup during the 117th Congress to consider its vast implications for educational institutions and employers.

This legislation would require our Nation's K-12 schools to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality.

H.R. 5 also threatens religious freedom protections for all Americans and Federal funding for religiously affiliated colleges and universities.

Under this bill, student codes of conduct, hiring practices, and housing rules that reflect sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality would be deemed discriminatory, eroding First Amendment rights.

In addition, the definitions in this bill are vague and would subject employers and other covered organizations to increase litigation risks.

The bill also fails to advocate for the unborn, which is why I urge support for my amendment that will protect anyone, including religiously affiliated groups and individuals, from being forced to perform abortions.

Masquerading as a proposal to guarantee fundamental civil rights to all Americans, H.R. 5 is nothing more than a partisan ploy to destroy religious liberty and educational opportunities for girls. Shameful doesn't even begin to describe this bill.

This is no way to legislate, but for House Democrats, silencing the voices of the minority and millions of hardworking Americans is business as usual.

Mr. Speaker, government intervention often causes more harm than good. I have spent my time in Congress working to protect individual freedoms from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

I recognize that a strong family is vital to our Nation's progress and prosperity, which is why I have worked to advance legislation that allows families to flourish and protects life at all stages. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire generation. The right to life demands that we protect our Nation's most vulnerable, including the unborn.

Our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years.

Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. We are the land of the free because of it. Our individual liberties are the envy of people around the world and they are the cornerstone of the world's oldest democracy.

Yet, today, these essential rights are under attack. H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating.

As a former educator and the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you that the bill may have equality in the title, but it certainly does not serve all Americans.

This legislation has a clever name and an allegedly noble purpose, but it is a vehicle for serious harmful consequences.

The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. According to the National Review, this extreme legislation ``redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth.''

Under H.R. 5, our Nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality. The bill would undermine Title IX protections for girls by outlawing sex-based athletic competitions.

Even more troubling is the bill's meticulous and intentional destruction of religious freedom protections.

Religiously-affiliated colleges and universities that maintain student codes of conduct, hiring practices, or housing rules reflecting sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality, risk losing Federal funding under the Equality Act, as such policies would be deemed discriminatory.

Beloved secular private colleges that maintain single-sex policies, like Smith College and Morehouse College, would be forced to change their policies or forego Federal funding.

In the State of Virginia, we have already seen the displeasure among parents regarding such policy implementation. In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post in 2019, a former middle and high school teacher whose children attend Arlington public schools said: ``It would erode parents' rights over their children's education, corrode Title IX protections for girls, and risk convincing healthy, normally developing boys and girls that their bodies are wrong and must be altered with hormones and be vandalized by surgical instruments.''

The bill also lacks any pro-life protections, which is why I am submitting my amendment that will protect religiously affiliated groups and individuals from being forced to perform abortions.

This bill is a brazen attempt to replace longstanding constitutional rights with the identity politics of the moment.

We have entered treacherous waters by considering legislation that stifles proven, bipartisan solutions and, more seriously, our Bill of Rights. It is outrageous that Democrats would advertise these proposals as guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights.

Mr. Speaker, as elected Representatives, we all strive for equality before the law, but H.R. 5 is another classic example of Democrats passing a law now and figuring out what it means later. This is no way to legislate.

Madam Speaker, our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years. Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. Yet, today, these essential rights are under attack.

H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating. As a former educator and the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you the bill may have ``equality'' in the title, but it certainly does not serve all Americans.

The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes.

According to the National Review, this extreme legislation redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth.

Under H.R. 5, our Nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality.

Government intervention often causes more harm than good. I've spent my time in Congress working to protect individual freedoms from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. I recognize that a strong family is vital to our nation's progress and prosperity, which is why I've worked to advance legislation that allows families to flourish and protects life at all stages. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of on entire generation. The right to life demands that we protect our Nation's most vulnerable, including the unborn.

Our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years. Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. We are the `land of the free' because of it. Our individual liberties are the envy of people around the world and they are the cornerstone of the world's oldest democracy.

Yet today, these essential rights are under attack.

H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating.

As a former educator and the Republican Leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you that the bill may have ``equality'' in the title, but it certainly does not serve ALL Americans.

This legislation has a clever name and an allegedly noble purpose, but it is a vehicle for serious, harmful consequences.

The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. According to the National Review, this extreme legislation ``redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth.''

Under H.R. 5, our nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality.

The bill would undermine Title IX protections for girls by outlawing sex-based athletic competitions.

Even more troubling is the bill's meticulous and intentional destruction of religious freedom protections.

Religiously affiliated colleges and universities that maintain student codes of conduct, hiring practices, or housing rules reflecting sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality risk losing federal funding under the Equality Act, as such policies would be deemed discriminatory.

Beloved secular private colleges that maintain single sex admissions policies, like Smith College and Morehouse College, could be forced to change their policies or forego federal funding.

In Virginia, we've already seen the displeasure amongst parents regarding such policy implementation. In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post in 2019, a former middle and high school teacher whose children attend Arlington Public Schools said, ``It would erode parents' rights over their children's education, corrode Title IX protections for girls and risk convincing healthy, normally developing boys and girls that their bodies are wrong and must be altered with hormones and be vandalized by surgical instruments.''

The bill also lacks any pro-life protections, which is why I am submitting my amendment that will protect religiously affiliated groups and individuals from participating in or funding abortions.

This bill is a brazen attempt to replace longstanding constitutional rights with the identity politics of the moment.

We've entered treacherous waters by considering legislation that stifles proven, bipartisan solutions and, more seriously, our Bill of Rights. It's outrageous that Democrats would advertise these proposals as guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights.

Madam Speaker, as elected Representatives, we all strive for equality before the law, but H.R. 5 is another classic example of Democrats passing a bill now and figuring out what it means later.

This is no way to legislate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 477, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which impedes the ability of businesses and employers to fill in-demand jobs.

Legislation deserves a proper, thorough, and bipartisan examination, which is why the House has long established procedures to do just that. Those procedures respect the majority and minority and ensure that both sides are represented.

Democrats are ignoring these procedures and bringing this bill straight to the floor, steamrolling the committee of jurisdiction. Time and again Speaker Pelosi has shown more interest in ``our way or the highway'' governing than upholding the deliberative process of the people's House.

Rushing a bill to the House floor without committee consideration simply because we have gaveled in a new Congress and need something to fill the time on the floor isn't a sustainable path forward under any circumstances. This is particularly frustrating considering the bipartisan agreement that our Nation's apprenticeship system needs to be updated to provide more opportunities for hardworking Americans.

H.R. 447 closes pathways to work for students and job seekers at a time when our Nation is in desperate need of getting more Americans back to work. In recent years, steps were taken to increase the number of high-quality apprenticeships and introduce innovation into work- based learning programs. For example, the Trump administration created Industry Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which provide another avenue for companies seeking skilled workers who want to develop programs with more input from other industry leaders rather than from the Federal Government.

Democrats like to say that IRAPs are ``untried'' or ``untested.'' Other words for that are ``new'' and ``innovative.''

This bill would take away opportunities for the 131 IRAPs that have been recognized in the last 4 months, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials. Limiting nursing credentials during a global pandemic is idiotic.

By prohibiting these innovative programs, the bill assumes that a registered program that worked for one employer will meet the diverse needs of every business across the country, regardless of size or industry.

In fiscal year 2019, 252,000 individuals entered apprenticeships, but only 81,000 graduated from the registered system. In fact, there have been, on average, over 190,000 new apprenticeships every year since 2015, but only 81,000 graduate in a year from the registered system. That is a graduation rate of 43 percent, at best. Yet Democrats refer to this program as the ``gold standard.''

Lord help us if this is the gold standard.

Clearly, there is room to improve the registered system, make space for employer-led innovation, and get more Americans back to work. Instead, Democrats assume that simply throwing more taxpayer dollars at a broken system will lead to the creation of a million new apprenticeships. But they have failed to address the underlying problems with the system and, along the way, are shutting down a new, more flexible option that businesses have already found appealing.

Stifling innovation and doubling down on an 80-year-old system that favors union-driven apprenticeships will hurt our efforts to get more Americans back to work. Yet language included in the legislation favors grant funding for entities partnering with unions. Turning the bill's grant program into a union slush fund would also block countless potential for participants from accessing grant money.

Even worse, H.R. 447 will force job creators to deal with overly prescriptive requirements, additional bureaucracy, and time-consuming paperwork on top of the one-size-fits-all approach. It is no wonder this stifling environment has discouraged new and small businesses from participating in the registered apprenticeship system.

Employers know best what skills their employees require to excel in the workplace. That is why Republicans believe Congress should encourage employer-led innovation in the apprenticeship space. Unfortunately, today's legislation falls woefully short.

We know that apprenticeships will play a defining role in closing the skills gap and putting more Americans to work, but only if employees and job creators are given the flexibility to innovate and develop high-quality earn-and-learn programs without overreach from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that these grants are not restricted to union programs, or programs that are associated with unions. But the language in the bill is ``to the extent practicable programs should be connected with the union.'' That term is not defined.

The Department of Labor can arbitrarily deny grants to nonunion programs. There is no accountability for this. In fact, there is very little accountability in this bill at all. And the American people want to know where their hardworking tax dollars are being spent. This is just a lousy bill and we ought not to be passing it in these conditions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As my other colleagues have pointed out, millions of workers will need reskilling due to the pandemic-related job loss and displacement, not to mention the devastating executive orders signed by President Biden which eliminated in one day hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The World Economic Forum discusses this issue at length in their recent report titled: ``The Future of Jobs Report 2020.'' In the report, they point to a double disruption scenario impacting workers due to both automation and COVID-19 workplace disruptions.

This double disruption is further reinforced in their findings that 84 percent of employers are set to rapidly digitalize working processes. And, again, as I mentioned, they don't even take into consideration what President Biden has done to eliminate hundreds of thousands, and it could be millions of jobs.

The demand for reskilling workers is high, and we will be left chasing the need of our workforce with the current one-size-fits-all approach this bill seeks to enshrine into law.

As in-demand skills evolve into the years to come, the skills gap will continue to grow in the absence of forward-thinking reform. Again, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join Republicans in creating new apprenticeship pathways through innovative models such as the industry-recognized apprenticeship model. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you clarify how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which would be eliminated by this bill represent a new apprenticeship model that puts employers in the driver's seat to create programs that meet the unique needs of their workers.

This new, innovative model was spearheaded by President Trump's Department of Labor. Currently, 80 percent of apprenticeships are employer-led and are not a part of the registered apprenticeship model. The registered apprenticeship model is riddled with burdensome red tape which discourages countless businesses from participating.

IRAPs, on the other hand, give job creators the freedom to break away from the Washington-knows-best model and connect workers, families, and communities with fulfilling careers.

This bill looks backwards and relies solely on a model created during the Great Depression. We should be looking forward and not closing opportunities for new models that reach more workers and industries like the industry-recognized apprenticeship model.

Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the National Apprenticeship Act is in desperate need of an update. But the bill before us fails to deliver for students, workers, or job creators.

While Democrats continue with this ill-advised legislation, Republicans will continue working hard to inject innovation and flexibility into the apprenticeship model so that more Americans, many of whom have been put out of work by this very administration, can get back to work.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my great affection for the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), I have to highlight at least one amendment in the en bloc that I am concerned with.

The amendment offered by Representative Escobar would add Job Corps Centers to the list of education providers that may be considered as partners for program sponsors as they are developing their program.

I understand Mr. Levin thinks this is a great idea, and it is well- intentioned, I am sure. But I do not believe we should be adding more responsibilities to a program that has consistently failed to do that which Congress has already authorized it to do.

For decades, this federally funded program has struggled to ensure the safety and security of students. There is ample documentation about the deficiencies in Job Corps. In fact, over 30 different government reports and audits have raised concerns over the safety and security of participants.

Until we have resolved the underlying problems with Job Corps, I do not believe we should encourage more individuals to participate in the program by listing this as an available option.

The other amendments are largely minor changes to the bill that do not redeem the underlying policy or do anything to seriously reform and improve our apprenticeship system.

While I wish we could have a serious debate about the opportunity for additional reforms in this space that would be supported by a large number of Republican Members, it is clear that Democrats are unwilling to have that conversation today.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one on our side disagrees that millions of people in this country now and in the future need constant education and the opportunity to gain new skills.

Mr. Speaker, we all support apprenticeships. I want to tell a little story about how long I have been involved in helping to create apprenticeships. I have a brother who is 8 years younger than I, and it took me 7 years to finish college. I had just barely finished and was working at a new resort in North Carolina, Beech Mountain. He was a senior in high school, and he came to me and said: I don't want to go to college, but I don't want you and mom and daddy to be ashamed of me.

We have created a system in this country where we think people have to have a baccalaureate degree to be successful. That is not true.

I asked my brother what he wanted to do, and he said: I want to be a carpenter.

I said: That is about the most honorable profession in the world. Some famous people were carpenters.

So, I went to my boss. I don't know how I knew this, but I said: My brother would like to be a carpenter. We are desperate for carpenters, electricians, and plumbers here. Could we set up a carpentry apprenticeship program?

We did that with the help of a local junior college, community college, contractors, and AGC. We set up a carpentry apprenticeship program. Seventeen guys, mostly recent high school graduates, enrolled in it.

Three-and-a-half years later, my brother and three other guys graduated with their journeyman license. Now, I consider that a great success. I have been interested in apprenticeships since 1969. I saw how successful they were.

Those are the kinds of programs that we need to be fostering in this country. My brother went on to be an engineer with the telephone company. He never got a bachelor's degree, but he showed me how to use my first computer, taught me how to use it, set it up for me.

My brother is a very successful man, a lot smarter than I am, but he did that by using his skills, his brain. And he continues to educate himself.

What we need is constant education, the opportunity to learn new skills, but this bill and these amendments don't advance the cause. We need to stop looking backward 80 years and look forward to the needs of a modern economy.

Yes, the President hit the ground running. He sure did. He eliminated thousands of jobs in his first week, and he continues to eliminate jobs with wrongheaded policy. This bill and many of the actions of our colleagues indicate how beholden they are to union bosses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc incorporates eight amendments with bipartisan support. I want to highlight a few amendments from this en bloc in particular.

First, the amendment offered by Mr. Feenstra from Iowa will ensure that the Departments of Labor and Justice collaborate on technical assistance to support the development of related instruction that is aligned with the mentoring program administered by the Department of Justice.

Second, several amendments add industries to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations.

Modernizing the 80-year-old National Apprenticeship Act ought to include apprenticeship opportunities within a variety of sectors. Far too often, society paints apprenticeships as only applying to the trades, which is unfortunate. While there are certainly valuable pathways within those fields, we need to expand the horizons of what apprenticeships are capable of providing for workers.

This is also why I think it is important to call these professions rather than the trades. A broader policy should not be limited by how it has traditionally been viewed or how we speak about it.

Third, the amendment offered by Mr. Lamb from Pennsylvania and Mr. Taylor from Texas includes veterans service organizations in several key places. Because apprenticeships recognize and build on prior knowledge and skills, veterans stand to benefit greatly from these opportunities and should be engaged in the system as much as possible.

Unfortunately, I do need to highlight one amendment that could be much stronger. Our Democrat colleagues have obviously recognized that the underlying bill does nothing to promote innovation in apprenticeships but, instead, simply doubles down on the status quo.

So several Members have offered an amendment allowing for ``demonstration projects'' to promote innovation. Mr. Speaker, this is insulting. This Chamber deserves a real debate as to how to promote innovation within apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Republicans offered amendments to do just that, but they were not made in order. Representative Allen offered an amendment specifically to protect existing industry-driven apprenticeships currently operating out of the Department of Labor. Representative Thompson offered an amendment to create additional innovation in work-based learning.

Rather than allowing that debate to take place and Members to vote on these proposals, Democrats blocked consideration of those amendments and offered this do-nothing fig leaf of an amendment instead. Even the limited authority for demonstrations must still be approved by an advisory committee with heavy labor representation, giving union bosses veto power over any new ideas that might threaten their hold on apprenticeships. In the absence of real innovation, fake innovation is better than no innovation, but we could do better.

Despite my frustrations with Democrats' refusal to debate serious proposals to modernize the apprenticeship program, on balance, this en bloc amendment offers good ideas worthy of support. I support the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it intriguing that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are passing legislation that is cost- effective when they are anticipating millions of jobs and generating lots of revenue, especially when they are denying that they are taking money from hardworking taxpayers who want to have apprenticeship programs that are not controlled by the Federal Government, and not allowing those taxpayers--those employers--to tap into a system that has grant programs for them where they are creating real jobs not controlled by the unions. It is just intriguing to me that they could be doing that.

I don't know if I will be here 5 years from now or if Mr. Levin will be here 5 years from now, but I sure hope somebody does a check on the promises that are being made here for all the wonderful things to come as a result of this bill. And I predict that those ``investments'' that are the income being taken from hardworking taxpayers are not going to produce what is being predicted by our colleagues. So it is intriguing for me to hear that. I do hope somebody will be around to check on it and give a report on it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight a couple of amendments in the en bloc that I have some reservations about and that I think would benefit from additional discussion if this bill is taken up in the Senate.

First, Moore amendment No. 15 creates a new reporting requirement on ``State agencies.'' I don't think new reporting requirements will achieve our goal of increasing employer engagement in the registered apprenticeship program when the underlying bill doubles down on the reasons employers choose not to participate in the first place.

But I would at least encourage my Democrat friends to clarify if they mean for that reporting requirement to apply only to ``State apprenticeship agencies'' or if they truly want to empower the Department of Labor to demand reports of any and every State agency it chooses, regardless of that agency's involvement in apprenticeship programs.

Second, Payne amendment No. 18 may well make it harder to engage small- and medium-sized employers by requiring grantees to have demonstrated expertise in engaging specific types of small- and medium- sized businesses.

Madam Speaker, to be absolutely clear, I believe we should take reasonable steps to encourage grantees to partner with small businesses owned or controlled by women, minorities, or veterans. The underlying bill does this.

Unfortunately, the Payne amendment actually requires demonstrated success in this area, which would likely shrink the pool of grantees significantly, particularly in locations that already offer fewer apprenticeships programs. This is a well-meaning amendment, but as well-intentioned as it is, I hope the Senate will take another look at how to increase the participation of minority-, women-, and veterans- owned businesses without creating requirements that will reduce apprenticeship opportunities.

The balance of the amendments are unobjectionable. They are unobjectionable because they mostly don't do anything noteworthy. In some cases they repeat provisions already in the bill. In other cases they add additional items to existing laundry lists. In short, these amendments are fine. They don't make the bill better in any substantive way, but they don't make it worse.

But, Madam Speaker, the fact that the majority is spending our time on mostly meaningless amendments highlights the fundamental flaw in this bill and process. We are on the floor debating amendments that don't do much, while amendments that could have made significant improvements to the bill were blocked by the Democrats from consideration.

We have talked repeatedly during this debate about how the Democrat bill eliminates existing work-based learning programs at the Department of Labor, mostly nursing apprenticeship programs, at a time our economy, particularly the healthcare sector, needs all the help it can get.

Representative Allen offered an amendment to remedy this flaw in the bill, but my Democrat friends were afraid of taking that vote. So we aren't considering that proposal today.

We have talked repeatedly about how this bill doubles down on the existing flaws of the current 80-year-old system while offering no opportunities for employers or workers to pursue meaningful innovation in the work-based learning space.

Representative Thompson offered an amendment to fix that problem in the bill, but Democrats didn't want to take that vote either.

We have talked repeatedly about how this bill seeks to protect big labor at the expense of workers in desperate need of high-quality apprenticeship programs. Representative Keller offered an amendment and Mr. Perry spoke of this inequity in his floor amendments. The amendment from Mr. Keller would have put union and nonunion apprenticeship programs on equal footing. Democrats won't let the people's House weigh in on that issue.

Madam Speaker, I am going to support this en bloc amendment, but I hope at some point we will have an honest debate about how to truly improve this bill to provide workers the apprenticeship opportunities they need, or at least to protect the apprenticeship opportunities they currently have.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our colleagues talk a lot about the fact that 94 percent of people who complete apprenticeship programs get jobs immediately, but they never talk about the gold standard they call the registered programs, which graduate only 43 percent of the people who enter them, so I think they are very selective in the statistics that they use.

Madam Speaker, expanding funding and giving funding to State apprenticeship offices, in my opinion, is just a hook for more Federal control. And everything about this underlying bill is to have more and more control at the Federal Government level, which enhances the role of unions in apprenticeship programs. That is not the way we should be going.

Our colleagues have not noticed, I think, how quickly the workforce is having to adapt to, particularly, technological changes that are occurring in our country. These programs change very, very little over time because of the hidebound unions and the hidebound system that we have.

We need the employers on the ground who are dealing with creating new jobs all the time in new industries to be able to tap into their taxpayer dollars that are coming into the Federal Government, which are denied to them unless they are hooked to a union. That is wrong, and we need fair systems.

As Mr. Keller and Mr. Perry have pointed out, even the standards set for industry programs that are controlled by unions are different than they are in the private sector. There are more regulations on the private sector than on the union programs.

This is not a good way for us to be going in the year 2021. We need innovation. We need to be forward-looking, not backward-looking.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

Currently, the underlying bill favors grant funding for entities that partner with unions. This would block countless potential participants from accessing these funds and would further cement the program in the way it has been since the 1930s.

If we want to reach 1 million apprenticeships in this country, I fail to see how limiting access by creating earmarks and kickbacks will achieve that goal.

The amendment offered by Representative Hill would make it optional for grant applications to partner with unions. If the majority truly believes that this is not a requirement intended to push more workers into unions, this should be no more than a technical clarification.

Although it would not redeem the underlying bill, this amendment would be a step in the right direction toward opening more apprenticeship opportunities for Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Stefanik, a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Modernizing the apprenticeship system in this country is more important now than ever, as millions are in need of reskilling.

This amendment would drastically improve the Registered Apprenticeship Program while also permitting DOL to pursue models of work-based learning outside the registered system, such as Industry- Recognized Apprenticeship Programs.

The exclusion of this amendment would stop this innovative progress and scrap the 131 IRAPs that have already been recognized, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials.

Unlike the Democrats' narrow-minded bill, Representative Stefanik's amendment recognizes the needs of students, workers, and job creators.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense alternative.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time and including my amendment in the en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc package. I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for their assistance on my amendment and thank the Rules Committee for recognizing the importance of this issue.

My amendment sends a clear signal to the European Union on the importance of the primacy of NATO over our shared defense interests.

As some European capitals push for the formation of a European Union army, my amendment expresses the importance of NATO centrality over our defense policy architecture and the necessity of military system interoperability and burden-sharing efforts among NATO allies.

We all know that increases in European military capability must be made by our European allies to comply with their NATO obligations. Investments underway in the form of the PESCO pact and the European Defense Fund can risk system interoperability and present divergent spending priorities within our alliance. EU defense investments should take place under the NATO umbrella to ensure accountability and the guarantee of U.S. influence.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues again for their support of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are relentless in their pursuit to eliminate an entire sector of postsecondary education--proprietary institutions, or taxpaying institutions.

In their zealous effort to bury these types of institutions under additional red tape and redundant bureaucratic mandates, Democrats are wasting taxpayer dollars and valuable Pentagon time.

I have said during our Education and Labor Committee hearings, and I will say it again and again, I support accountability for all postsecondary education institutions. Students should not be taken advantage of or harmed at any institution. That is why Congress and the armed services have tough standards in place that hold all institutions accountable for taxpayer dollars.

These requirements include two agencies already overseeing schools participating in aid programs. The Pentagon is already required through the Tuition Assistance program to evaluate the educational institutions' overall effectiveness in administering its academic program, courses, and general customer satisfaction; and the Department of Education is tasked with--and has the expertise to--monitor the school's fiscal health according to standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. If institutions fail to meet either of these requirements, there are serious consequences.

In addition to doubling bureaucracy, this amendment fails to help students and their families in any meaningful way.

Instead of voting for this ineffective amendment, I invite Representative Shalala and others to join me in reforming the Higher Education Act to hold all institutions accountable to all students.

I appreciate my colleague for saying that her colleagues on this side of the aisle support our veterans. I agree that all veterans deserve our thanks and all the freedom they have fought for, including the right to attend the school of their choice.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'', and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).

Madam Chair, I want to reiterate again what I said before: we support veterans. We want them to get a great education, but we want them to have the choices that they have fought for. They have sacrificed for freedoms for our country, and they deserve to have all the freedoms that they possibly need.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the city of West Jefferson in North Carolina's Fifth District on yet another successful Christmas in July Festival. For the last 33 years, the festival has taken place on the first weekend of July to celebrate Ashe County's vibrant and nationally renowned Christmas tree industry.

The dedicated volunteers of the festival committee and board of directors bring together this wonderfully patriotic community around America's independence and the best Christmas trees in the country. As a former Christmas tree grower myself, I can attest to the importance of recognizing this often overlooked, yet highly significant, farming industry, not just during the Christmas season, but all year round.

It is not only an honor to represent these patriots and tree growers, it is an honor for me to share this tradition with them every year.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Wanda K. Brown on her inauguration as president of the American Library Association, the oldest and largest library association in the world.

Ms. Brown has an exemplary record as the director of library services at Winston-Salem State University's C.G. O'Kelly Library in North Carolina's Fifth Congressional District. She also served as associate dean of the Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University.

During her tenure as president of the North Carolina Library Association, Ms. Brown received many national awards recognizing her leadership in numerous library organizations, including the Black Caucus of the American Library Association. Ms. Brown's presidency of the American Library Association is the culmination of an extraordinary career in librarianship.

I wish Ms. Brown the best in her new endeavors to expand valuable library services in America and around the world, and I know that the ALA is in great hands.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3351. One of the many faults of this legislation is language designed to eliminate educational options for low-income families in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body wants all students to receive an excellent education. That is why Congress authorized the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004, which provided low-income students in the District of Columbia the chance to escape public schools that were not working for them and find a private school that would meet their educational needs. Congress has reauthorized this program twice, most recently in 2017.

We know the program works. Just recently, a witness testifying before the Committee on Education and Labor described her son pursued private school options through the program in part because he was bullied in his public elementary school. He ultimately graduated from his private high school as salutatorian and is now attending the University of Maryland.

This family's story is not uncommon. A Department of Education study on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program found that students receiving scholarships were 21 percent more likely to graduate high school than their public school peers.

An Urban Institute study of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program released earlier this year found similar results. Students participating in that program were more likely to attend and graduate college than their public school peers.

If we truly believe in improving educational outcomes for students, supporting educational freedom is something all of us should support. Unfortunately, the bill before us today seeks to strip these choices from low-income parents in D.C. under the guise of protecting students' civil rights.

For example, the language would require private schools to follow most of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On the surface, that sounds like it makes sense, but families of students with disabilities are exercising their freedom to pursue private school options because the public school has failed their child. They believe the private school provides an educational program that will provide a better outcome for their student. They know that student better than the Federal Government does. Who are you to take that choice away?

And to be clear, the system the majority wants to shackle these families with is failing.

Since 2007, the Department of Education has evaluated States and the

District of Columbia on their compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In every single year since then, the District's public school system has failed to meet the requirements of the law.

To put this in plain language, the majority wants to return students who have found educational choices that work for them to a failing system. And they are couching this policy in civil rights terms. That is shameful.

The majority will presumably pass this bill, but I urge the Senate to reject this attempt to hide a special interest giveaway behind civil rights language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.