Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is very interesting that our colleagues have talked about unions providing the middle class better jobs and benefits. It is very interesting to look at the declining rate of union membership and see the increasing salaries, number of jobs being created in the country, benefits, and all positive things happening, record unemployment, record wage increases. That is going along with declining union participation. Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker, anti-small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades, and this amendment makes it worse. The PRO Act is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misleading, unworkable, and misguided amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the modern economy, this means deciding for themselves whether to share their personal information. At an Education and Labor Committee hearing on this bill last year, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka testified that unions need workers' personal information so that they can solicit them anyplace you can get them, including at their home. As we know from previous testimony, these are not always friendly visits. In many instances, they are intended to exert pressure on workers to support the union. The PRO Act requires that business owners provide employees' home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, personal email address, and more to union bosses, which will promote union harassment of employees at home or in public. This is outrageous and unacceptable. Moreover, there are no safeguards for how workers' personal information might be used or misused. For one, the information could be used by unions for unwanted political campaigning, solicitation, or worse. The PRO Act contains no protections or restrictions on how this information will be used and no repercussions if unions allow it to fall into the wrong hands. We have seen countless examples of private companies and government agencies subjected to hacks and leaks that allow private, personal information to fall into the wrong hands. The last thing American workers need is for self-interested union bosses to have that information and for hackers and scammers to gain access as well. Many Members of Congress know firsthand the risks associated with having their personal information distributed. My amendment provides basic privacy protections to the workers we represent so that, while they are free to organize together, they are just as free to protect their valuable personal information. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, my amendment addresses just one radical component of the PRO Act by preserving workers' privacy, ensuring that they can protect their own personal information and decide for themselves whether they wish to share it with the union. Importantly, the amendment does not restrict unions from receiving any information at all; rather, the workers can decide for themselves which one piece of contact information they wish to share. And the union is free to gather the rest directly from workers without the employer acting as a middleman. Like with every other provision of the PRO Act, Democrats claim that invading workers' privacy is about leveling the playing field; but, time and again, polling has shown that workers prefer choice, privacy, and control within the unions that claim to represent them. The PRO Act is an affront to all of these basic concepts, none of its provisions more so than the requirement that employers share employees' personal information with union organizers against the employees' will. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment that will put workers, not union bosses, in control of their own private, personal information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is designed to short-circuit the union election process drastically by micromanaging the National Labor Relations Board. The goal of this amendment is to rush the election process in order to deprive workers of the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of unionization, and employers of the adequate time to prepare for union election. Rushing union elections simply tilts the playing field against both workers, who deserve the benefit of hearing both sides, and businessowners who should have the right to make their case to their workforce about unionization. Unions often begin organizing campaigns weeks, or even months, before employers are made aware, creating a scenario in which workers are hearing only one side of the issue prior to a union election. When an election petition is filed, employers, and particularly small employers, must seek counsel and attempt to understand complex matters of labor law within an unreasonably short time period. This amendment seeks to impose an unfair and unnecessary ambush election scheme through a change in the law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and antismall business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small businesses, and this amendment makes it worse. The largest federation of unions in America spends more than three times as much money on politics as it does on its stated purpose of organizing and representing workers. And unions attempted to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible workers in 2018, so it should come as no surprise that union membership in the United States is plummeting. Yet, rather than correct their own wrongdoing and increase their ranks by serving workers better, unions are demanding that Congress enact this sweeping, radical bill that tilts the playing field aggressively in their favor, against workers and small businesses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this antiworker, pro-union boss amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is a weak attempt to lend lip service to employee privacy, but it fails to reduce the PRO Act's invasion of workers' personal lives. Simply because this amendment says the bill shall not be construed to affect employee privacy does not make it so. This amendment will not affect the PRO Act's mandate forcing employers to share employees' home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, and more with union organizers without giving workers any say in the matter or ensuring that their personal information is protected. The PRO Act's provision is an invasion of privacy, and empty rhetoric in this fig leaf amendment does nothing to fix this harmful mandate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and anti- small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers in small businesses, and this amendment does nothing to change that. My colleagues keep saying that the Trump administration is supporting many bad rules put in place in 2014; however, that is misleading. The administration has not completed its work on modifying or changing some of those rules. Unions attempted to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible workers in 2018, so it should come as no surprise that union membership in the United States is plummeting. Yet, rather than correct their own wrongdoing and increase their ranks by serving workers better or going out and actually doing the job that unions are supposed to do, unions are demanding that Congress enact this sweeping, radical bill that tilts the playing field aggressively in their favor against workers and small businesses. This amendment does nothing to lessen the harm this bill will inflict on American workers in the form of violating their privacy, providing their personal information to union organizers without allowing workers the choice to refuse. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The biggest problem with our Federal labor laws today is inadequate protection of workers' rights within the labor organizations that represent them. This amendment would make that problem worse. Workers should not be forced into a union with which they do not wish to associate. The existing process for workers to remove a union is too limited and burdensome as it is. Workers face tremendous one-sided barriers to a decertification election that they do not face in a certification election. Worse, more than 90 percent of workers represented by a union today have never voted for that union to represent them. Let me repeat that. More than 90 percent of workers represented by a union today have never voted for that union to represent them. Democrats oppose legislation that would allow workers to vote periodically on the union in their workplace, and this amendment would make it even more difficult for workers to have an opportunity to vote, even after clearing all of the existing unnecessary hurdles. This amendment would make the PRO Act even more antiworker than it already is. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, union membership is plummeting because American workers have realized that they don't need the unions. We are seeing such a prosperous economy. And as I said, union membership declining is correlated with the fact that our economy is booming for the middle class. The PRO Act, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most antiworker and anti- small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades. It is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small businesses. The largest federation of unions in America spends more than three times as much money on politics as it does on its stated purpose of organizing and representing workers. With this bill, the unions are trying to take a shortcut. They have decided it is better to just focus on getting Democrats to do their work for them. Unions attempted to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible workers in 2018, so it should come as no surprise that union membership in the United States is plummeting, along with the great economy that we have. Yet, rather than correct their own wrongdoing and increase their ranks by serving workers better, unions are demanding their allies in Congress enact this sweeping, radical bill that includes over 50 harmful provisions, including those which eliminate workers' privacy, forces workers to pay a labor union against their will, subjects workers and small businesses to direct union harassment, and will kill thousands of small businesses and good-paying jobs. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this antiworker, pro-union boss amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment will open Pandora's box. Sectoral bargaining which would apply a single one-size-fits-all contract to every employee in every business across a particular industry in the United States would be an unmitigated disaster for American small businesses. It would rob small business owners and workers alike of the freedom to negotiate their own contracts. Every business is different. One-size-fits-all union contracts applied across an entire industry throughout the United States would saddle small businesses with labor and employment costs that do not work for their particular business and that they may not be able to afford. Similarly, employees would be forced to accept wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment that they had no say in determining, and that may not work for their individual situations. Collective bargaining agreements already force workers into one-size- fits-all contracts, but currently, in the United States, they are at least confined within the walls of one business at a time. Sectoral bargaining is a flawed and economically stifling policy used in other countries, and one we should not be importing into the United States. It would likely expand union contracts to hundreds of thousands of additional employees, to the detriment of every worker hoping for more individualized wages and benefits. The absence of sectoral bargaining has allowed America's spirit of freedom and innovation to drive unrivaled economic growth and prosperity. Congress should not entertain importing the socialist method of collective bargaining from other countries. Look at our economy, especially compared to socialist European economies. It is booming; they are stagnant. The United States Congress does not need to import the worst economic ideas from other countries with weaker economies, but socialist Democrats insist on doing so. Sectoral bargaining is one such proposal that we should not entertain. Madam Chairman, I have seen some interesting amendments in my time in the Congress, in this Chamber, but I have to say, this is the most bizarre amendment that I believe I have ever seen. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I plan to vote in favor of the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment is little more than a recognition from the Democrats that the PRO Act is truly a union boss wish list that strips rights away from workers, increases the coercive power of union bosses, and will make union corruption like we are seeing at the United Auto Workers Union even likelier. It is ironic that Democrats have chosen to offer whistleblower protection for illegal union activities as an amendment to the PRO Act after years of opposing more transparency and accountability for union leaders when the Republicans were in the majority. Last Congress, Congressman Francis Rooney offered not one, but two bills with whistleblower protections for union corruption. Both bills had zero Democrat cosponsors. This attempt to provide Democrat Members with a talking point is too little too late and does nothing to address the PRO Act's overwhelming problems. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, Democrats bemoan that plummeting union membership does not reflect workers' actual opinion of unions. But NLRB decisions and so-called conservative attacks are not the reason workers have voluntarily chosen to leave unions behind. Democrats and their friends in Big Labor refuse to acknowledge that millions of workers are simply disenchanted with union representation and that union leaders have lost the trust of their members. We need not look any further than the ongoing corruption scandal at United Auto Workers in which several high-ranking union officials have already been convicted of a litany of crimes, including embezzlement, misuse of workers' union dues on lavish personal expenses, money laundering, tax fraud, and accepting bribes in violation of Federal labor law. Two former UAW vice presidents have been charged. The last two UAW presidents have been formally implicated in a racketeering scheme of more than $1.5 million, and the current UAW president is under investigation for receiving bribes and kickbacks. The UAW is now at risk of being placed under Federal oversight under the Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organization Act, or RICO. That is why I have sent not one, not two, but three letters requesting a public hearing by the Committee on Education and Labor to examine this widening corruption scandal. It should come as no surprise that the UAW, long one of the largest unions in the country and a major benefactor of the Democrat party, lost 35,000 members in 2018, and the overall union membership fell again in 2019 to just 6.2 percent. Rather than increase transparency and accountability to serve workers better, over the past decade unions successfully lobbied the Obama administration to roll back transparency requirements and are now calling on their political allies in Congress to pass the radical, coercive H.R. 2474 as a bailout. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Democrats believe one-size-fits-all union contracts are good for workers in the modern economy and that forcing these workers to pay hundreds of dollars per year to left-wing political organizations is the only way to guarantee wage growth, combat inequality, and strengthen the middle class. But the last 3 years and beyond have made clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Wages are not stagnant, and to claim they are is a blatant lie. Wages have grown by 3 percent each of the last 2 years. Moreover, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta reported the pay for the bottom 25 percent of workers rose 4.5 percent from a year earlier, compared to 2.9 percent for the top 25 percent, meaning wages are rising faster for rank-and- file workers than for their bosses. Over the first 3 years of the Trump presidency, wages for the bottom 10 percent of earners over age 25 rose an average of 5.9 percent per year compared to 2.4 percent during President Obama's second term. Wages for the middle two quartiles have also grown faster under President Trump than during President Obama's second term. Overall, the typical American household earns over $1,000 more per month today, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 1975. The union membership rate today is less than half of what it was in 1975. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I believe that I am in opposition, do I not have the right to close?

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, the PRO Act is one of the most antiworker and anti-small business bills to be considered by Congress in decades, and this amendment does not change that. The PRO Act is a liberal Democrat wish list designed to enrich and empower union bosses and trial lawyers at the expense of rank-and-file workers and small businesses. While I will support the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, we will still oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, despite my affection for the gentleman offering it.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, while this amendment appears to make arbitrary changes to union election procedures, make no mistake: It is part of Democrats' and union bosses' ongoing efforts to rush the union election process at the expense of American workers by requiring that National Labor Relation Board, NLRB, regional directors transmit the notice of election at the same time as the direction of election. This amendment should actually be called the ambush elections amendment, as it would worsen the already harmful impacts of the Obama NLRB's ambush election rule, which shortened the timeline for union elections from a median of 38 days to as few as 11 days. This amendment would reduce the timeline even more, increasing the unfair advantage for labor unions that the Obama NLRB created and which the PRO Act makes Federal law. The unfairly condensed timeline required by this amendment--in which employers are expected to obtain counsel, understand complex matters of labor law, and effectively communicate with their employees--infringes on an employer's right to due process and is antithetical to the NLRB's promise of a fair and robust election process. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.