Andy Levin

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, including my amendment to develop a system and procedures to conduct union elections electronically. Last week, I was in Bessemer, Alabama, supporting workers fighting to form a union at an Amazon warehouse. Amazon, the company that got us all to stay home instead of going to a store in person, demanded an in- person election for 5,800 workers in the middle of a COVID hotspot, but the NLRB ordered a safer mail ballot election instead. Amazon circumvented that ruling and had a mailbox placed in the parking lot under a tent covered in antiunion propaganda, and urged employees to vote there. This is why the PRO Act gives workers the right to choose the method of their own election, so they can vote away from such coercive environments. Electronic union elections aren't new. The National Mediation Board has conducted secure electronic elections in the rail and airline industries for almost two decades without a single problem. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the PRO Act.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment would strike the bill's provision that allows unions to collect a fair-share fee for services they are legally required to provide, and create, in its place, a national right-to-freeload scheme. This is a blatant attempt to undermine unions by making it harder to collect reasonable fees for the services they are required by law to perform equally for union members and nonmembers alike. Let us understand where so-called right-to-work laws come from. They have nothing to do with a right to a job. Their history is rooted in Jim Crow-era laws designed specifically to prevent White and Black workers from organizing together in the same union. Last week, I was in Alabama, supporting an overwhelmingly Black group of workers in their effort to form a union. I saw how difficult this was in a so-called right-to-work State. These laws are vestiges of a racist past, and it is time we reject them. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman giving me some time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment seeks to hinder workers' First Amendment right to assemble peacefully to better their workplace situation. No worker wants to go on strike. No worker wants to forgo a paycheck so they can walk a picket line, often in the frigid cold of winter or in the burning sun in the summer. Workers strike because they are left with no other option. The right to withhold labor is a core right, supposedly protected in our labor law, and the PRO Act would restore that fundamental right because, in practice, it has been gutted. I actually agree with the gentleman that what we need is to restore the balance that the National Labor Relations Act sought to create when it was passed in 1935. The things we are changing aren't the National Labor Relations Act that was passed. It is not that balance. It is the ways that employees' freedom to withhold their labor has been gutted in the interim by State and Federal courts and by this body. We need to restore workers' freedom to withhold their labor in order to improve their situation. That is all this bill does. Let's get back to that balance.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this amendment is truly amazing to me as a longtime union organizer. It seeks to undermine the freedom of contract, the ability of employers and unions to agree on how to handle a situation freely together. The shock of giving the employees' addresses and other contact information: That is required in every NLRB election, and it has been since the Excelsior Underwear case many decades ago. The shock of letting the workers have access to hearing from the union on company time: The current law is that employers can force employees, on company time, to listen to antiunion propaganda the entire time. If you refuse to go, you could be fired. But if an organizer tries to step on the premises of the employer, they could be arrested. I have been arrested for trying to talk to workers. It was on a public sidewalk, but the police said we were too close. Anyway, that was thrown out, as it should have been. We were exercising our First Amendment rights. In any event, this amendment is truly astounding in a capitalist society. We need to let parties be free, and I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman so much for his leadership. Madam Speaker, at base, what we are talking about here is whether workers in this country are free to come together and form a union. All of these amendments are designed to undermine that right. Let's get back to the basic concept of a free market for workers, where they, prounion or antiunion, can decide amongst themselves whether they want to form a union or not, and not have the person in the world who has the most power over them, their boss, who decides their wages and their hours, to pressure them, to force them to listen to things, to subject them to propaganda. The PRO Act simply creates freedom for workers to form unions, at long last, so that the workers who want to form a union can do so freely.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Americans want to know that government officials don't have conflicts of interest swaying their decisions. For example, did they fundraise from an industry that they will regulate? Might they take it easy on that industry as a result? H.R. 1 requires high-level officials to disclose if they have solicited or made political contributions to PACs, political nonprofits, or industry trade associations. I thank Congressman Deutch for authoring this provision. My amendment expands this piece to cover chiefs of mission to ensure that officials representing our country abroad, such as ambassadors, are free from conflicts of interest, too. We should feel confident that people entrusted to represent the United States are there not because of political donations, but because they are the best person for the job. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the en bloc, and H.R. 1.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Leger Fernandez. Let me start by saying what an honor it is to serve with you, and I think this is our first action on the floor. I am really glad you are here, and I appreciate your leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because too many workers across the country have not received a raise in far too long. They include the frontline and essential workers who have kept our economy going during the worst public health crisis in nearly a century. These workers deserve better pay. That is why we must raise the minimum wage, step- by-step to $15 an hour by 2025, and we have to start doing it right now. The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for over a decade. This is the longest stretch of time that we have not raised the minimum wage since it was first introduced in 1938. Mr. Speaker, $7.25 is far too low. That is not an adequate wage for anyone, regardless of age or occupation. It is a poverty wage which prevents workers from realizing the American Dream. By gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, 27 million low-wage workers will get a raise--27 million people. We will lift nearly a million people out of poverty, including a lot of kids. And we will put an extra $333 billion in the pockets of poor and working-class Americans and their families over the next decade. This money will be a lifeline for the working men and women of this country. It will go towards food. It will go towards rent. It will go towards shoes, other basic necessities, and that will stimulate local economies from coast to coast. Some detractors say this policy will hurt the economy, and that it is too much too fast. But that is just plain wrong. This proposal raises the minimum wage responsibly over a period of 5 years. Its effective date is 3 months after the bill's enactment, giving employers adequate time to adjust even before the initial increase. Mr. Speaker, 20 States just raised their minimum wage, going into this year, 2021. And a total of 30 States--red and blue--now have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage. That includes my home State of Michigan, which raised its minimum wage in 2018 and currently has a minimum wage of $9.65. So the first increase under this bill won't even raise wages in Michigan. It is very gradual. We have not seen the catastrophic predictions of job losses and higher prices on goods come to pass in States that have raised their minimum wage. Representative Leger Fernandez just talked about Santa Fe and her county and her State, but we have a lot of studies showing this to be true from coast to coast. Indeed, workers have got more pay to buy groceries, to pay for prescription drugs, to shop on their local Main Streets. It is time to make this happen for families in every part of the country. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a commonsense policy that every Member should support. It is the right thing to do morally and practically for the economy, and I am glad that President Biden included it as part of his American Rescue Plan. Now, let me talk about how the American people feel about this. If Congressional Republicans want to oppose this, they are really out of sync with many of their own voters. According to a recent poll from Data for Progress, 66 percent of voters support increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. In addition, 57 percent of voters support using nonstandard Senate procedures, like the budget reconciliation, to pass this minimum wage increase. Mr. Speaker, 20 States just raised their minimum wage, as I said, in the last year, but let's focus on Florida. In November of 2020, Florida voted for Donald Trump--I am not positive of my data here. I think it was by 50.5 percent to 48 percent, I think President Trump won Florida. Well, guess what? A $15-an-hour minimum wage clocked Donald Trump. The same Republican voters and Democratic voters and Independent voters all across Florida who voted for Donald Trump by a slight margin, voted for a $15-an-hour State-wide minimum wage by 61 to 39 percent. It was overwhelming. In the midst of a pandemic that has killed 500,000 Americans and an economic crisis that has the worst food lines in unemployment since the Great Depression, corporations have been raking in billions while workers are earning poverty wages and they are forced to live off food stamps. That is why so many Americans support this. Now, what about the argument that $15 an hour is too high? By 2025, $15 an hour will be the equivalent of $13.62 in 2020 dollars. So it won't even be as high as it appears now, but it will be the minimum amount that a single adult working full time will need to earn a living and to cover core basic living expenses. Now, check this out: Even in the area with the lowest cost of living in these United States, Beckley, West Virginia, in 2025, a two-parent, two-child household, in which both parents earn $15 an hour and pay taxes, will be $360 short each month to cover basic living expenses. The lowest-cost place in the country, $15 an hour in 2025 won't fully cover basic living expenses. Furthermore, if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, with the increased productivity we create by working, since 1968--so productivity gains from 1968 to today--if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate, it would be over $20 an hour today. And we are proposing just $15 an hour. So, Representative Leger Fernandez, I am so grateful for you bringing me into this conversation. I feel like this is a question of basic decency, of basic dignity, of the value of work in this country. Every person who gets up and goes to work should be able to provide for their family. And every person, just as you said, should have one job, and that should be enough. One job should be enough. And by the way, that includes everybody. One of the great things about what we are doing is, we are getting rid of subminimum wages across the board. No subminimums for tip workers, who are overwhelmingly women and workers of color, no subminimum wages for workers with a disability. We have an opportunity here to bring so many people out of poverty, to give a raise to 27 million people. It is time to do this. We have got to pass it. The Senate has got to pass it. We have a President named Joseph R. Biden, who is ready to sign it. Let's go.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, the gentlewoman is so right that it is a floor. One of these arguments that we hear is, ``We don't want one-size-fits-all,'' right? Well, first of all, as a labor lawyer, the minimum wage has been one national wage the whole time since 1938. It is simply a floor of decency. And guess what? You already explained how in 2025, it is not very likely that the minimum wage in Santa Fe, New Mexico, will be $15 an hour. Because in Santa Fe and San Francisco and Los Angeles and New York and Denver--and whatever--places all around this country--the odds are overwhelming that they will have to raise their minimum wage beyond that. It is a floor of decency. Let's go. Don't you think? Let's go.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Macomb and Oakland County students who participated in my inaugural Ninth District MLK Jr. Day Youth Conference. These students brought their whole brilliant, vulnerable, and idealistic selves to the table to zero in on what Dr. King's life is really about: transforming society to be more just. COVID-19 has exposed deep inequalities in every facet of life, especially for Black Americans, who are nearly two times as likely as White Americans to die of COVID-19. Imagine what we could do to end these disparities if we honor Dr. King by emulating his work. Having watched these students sponge up lessons on the true premise of MLK Day--achieving social justice--and make plans to fight for change in their own lives and communities, I am energized and hopeful that we can boldly champion justice and equality in Congress. I can think of no better way of marking Black History Month than that.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 85, I call up the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant and lasting hardship for our Nation's workers. Millions of people are still without work, and at least 7 million of the jobs lost during the COVID-19 pandemic will not come back. During this historic economic downturn, we must use every tool we have to help workers find jobs and prepare them for high- quality jobs and employment opportunities of the future. The most successful of these tools that we have, without question, is our registered apprenticeship system. Each year, hundreds of thousands of workers count on registered apprenticeships to learn in-demand skills, earn wages that grow along with those skills, and receive nationally recognized credentials that lead to rewarding careers. Registered apprenticeships are so successful that 94 percent of apprentices are employed upon completion and they earn an average starting wage of more than $70,000 a year. Yet Congress has not reauthorized the National Apprenticeship Act since it was first passed as part of the New Deal in 1937. Simply put, we have left our Nation's very best workforce development initiative underresourced at a time when we need it most. In response, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 invests $3.5 billion in our national apprenticeship system; ensures consistency and quality across apprenticeship programs; increases opportunities for diverse groups of workers who have not traditionally been included in the apprenticeship system; and expands registered apprenticeships in emerging sectors, such as healthcare, manufacturing, finance, and technology. This investment alone will create an additional 1 million apprenticeship opportunities--I am so excited to say that--and it will yield more than $10 billion in benefits to taxpayers through higher tax revenue and decreased spending on social safety net programs. There is no better policy, Mr. Speaker, than helping people get great training for great jobs. Construction trades and their industry partners have long proven that the registered apprenticeship model works. That is why trade groups, industry associations, labor unions, and other stakeholders supported both Democrats and Republicans in overwhelmingly voting for this bill last November. Now we must come together again to pass the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 so that workers across the country and across industries can benefit from registered apprenticeship opportunities. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not recognize Representative Pocan of Wisconsin, who sponsored the Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, or the LEARNS Act; and Representative Bonamici of Oregon, who authored the PARTNERS Act; and former Representative, our dear colleague, Susan Davis of California, who shepherded this bill in the 116th Congress, for all of their significant contributions to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jerry Nadler for the courtesy of providing for discharge of the portion of the bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, February 1, 2021. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington,

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 85, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), who is a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and a person whose life embodies the value of apprenticeships not just to our industries, but to our Nation.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and my esteemed colleague.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and a scholar of the history of apprenticeship in this body.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a colleague who knows a little bit about how to help business in this country.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussing with my colleague a program that allows workers to unionize in the United States as freely as they do in Europe, and we achieve the same level of unionization those countries with larger numbers of apprenticeships have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Workforce Protections.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), another colleague with direct experience of the value of registered apprenticeships to our companies and our workers, and a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi), co-chair of the Labor Caucus.

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