Andy Levin

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, every student should have access to a high-quality public education in a safe environment, regardless of area code. But right now, many students are educated in outdated and crumbling buildings. Take the Mt. Clemens Consolidated Schools District in Macomb County, Michigan. The student body is majority-black, and 84 percent of students qualify for free and reduced lunch. Mt. Clemens educators and students work extremely hard to be successful in the classroom, but they are doing so in a nearly 100 year-old building, with the newest addition over 50 years old. Wealthy districts and those serving predominantly white students can spend much more on capital improvements than their high-poverty counterparts. What if Mt. Clemens could make the infrastructure and technological updates that the wealthy school districts in Metro Detroit can afford? This Public School's Week, I urge my colleagues to pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act so that every school can make 21st century updates to their buildings and ensure America's children can learn in the best environments.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I thank Chairwoman Lowey and subcommittee Chairman Price for their leadership and for bringing this much-needed package to the floor today. I am pleased to see that this bill includes funding for the long-term recovery of territories impacted by recent disasters, including continued support for the electric grid's recovery. After Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in 2017, it took an entire year to restore power to the whole island. Then last month, back-to-back earthquakes damaged Puerto Rico's main power plants and caused yet another major blackout. The people of Puerto Rico--and all Americans, for that matter--cannot be forced to grapple with blackout after blackout, especially when climate change has made catastrophic storms all too frequent. As we think about what is needed to ensure the long-term recovery of these areas, it is absolutely essential that renewable resources be part of that conversation. That is why I have introduced this simple amendment to prioritize funding for renewable energy projects, like wind and solar power, that will enhance the long-term resiliency of Puerto Rico's infrastructure. We have already seen what renewable energy can do in the aftermath of a disaster. During the blackout that followed Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rican homeowners, businesses, and hospitals waiting for repair crews actually installed their own solar panels and batteries to get their power back faster. Last year, Puerto Rico passed a law setting a timeline to power the island entirely by renewable energy by 2050. That is a great step, but it is not nearly enough, and Puerto Rico needs our Nation's help. We have to ensure renewables are prioritized for Puerto Rico's recovery, for the sake of their ability to survive disasters like Hurricane Maria and for the sake of our planet. Power generation from fossil fuels is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions that are making climate change worse. We have to make major changes fast. Shifting to renewables is one change that will help combat climate change and help the American people cope in the aftermath of major disasters. Again, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her work on this bill, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the subcommittee chairman and my dear colleague.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I will close by saying that I really appreciate our ability to take this small step, but I think we ought to all dream big for this beautiful part of our country. Puerto Rico has been subject to misfortunes, and we can think about a different future for Puerto Rico where it moves very quickly not just to renewable energy but to localized renewable energy, so that each community has solar, microgrids, and battery storage, so that they really aren't subject to these disasters in the same way at all. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Scott for his incredible leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to support the PRO Act. It is an essential step to restoring the power of the American middle class, raising wages, improving benefits and working conditions, and tackling income inequality. I have spent most of my career helping workers form unions and bargain collectively, so I know firsthand the power that comes with the ability to organize. Union workers make, on average, 13 percent more than their nonunion counterparts; they are 27 percent more likely to be offered health insurance through their employers; and they are five times as likely as nonunion workers to have a real pension. Working families across this country who are trying to make ends meet need bigger paychecks, better benefits, and a safe place to work where they are treated with respect. The PRO Act will get us there, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that the gentlewoman's amendment is not about the PRO Act; it is about current law. All the PRO Act does on the question of lists and how they are to be given from the company to the union is codifying current law. So this is not an argument against the PRO Act; it is an argument against the structure of our labor relations as they have been for decades. Mr. Chair, I would offer to the gentlewoman that, if she would like to join me in writing the law that would allow workers to have access to union organizers in the workplace, I would be glad to do that with her, and then we wouldn't need a law that allows workers to gain access to unions the only way they can under our system, which is at home or on the phone. Our country provides workers no right to have access to union staff in their workplace. It is pretty unusual among countries. And if the gentlewoman is serious about feeling like it is better for workers to interact with the union at work rather than at home, that would be a wonderful discussion to have for another day. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Acting Chair (Ms. Pingree). The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, first I would like to enter into the Record letters of support for the PRO Act from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers and the United Auto Workers. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, February 4, 2020. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am writing to state our strong support for H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). I urge you to support this critical legislation and to oppose any weakening amendments and any motion to recommit when H.R. 2474 comes to the House floor this week. Today, the economy is not working for working people. Wages have stagnated for workers across the economy, while income has skyrocketed for CEO's and the wealthiest one percent. This inequality is the result of a loss of bargaining power and the erosion of workers' ability to exercise their rights on the job. Today, when workers make the decision to stand together and bargain with their employer for improved working conditions, the deck is stacked against them from day one. Under current law, unscrupulous employers, armed with limitless funds, routinely violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and block workers' ability to exercise their right to bargain for better wages and better working conditions. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act is an important step forward for workers' rights. It would restore and strengthen worker protections which have been eroded over the years. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act addresses several major weaknesses in current law. H.R. 2474 enacts meaningful, enforceable penalties on employers who break the law and gives workers a private right of action if they've been terminated for union activity. The bill would make elections fairer by prohibiting employers from using coercive activities like captive audience meetings. H.R. 2474 establishes a process for mediation and arbitration to stop stalling tactics at the bargaining table and help parties achieve a first contract. Importantly, the bill also addresses rampant intentional misclassification and ensures that misclassified workers are not deprived of their right to form a union under the NLRA. These are among the many important provisions in the bill to help restore the middle class. Research shows that workers want unions. However, there is a huge gap between the share of workers with union representation and the share of workers that would like to have a union and a voice on the job. The PRO Act would take a major step forward in closing that gap and ultimately growing a strong middle class. I urge you to demonstrate to the American people that workers and their rights are a priority for this Congress. I hope I can tell our members that you stood with them and other workers in their efforts to achieve meaningful workers' rights and protections and better wages and working conditions. The Teamsters Union urges you to support H.R. 2474 and oppose all efforts to weaken this bill by amendment. Sincerely, James P. Hoffa, General President.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I would remind the gentleman that the strikes of 1937 were precisely the result of the arrangement, the balance that was struck by the National Labor Relations Act, which was passed in 1935. The National Labor Relations Act sets forth procedures so that workers and employers could both advocate for their rights in the economy. And so to ban intermittent strikes, as the gentleman would propose, puts at stake two core portions of our Constitution's First Amendment: the freedom to peaceably assemble and the freedom of speech. This amendment would place speech- and content-based restrictions on workers only because they choose to gather and speak on behalf of a union or forming a union. We freely allow civil rights protesters, animal welfare activists, anti-choice activists, and all others to gather and share their messages. Union members should be no different. Understand, going on strike is an option of last resort. No worker wants to risk their job and their paycheck to walk a picket line in the cold, the rain, or anything in-between. I have stood with striking workers and seen their resolve and know the impact striking has on them and their families. These workers strike because they must, because they have no other option but to say: ``No more.'' We must respect this resolve by allowing workers the dignity to stand up for themselves and shout: ``One day longer. One day stronger.'' I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, recently, members of the United Auto Workers went on strike at General Motors for 40 days. There was no leader who made them do this, and I have never seen a strike, in fact in my life, that was dictated by someone from on high. The workers voted, in that case way over 90 percent, to go on strike. When I repeatedly visited picket lines at various workplaces throughout my district in Michigan, I was amazed that a lot of the veteran workers were out there striking; not for themselves. They were striking for workers forced to be temporary workers, and not having full-time status and regularized status for months and years at a time. These veteran workers, some of whom had worked there 10, 20, 30 years said it just felt wrong to work side by side doing the same job with someone who was denied the pay and benefits due to workers at that workplace. All of this talk about union bosses disgusts me, Madam Chairwoman. Unions are organizations that workers build themselves to advocate for their interests. They are nonprofits. They are not businesses. In an economy where the real bosses are making 300 and 400 times what the regular workers make, that is something that would be an obscenity to the people in the manufacturing sector, to CEOs in the manufacturing sector, decades ago. The CEO of General Motors, then the biggest company in the land, made 80 times or 50 times--I forget, something like that--what the workers made, which is nothing like what happens today. Those are the bosses that need to be brought under control. The right to strike is basic to our labor relations and it must be preserved. We must pass the PRO Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment is a naked attempt to undermine unions by making it harder to collect reasonable fees for the services that they are required by law to perform. Unions have a legal obligation to represent and advocate for all members of a bargaining unit, even if those people choose to remain nonunion. As a result, the law has created a perverse incentive for workers to receive the benefits of unions' labor without paying a reasonable fee for these services--in fact, without paying anything at all. For years, so-called right-to-work laws have been wildly misnamed. They don't actually provide any right to a job. Instead, they allow States to interfere with the freedom of contract, solely for the purposes of pitting workers against one another and threatening a union's ability to exist at all. Let me be clear, the PRO Act does not allow the employer and union to agree that employees must be a member of the union as a condition of employment. Despite the rhetoric, that has not been possible since the late 1940s when the Supreme Court decided that no worker can be required to be a member of a union. It is simply false. Nor does it allow fair share dues to go toward political activity or advocacy. It covers only the cost of representation and contract administration, what the union is required by law to provide for everybody in the bargaining unit. The PRO Act simply restores fairness to the system. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, the real motives are revealed in the rhetoric. This is an attack on unions themselves. The way that our labor relations have been organized since the 1930s when the Wagner Act was passed is that private-sector labor relations are governed by Federal law. Everything about our National Labor Relations Act and the way workers can form unions in the private sector and the rules for how elections happen, all these things are Federal. This carve-out for States to be able to try to starve workers' organizations by allowing this free-riding to go on is something that happened over President Truman's veto, and, yes, we have been against it for the last 70 years. The proof is in the pudding. The right-to- freeload States have lower incomes; they have lower percentages of workers who have benefits; and they have shorter life expectancy. Over and over, the statistics show that workers and families are better off. The old saw about letting people keep their hard-earned money, unions are something that workers form voluntarily to advance their interests. Union members make more money than nonunion members. They make a great investment by coming together and bargaining together to form a union. Our labor relations are set up for workers to make a democratic choice as a group in a workplace about whether or not to form a union. If workers come together and make that choice, it is only fair that everybody pays their fair share to administer the contract that benefits all of them. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I challenge the gentleman to point out a Chamber of Commerce in this country that allows people to receive the benefits of the chamber without paying dues. They have members and nonmembers. Health clubs, any kind of organization in this country, people pay their fair share for the benefits that it creates. The purpose of right-to-freeload laws has been nakedly obvious from the beginning in the 1940s when they were pushed by far rightwing foundations like the Olin Foundation and the Scaife Foundation, whose sole purpose was to destroy collective bargaining in this country. The other side is trying to destroy the solidarity of American workers, to benefit the bosses and the employers that want to have a union-free environment. The facts are so obvious. When workers come together and form unions, they make more money; they make better wages; they are five times more likely to have a pension; and they are much more likely to have employer-provided health insurance. This is the truth. Employers and their enablers simply want to destroy collective bargaining in this country, and I don't care if it is State by State or any other way. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. These laws have been wrong since they came into existence, and they are still wrong today. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. I rise in opposition to this amendment, Madam Chairwoman.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, there are no workers in America who are ``locked into collective bargaining agreements negotiated decades ago''--zero. What happens in our country is that workers vote to form a union in a workplace, and then they periodically negotiate contracts. Usually, contracts last 2 or 3 years, 4 or 5 years. It is usually employers who want them to last longer. And the two parties, in freedom of contract, agree on those terms. What the gentleman's amendment seeks to do is not for workers to have any rights whatsoever. Workers already have the right to decertify a union through an election. What this amendment seeks to do is to give a right to employers to destroy unions by not recognizing a union anymore under very strange circumstances. The point of the National Labor Relations Act is to protect employees' freedom to choose a union or refrain from forming a union. This amendment, however, undermines that right by allowing an employer to step in and demand a new election without any objective showing that the union no longer enjoys majority support, no objective showing whatsoever. As I said, employees already have the right to petition for another election if that is what they want. That is an existing law. It is in the PRO Act. This amendment is a backdoor to providing an employer the ability to conduct another antiunion campaign designed to sow fear and discord amongst its employees. Under this amendment, a union with majority support could be challenged by an employer simply by virtue of the passage of time and the natural turnover that exists in all workplaces. My colleagues across the aisle often speak about the need to protect employees' rights to choose a union, and yet here they are seeking to undermine that very right. This amendment is about promoting decertification, not protecting the rights of workers. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I reiterate that workers have the right to decertify a union if they want to under existing law and under the PRO Act. It doesn't change that. What we do is say that employers may not stop recognizing a union simply because of turnover. If workers negotiated a contract with an employer through their union several years ago and now there has been some turnover, that doesn't mean the workers are against the collective bargaining agreement that benefits them. The contract will expire, and then the workers will negotiate another one, whichever workers are there at that time. At that time, if a majority of the workers want to decertify the union, they are fully free to do that. What the gentleman is trying to defend is the employer's role in destroying unions. That is what is really going on here. Madam Chairwoman, in my 30-some years of being involved in the labor movement, the biggest problem in workers' freedom to form unions is the idea that the employers are a party, and you have to try to create a union or keep a union by going up against your boss, the person who decides your wages, decides your assignment. This is just another tactic to allow employers to pressure workers out of having collective bargaining. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. How much time do I have, Madam Chairwoman?

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I would point out that the gentleman's amendment says that an employer alleging that a labor organization no longer has majority status because of turnover may seek a decertification election. The gentleman's amendment empowers the employer to decertify the union. What we are doing in the PRO Act is overturning the Johnson Controls decision of the Trump NLRB from July 3 of last year that allowed an employer to announce it was withdrawing recognition of a union because of this turnover, because simply more than half the people weren't there the last time they negotiated a contract or when the union was formed. This is an attempt to allow employers to determine that they want another election and to go all, again, through the captive audience meetings where they force workers to attend on pain of termination, meetings whose sole purpose is to scare workers out of forming a union, to show movies or other propaganda that doesn't have to be truthful at all to scare workers out of forming a union. It is time to stop having employers prevent workers from forming a union. That was the purpose of this amendment. That is why I oppose it. I urge all my colleagues to oppose it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the PRO Act is about tackling income inequality and remedying laws that have failed to protect workers' rights. The PRO Act expressly says it shall not be construed to amend any laws regarding hiring undocumented workers. It also prevents employers from being able to bust a union organizing drive simply by firing undocumented workers they had hired previously. The real-world effect of this MTR is to create a perverse incentive to go ahead and hire undocumented workers, because they could never receive information from a union about organizing. Moreover, carving out undocumented workers from organizing deters all workers from exercising their rights. Employees who witness employers violating labor laws without repercussions will be afraid to rely on the National Labor Relations Act. Finally, our immigration laws require employers to find out about whether workers are documented or not. There is no provision in our laws that allow unions to find that out. This MTR is truly bad policy. It will encourage more hiring of undocumented workers; exactly the opposite of what the authors intend. But the main thing is it will undermine the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively for all workers. Republicans offered this MTR to score political points. But we are focused on rebuilding the American middle class. I have spent most of my career helping workers form unions and bargain collectively. The power of workers to unite and demand fair wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions is truly inspiring, and it is essential for working families simply trying to get by. Right now, corporate profits are skyrocketing, while the share of healthcare costs paid by employers is falling. Worker productivity is at a peak, yet wages are stagnant. The gap between the rich and poor is the highest ever recorded. One of the main causes of these problems is declining union membership, which is at its lowest point in decades. The PRO Act is about reversing these trends so workers can enjoy their fair share in the economy that they help create. Recent studies have shown that in cities where union membership is strong, children in low-income families go on to ascend to higher income levels than their parents. Isn't that what every parent wants? Creating a pathway to a better life, that is the American Dream, and that is the power of a union. Fifty-eight million Americans say they would join a union if given the opportunity; 58 million, 48 percent of nonunion workers. Just think of the impact we could have simply by making it easier for Americans to exercise the rights they already supposedly have under the law; rights that have been undermined systematically by special interests that want to keep the economy working for the very wealthiest, at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. The PRO Act is about that most American of ideals, freedom. All we are doing today is allowing workers to decide on their own, free of harassment and intimidation, whether or not they wish to form a union and bargain collectively, and to access their other rights under the NLRA. When we pass the PRO Act today, we say loud and clear that we are not on the side of special interests. We stand proudly on the side of working families. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit, and to vote ``yes'' on the PRO Act. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, during National Gun Violence Survivors Week, I rise to recognize my State of the Union guest, Mary Miller-Strobel, from my hometown of Berkley, Michigan. After her brother, Ben, was honorably discharged from the military, Mary grew concerned that Ben was at risk of self-harm. Mary and her father drove to every gun store in their small town, begging them not to sell Ben a gun. But they had no legal recourse to block a store from selling Ben the gun that would end his life. Ben died by suicide soon thereafter. Had Mary been able to seek an extreme risk protection order, Ben might still be alive today. Mary is now a Moms Demand Action leader and has turned her tragedy into a triumphant story of fighting to prevent other families from suffering this tremendous and preventable loss. The House has passed commonsense gun violence legislation, and we will pass red flag legislation, too. Now, we need the Senate to act, for Mary and Ben, and for so many others.