Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee just said that this is going to stop the patchwork of laws related to this issue. Au contraire, Mr. Chairman. This is going to add to the confusion, which is the point I have been making over and over and over again. Simple addition of the reference to the Civil Rights Act would keep us from adding to the patchwork of laws and the confusion that this bill is going to create. And I am sorely disappointed that we could not work out this last little accommodation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have long supported protections in Federal law for all workers, including pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, empowering them to achieve their highest potential. I speak not only as a concerned Congresswoman on this issue but also as a mother and grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination. That is why I support meaningful protections under Federal law to prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that rightfully protect pregnant workers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples. These Federal laws already ensure workers are not being discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. I agree with the underlying principle of H.R. 1065 and appreciate the bipartisan negotiations that took place during the 116th Congress to get this bill to where it is today. And I am pleased to see the changes we negotiated last Congress were incorporated in the legislative text this time around. When the bill was introduced last Congress, it did not require that a pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill. A definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially omitted. The bill now includes such a definition, including a requirement that employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities. Additionally, the bill introduced last Congress appeared to allow employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations. However, the bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be determined through a balanced and interactive dialogue between workers and employers. The bill introduced last Congress also did not include the limitation on applicability to employers with 15 or more employees, as is the case in title VII of the Civil Rights Act and title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it now includes the 15-employee threshold. Finally, the bill now includes a provision that if an employer makes a good faith effort to determine a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process with the employee, the employer is not liable for damages. Unfortunately, there is one key provision missing from this bill. One of the core tenets of the Constitution is the guarantee of religious freedom. In fact, it is the first freedom mentioned in the Constitution. For the last 240 years, the Supreme Court has upheld that principle in its decisions, and laws written by Congress have maintained strong protections for religious liberty. Yet, the bill we are discussing today deals an unnecessary blow to religious organizations, potentially forcing them to make hiring decisions that conflict with their faith. Our job in the people's House is not to defy the Constitution, but to uphold it. No employer should have to choose between abiding by the law and adhering to their religious beliefs. That is why Republicans offered an amendment in committee that would include a narrow but longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that is not currently incorporated in this bill. Committee Democrats voted down this commonsense amendment. I also submitted the same amendment to the Rules Committee so that it could be debated today, but the Democrats prevented me from offering it. As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of this legislation. I want to reiterate that I am pleased with the bipartisan negotiations that took place on H.R. 1065. When we work together, we can effect real change. But I will never support any bill that infringes on the Constitution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. Taking away rights from our citizens is not a win for the American people; it is a win for Big Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim it is not necessary to incorporate the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act in H.R. 1065 because the bill does not repeal that provision and it will still be effective if the bill becomes law. I strongly disagree. H.R. 1065 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act provision in H.R. 1065? At worst, the provision would be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers. Let's remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, better known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has caused no harm. My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 1065 are saying the quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have reached this conclusion because Democrats have also claimed that the Civil Rights Act provision is overinclusive, to begin with, and would provide too much protection in this instance. Are Democrats saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for religious organizations should also be repealed? Again, this is a provision that has been law for 56 years. As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 1065. At worst, it would do no harm. At best, it will prevent religious organizations from being required to violate their faith. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in their statements supporting H.R. 1065, Democrat Members have encouraged the House to follow the examples of States that have enacted pregnancy accommodation laws. However, the majority of these States have laws that include important protections for religious organizations. At least 15 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy discrimination, or pregnancy accommodation laws, that include a religious organization protection similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. The States include Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Kentucky's pregnancy accommodation law, which was highlighted by a Democrat-invited witness at a hearing on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as a successful workable solution, includes a limited religious organization protection very similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, the bill before us today omits this needed provision. If we are to follow the example of these States and recommendations from congressional testimony, then a provision protecting religious organizations should be added to H.R. 1065. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce worked with the Education and Labor Committee to make improvements to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. However, the Chamber does have few, if any, religious organizations as members. Therefore, it is understandable they would not take the position on protections for these organizations. As Members of Congress, we should ensure that the legislation we consider is fair to all and does not infringe on fundamental rights. The religious organization protection that I am advocating, which comes from the Civil Rights Act, will ensure religious organizations are not compelled to make decisions that violate their faith. H.R. 1065 should include the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act, which would not detract from any of the provisions included in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, being able to bear children is a great gift, and I am very pleased that God gave me that opportunity. I would like to address the claim that the Civil Rights Act's protection for religious organizations is not needed in H.R. 1065 because these employers could raise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, as a defense to a lawsuit. However, RFRA does not provide the same protections for religious organizations as the Civil Rights Act. In fact, RFRA's provisions are much narrower than the protection for religious organizations in the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, RFRA defenses are difficult to win in court. Indeed, more than 80 percent of the time, courts rule in favor of the government and against the person seeking protection under RFRA. The claim that the Civil Rights Act's longstanding religious organization protection does not need to be incorporated in H.R. 1065 because of RFRA is not persuasive. Indeed, the protection should be added to the bill to ensure it does not infringe on religious freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans will not stand for discrimination of any kind. As a mother, a grandmother, and a very strong pro-life advocate, workplace protections for pregnant women are particularly important to me. My Republican colleagues and I have long been committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to achieve success, and this includes current protections in Federal law for pregnant workers. While meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to H.R. 1065, it falls short in protecting one of the Nation's most treasured rights: Freedom of religion. Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense, current-law provision that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith is shortsighted and disappointing. Congress should not be in the business of taking away rights from the American people. In fact, as we all know, the Constitution starts with the three most important words outside the Bible: We the People. And then in the First Amendment to the Constitution--and I want to jog the memories of my colleagues--the Constitution enshrines the right of religious freedom by saying: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion''--and this is very important, the next part--``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' That is what we are talking about here today. We are talking about the free exercise of religion. I will say again: Congress should not be in the business of attempting to take away rights from the American people. The Constitution does not give us that right. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week, it is important that we remember the innumerable sacrifices that are made every day by the men and women of law enforcement. In communities across America, they serve as the gatekeepers of law and order. Even as the far left calls for defunding the police, these dedicated heroes will not hesitate when called upon to serve. I believe that their hard work should be recognized every day because, without them, law and order would cease to exist and criminality would reign. May God bless the proud women of law enforcement. Under your watch, the American people remain protected.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Charter School Week. This week, we honor the hope that charter schools deliver to millions of students nationwide, and we are reminded that education is about students, not politics. One such example is Piedmont Community Charter School in North Carolina's Fifth District. Regardless of ZIP Code, all American families deserve to decide, free of government interference, which learning environment best suits their child's strengths. For 30 years, charter schools have prepared underserved students for lifelong success. Charter school alumni graduate from college at two to four times the national average for low-income families. While Democrats dictate one-size-fits-all education requirements, Republicans are fighting to offer educational freedom and choice. Charter schools offer students from every walk of life the opportunity to learn in an environment that works for them so they can develop tools to thrive.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding tonight for a very short but very serious and solemn set of comments. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two members of the Watauga County Sheriff's Office who lost their lives in the line of duty on April 28. Sergeant Chris Ward, an 8-year law enforcement officer, and K-9 Deputy Logan Fox, a former deputy of the Ashe County Sheriff's Office, left an indelible mark on Watauga County. This is a tremendous loss not only for Watauga County, but also for law enforcement across the State and country. These two fallen heroes dedicated their lives to law enforcement, and many who knew them recognized that their passion for serving the community they were proud to call home was second to none. This Monday, a Community Day of Remembrance in Boone, North Carolina, was held in their honor. Businesses, organizations, and proud citizens of Watauga County came together to show their overwhelming support for law enforcement and for first responders. Mr. Speaker, across America law enforcement officers like Sergeant Ward and Deputy Fox wake up every day with one important goal in mind: fulfilling their duty to uphold law and order. These proud men and women leave for work knowing that they may not come home to their families, but still, they answer the call to serve without a moment's hesitation. That level of commitment to one's duty and community is truly awe-inspiring, and I firmly believe that we owe law enforcement a profound debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I will always support law enforcement across this country. They are true gatekeepers of law and order, and they must be respected. Calls to defund the police from the left are egregious and divisive. That rhetoric is profoundly dangerous and is an insult to the men and women who work around the clock to protect us. God bless the countless law enforcement officers across this country and their families. We are forever grateful for the sacrifices you continue to make.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding and for holding this Special Order tonight. The American people are frightened by what they are seeing unfold at the southern border. That fear is real, and it is only amplified by an administration that has chosen to sit back and do absolutely nothing. For months, the Biden administration has struggled to decide what to call this situation, often scrambling to find the newest and less severe synonym to the word ``crisis.'' The word ``crisis'' suits this situation perfectly, but apparently, that word is too harsh, according to the White House. Pretty soon, this administration won't have any words left to use, and they will accept the reality that they need to own up to the crisis they created. Republicans are not interested in letting complacency take hold while the country we love is left open and vulnerable and changed forever. We will continue to call out this administration for its failures, and we will continue to fight to protect America and its citizens.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.