Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the American Hospital Association, AHA, is opposed to H.R. 1195. In a letter to Education and Labor Committee members prior to the committee markup last month, AHA stated: ``However, because hospitals have already implemented specifically tailored policies and programs to address workplace violence, we do not believe that the OSHA standards required by H.R. 1195 are warranted, nor do we support an expedited approach that would deny the public the opportunity to review and comment on proposed regulations.'' Further, AHA explained: The prohibitive costs that the mandates in H.R. 1195 would impose on America's hospitals, particularly on those that provide care in rural and underserved areas, could strain scarce resources and jeopardize patient care. These mandates would burden healthcare providers that are struggling to maintain services during the most deadly public health emergency in 100 years. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the American Hospital Association. American Hospital Association, Washington, DC, March 23, 2021. Hon. Joe Courtney, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Courtney: On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations, and our clinician partners--including more than 270,000 affiliated physicians, 2 million nurses and other caregivers--and the 43,000 health care leaders who belong to our professional membership groups, the American Hospital Association (AHA) writes regarding the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act (H.R. 1195). Your bill would direct the Secretary of Labor to issue--on an expedited timetable--and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan. America's hospitals and health systems are committed to a culture of safety for every worker, patient and family member who enters our facilities. However, because hospitals have already implemented specifically tailored policies and programs to address workplace violence, we do not believe that the OSHA standards required by H.R. 1195 are warranted, nor do we support an expedited approach that would deny the public the opportunity to review and comment on proposed regulations. Further, the prohibitive costs that the mandates in your bill would impose on America's hospitals, particularly on those that provide care in rural and underserved areas, could strain scarce resources and jeopardize patient care. These mandates would burden health care providers that are struggling to maintain services during the most deadly public health emergency in 100 years. For these reasons, we must oppose H.R. 1195 and urge the Committee on Education and Labor not to report it favorably. H.R. 1195 Would Impose Burdensome Unfunded Mandates and Prohibitive Costs on Hospitals According to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate of your bill in 2019, in the first two years in which the OSHA final rule would be in effect, the cost to private entities would be at least $2.7 billion and at least $1.3 billion each year thereafter. CBO concluded that ``substantial personnel and capital costs would be imposed by the requirements for training, investigation, engineering, and infrastructure changes.'' Such costs are unsustainable. A recent report by Kaufman-Hall forecasts that total hospital revenue in 2021 could be down between $53 billion and $122 billion from pre-pandemic levels. In addition to lost revenue, hospitals must absorb increases in many expenses due to COVID-19. These losses come on top of the historic financial crisis that hit the hospital field last year, with an AHA report estimating total losses for the nation's hospitals and health systems to be at least $323 billion through 2020.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we are hearing from the people who are on the front lines, and we have said we want to protect the people on the front lines. Well, let's listen to the people on the front lines. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. Ensuring workplace safety for all American workers, especially our Nation's caregivers, is an issue of the utmost importance and is deserving of a serious and thorough solution. I agree with my colleague; we all appreciate what healthcare workers have done. I do every day, but particularly since we have had COVID. H.R. 1195 purports to take a responsible approach to the issue of workplace violence, but legislation that results in a rushed and overly prescriptive rule that omits important input from stakeholders and experts, while driving up compliance costs for already struggling industries, is far from a sensible solution. Yet, that is what we are asked to consider today. Workers in the healthcare and social services industries are at an increased risk of workplace violence, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics finding they are five times more likely to experience violence in the workplace than workers in other industries. While the threat is real, the response the Democrats are proposing to address the situation, to further their own partisan agenda, is not grounded in reality. Workplace violence is already a well-recognized hazard by employers and employees in the healthcare and social services industries. According to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents indicated they already have workplace violence policies in place. In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is already enforcing workplace violence prevention measures, issuing citations to employers who fail to provide safe workplaces during both the Obama and Trump administrations. The agency is also working on a rule through the standard OSHA rulemaking process and has announced plans to initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel, a key part of the rulemaking process that allows the agency to gather valuable feedback from small businesses before a regulation is written. H.R. 1195 is particularly ill-timed and ill-advised as it forces OSHA to issue an interim final rule on workplace violence within 1 year, which will significantly strain healthcare facilities that are heroically working on the front lines, responding to a once-in-a- century pandemic. The CBO recently estimated the cost of this bill to private entities would be at least $1.8 billion in the first 2 years that the rushed OSHA rule is in effect and $750 million annually after that. The cost to public facilities will be at least $100 million in the first 2 years and $55 million annually after that. Financially struggling healthcare facilities, such as rural hospitals that are already at risk of closure, cannot afford a rushed and costly government-imposed mandate from Washington bureaucrats. The House is considering H.R. 1195 at a time when the Biden administration is also considering a burdensome, overreaching emergency temporary standard, ETS, on COVID-19. Though OSHA is weeks behind in deciding whether to issue the ETS, handing down two expensive, punitive Federal mandates on an already burdened healthcare industry could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There may be a time and place where a workplace violence regulation is appropriate, but now is certainly not it. While I cannot support H.R. 1195, I want to be clear. The safety of our Nation's healthcare and social service workers is not a partisan issue. Republicans offered a workable solution at a recent committee markup and were willing to negotiate with our colleagues across the aisle on a compromise, one that requires OSHA to analyze a rule properly, heed appropriate and necessary input from stakeholders, and launch an educational campaign on workplace violence prevention. Yet, here we are, considering another Democrat bill being pushed through with no Republican input. Healthcare workers are familiar with the Hippocratic oath: ``First, do no harm.'' In its rush to judgment, H.R. 1195 does great harm. By short-circuiting the public input process and prescribing a specific result from the beginning, this bill will not achieve what it aims to accomplish. Our healthcare workers and caregivers deserve an evidence-based and effective solution that protects them in the workplace. H.R. 1195 fails to deliver this result. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1195 does not allow for a solid, well-researched foundation for a national workplace violence prevention standard. Input from experts and stakeholders is vital as OSHA undertakes rulemaking on this issue. In February 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, published its research agenda for healthcare and social assistance. The research agenda identifies the information and actions most urgently needed to improve safety in the industry. The CDC identified the following concerns regarding the current state of research on the issue of healthcare workplace violence: Many existing studies have evaluated workplace violence risk factors and prevention measures, but most lack the comprehensive, facility- and work area-specific perspective that is needed to effectively prevent workplace violence. Additionally, many of these studies examine the effects of training programs, showing little impact on workplace violence incident and injury rates. We should heed the words of caution from CDC regarding our current knowledge base, and we should make sure OSHA receives input from all perspectives, including smaller healthcare providers, before it enacts a national standard. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we have discussed today, workplace violence is a very real and persistent issue for healthcare and social service workers. The Democrat title of H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, presupposes that the rushed, overly prescriptive, and complex Federal regulation required by this bill will somehow prevent workplace violence. However, a true solution to violence in the workplace will not be in the form of a Federal regulation. Rather, a broader, bipartisan approach is needed to address the root causes of this serious and complicated issue. According to the American Hospital Association, increases in assaults in healthcare facilities are being driven, in part, by growing numbers of behavioral healthcare patients being treated in emergency departments and other acute-care settings. The opioid and drug abuse epidemic is another major contributing factor to workplace violence, as healthcare workers are often tasked with treating patients that may be under the influence of potent drugs or experiencing their painful side effects. Unfortunately, H.R. 1195 does nothing to address these realities. Ultimately, an OSHA workplace violence regulation that is written under the standard rulemaking process will be much more informed and effective because it will require evidence-based input related to behavioral health and opioid abuse that are responsible for many workplace violence incidents. But as I said earlier, we need to roll up our sleeves and develop a comprehensive, bipartisan response to address the root causes of this serious and complicated issue. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1195, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we grieve for anyone who is killed violently in this country under any circumstances. Again, that is not a partisan issue. Madam Speaker, the healthcare industry is currently in the midst of responding to a once-in-a-century pandemic and has rightly prioritized significant resources to caring for patients and keeping its employees safe from COVID-19. Forcing OSHA to issue an interim final standard on workplace violence within 1 year, as H.R. 1195 requires, will have a devastating impact on the healthcare industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. The last thing our healthcare providers need during this unprecedented public health crisis is more costly mandates from Washington that will strain resources and personnel and jeopardize patient care. Moreover, the Biden administration is expected to soon impose new employer mandates in the form of an OSHA emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 and, eventually, a permanent infectious disease rule, which will have a significant impact on the healthcare industry. At a time when healthcare facilities are experiencing massive revenue losses and have invested significant resources into responding to COVID-19, the issuance of two new regulations from Washington, potentially within months of each other, will be devastating. Our Nation's healthcare providers have responded admirably to the pandemic and are doing heroic work to keep Americans safe and healthy. The House should reject this ill-timed and ill-advised legislation that will inhibit work and burden the healthcare industry at exactly the wrong time. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Courtney for the comments he has made during this debate today. He has been a very kind colleague. However, what we should be doing is more debating of some of the underlying issues that are creating this increased workplace violence, and we are not doing that as a Congress. We need to be looking at why these things that are happening are happening. And I am sorry that we are not doing that. And I am sorry we are doing a rushed product here when we could be working together. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, overbearing regulations burden workers and stifle the economy. Preventing workplace violence in healthcare and social service settings is crucial, and we should get this done by allowing OSHA to issue standards through the normal rulemaking process, which brings all experts and parties, including small businesses, to the table. Short-circuiting the process and rushing to a conclusion eliminates valuable technical and scientific input and will lead to unintended consequences, which could have a detrimental impact on workplace safety outcomes. A bipartisan solution was possible here, but once again, Democrats have kicked it to the curb. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1195, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We all agree American workers should be kept out of harm's way on the job so they can safely and healthily return home to their families. These caregivers deserve protections, but H.R. 1195 is the wrong approach to address the important issue of workplace violence. I am disappointed by the lack of effort to develop a workable bipartisan solution to combat workplace violence before this flawed legislation was rushed to the floor by Democrat leaders in Congress. In fact, committee Democrats chose not to hold a legislative hearing focused on this bill. Unfortunately, the Democrat amendments only reinforce that H.R. 1195 is the wrong approach to addressing this important issue. Representative Brown's amendment, while well-intentioned, ignores the fact that there are Federal agencies other than OSHA that would be better equipped to handle a regulatory requirement for the education of healthcare and social service workers who work with the victims of torture, trafficking, or domestic violence. The question of whether employer education programs governed by OSHA, the Federal Government's workplace safety agency, are appropriate to address the objectives of this amendment should be thoroughly vetted and discussed during the rulemaking process before decisions impacting healthcare facilities and their patients are made. H.R. 1195 does not allow for this to occur. Representative Cohen's amendment is also well-intentioned, but will unilaterally expand the reach of a flawed regulation to include numerous small facilities. This is particularly problematic because H.R. 1195 precludes the opportunity for OSHA to conduct a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act panel prior to a regulation being written, a key element in the process which considers the impact of proposed regulatory changes on small businesses. The implications of such a proposal should be carefully evaluated through the established OSHA rulemaking process before a decision is made regarding expansion to additional facilities. With regard to Representative Delgado's amendment, I agree with his assessment that employers will need compliance assistance and technical help from OSHA in order to understand the complex and burdensome new rule mandated by this bill. However, this amendment is little more than window dressing. While technical assistance is always welcome and appropriate for a rule of this complexity, this amendment places an arbitrary time limit that is woefully insufficient to cope with a rushed and flawed rule. Moreover, technical assistance after employers are subject to a rule in which they had no input is too little, too late. Rather than amend a flawed bill by allowing the Department of Labor to help businesses after the fact, we should reject this bill and instead allow OSHA to pursue its established rulemaking process that provides ample opportunity for feedback from stakeholders and the public, which will ensure a better product and eliminate the need for this type of amendment. Representative Jones' amendment puts the cart before the horse. Consultation with outside experts regarding compliance should occur while a regulation is being written by OSHA and before it is issued so the final product takes this expertise into account. This amendment simply adds yet another costly mandate on employers. H.R. 1195, which requires OSHA to issue an interim final rule within 1 year, short-circuits the opportunity for the agency to hear from experts before a rushed rule is issued. This amendment is a feeble attempt to correct this critical flaw. I believe, Madam Speaker, that every Member of this Chamber is committed to ensuring American workers are safe in the workplace. I appreciate Mr. Courtney's very kind comments about my concern for this personally, but I can say every Republican feels this way. Our Nation's caregivers, who have been on the front lines of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, are deserving of a responsible, workable, and thorough response to the serious issue of violence in the workplace. However, this legislation is a far cry from a sensible or workable solution. H.R. 1195 is overly prescriptive and heavy-handed and takes the wrong approach, prejudging and imposing a rushed regulation without allowing for necessary stakeholder input. Unfortunately, the Democrat amendments do nothing to change this fact. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat amendments en bloc and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I apologize for neglecting to say I oppose the amendment at the beginning. I believe I have the right to close, therefore, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Another provision in H.R. 7 requires that, in addition to proving business necessity, an employer must prove the business necessity accounts for 100 percent of the differential in compensation at issue. This is impossible to do. How can an employer explain slight differences in compensation based on educational level, experience, or quality of work on the job? This bill is going to make it impossible for employers to pay differentially on merit for anything. It is a bad bill, and we should not be passing it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' 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 have never said everything is perfectly okay. I said this bill is not the answer to what issues may still exist out there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), and applaud her for how she has handled herself in the past few months through all the turmoil and all of the challenges she has had.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the Democrats' conveniently titled, but painfully misguided, Paycheck Fairness Act, which should be called the paychecks for trial lawyers act. We all agree on the fundamental principle of this bill: women should not be paid less than men for the same work. That is not up for debate; and, for me, it has never been up for debate; and, for our country, it hasn't been since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, making equal pay the law of the land. Moreover, in 1964, title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified nondiscrimination rules for employment, making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. The question before us today is whether the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act provides any additional protections to women in the workplace. The answer is a resounding no. The United States has some of the most varied and complex workplaces in the world. Before the onslaught of COVID-19, women were earning merited paychecks in record numbers. According to a Harvard University analysis and numerous other studies, the difference in earning between men and women comes down to choices made regarding careers and parenting. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules to meet their diverse needs. A survey by Pew found 70 percent of working mothers say that a flexible schedule is extremely important. Democrats aren't giving the full story when they talk about pay differences. Women are making career choices that are best for themselves and their families. Limiting their freedom to do so is wrong. Congress has no place in telling women their career choices are wrong, yet Democrats are hellbent on telling all Americans how to live their lives, how to spend their money, and now how to make career decisions. The Paycheck Fairness Act is not a win for women in the slightest. It is a false promise that creates opportunities and advantages only for trial lawyers looking for easy payouts while causing irreparable harm to employers. By making it much easier to bring lawsuits of questionable validity against employers, trial lawyers will be able to force employers into settlements or try for unlimited paydays from jury awards, lining their own pockets and dragging women through tedious, never-ending legal proceedings. In the United States, we believe in innocence until proven guilty, but this bill assumes otherwise. Under current law, business owners can defend themselves from a claim of pay discrimination by proving that a pay differential is based on legitimate, business-related factors other than sex. H.R. 7 would radically alter this law, requiring a business owner to convince a judge or jury that the pay differential was required by ``business necessity.'' This is a nearly impossible burden of proof to meet that will lead to unfair judgments against business owners because the plain meaning of the term ``business necessity'' is that the pay differential must be absolutely essential to the business. H.R. 7 would also result in a flood of litigation in front of judges and juries, who will delve into employer compensation decisions even when the employer can demonstrate that those decisions are based on legitimate, business-related reasons having nothing to do with the sex of the employee. Fearing Big Government and liability risks that could leave them bankrupt, many business owners will likely implement rigid pay bands--a model used by government and unionized businesses. This means workers will not be compensated on the basis of merit. This is the opposite of the American Dream. As one columnist wrote: ``equality of opportunity--not outcomes--is the American ideal.'' On top of the legal jeopardy this bill creates for employers, H.R. 7 also mandates that business owners submit mountains of worker pay data to the Federal Government. This will pose significant threats to the confidentiality and privacy of workers' pay data, create a data stash that would be impossible to protect or interpret, and cost business owners more than $600 million annually. This bill purports to champion equality for women, yet it disregards the 40 percent of small businesses owned by women that will be forced to implement pay policies found in government-run workplaces and be stuck paying through the nose in compliance costs if this bill passes. Even worse, H.R. 7 will severely limit workplace flexibility for women. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules to meet their diverse needs, yet this harmful legislation completely ignores this reality and threatens to take away the choices and freedom necessary for them to retain employment. We know employees prefer workable and flexible schedules, and now is not the time to limit these options for women who have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Should my Democrat colleagues wish to discuss additional policies which will foster the advancement of women in the workplace, we can consider legislation that safely reopens our schools and businesses, provides the flexibility and support to expand work-based learning programs and create viable pathways that enable more individuals to reskill and build fulfilling careers on their own terms, and promotes career and technical education, to name a few. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues would rather impose radical and unworkable policy under the guise of progress than find bipartisan solutions which foster environments where individuals are empowered to succeed and make the decisions that are best for them. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 7 claim that despite current prohibitions against pay discrimination, female workers are still paid, on average, considerably less than male workers and, as a result, a pernicious wage gap exists. However, many studies demonstrate that the gap is not necessarily the product of workplace discrimination. In fact, this gap nearly disappears when factors such as hours worked per week, rate of leaving the workforce, and industry and occupation are considered. A 2020 study by compensation software company PayScale found that when controlling for job title, years of experience, industry, location, and other compensable factors, women earned 98 percent as much as men. A 2009 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor found a gender wage gap of between 4.8 and 7.1 percent when controlling for economic variables between men and women. A 2018 Harvard study found that the gap in pay between female and male bus and train operators working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, MBTA, can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make rather than other factors, such as discrimination. The study found that the earnings gap for MBTA bus and train operators is explained by the fact that the male operators took 48 percent fewer unpaid hours off and worked 83 percent more overtime hours per year than the female operators. I want to point out that I am giving you facts here, Mr. Speaker, facts. These differences are not due to any different work options faced by female and male operators. Rather, the study found that the female operators had a greater demand for workplace flexibility and a lower demand for overtime work hours than the male operators. Pay discrimination is wrong and already illegal. We probably cannot say that enough. Any new legislation to combat pay discrimination should be based on facts, not supposition, not projection. The facts seem to be sorely missing from this debate. 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.