Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, government intervention often causes more harm than good. I have spent my time in Congress working to protect individual freedoms from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. I recognize that a strong family is vital to our Nation's progress and prosperity, which is why I have worked to advance legislation that allows families to flourish and protects life at all stages. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire generation. The right to life demands that we protect our Nation's most vulnerable, including the unborn. Our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years. Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. We are the land of the free because of it. Our individual liberties are the envy of people around the world and they are the cornerstone of the world's oldest democracy. Yet, today, these essential rights are under attack. H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating. As a former educator and the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you that the bill may have equality in the title, but it certainly does not serve all Americans. This legislation has a clever name and an allegedly noble purpose, but it is a vehicle for serious harmful consequences. The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. According to the National Review, this extreme legislation ``redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth.'' Under H.R. 5, our Nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality. The bill would undermine Title IX protections for girls by outlawing sex-based athletic competitions. Even more troubling is the bill's meticulous and intentional destruction of religious freedom protections. Religiously-affiliated colleges and universities that maintain student codes of conduct, hiring practices, or housing rules reflecting sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality, risk losing Federal funding under the Equality Act, as such policies would be deemed discriminatory. Beloved secular private colleges that maintain single-sex policies, like Smith College and Morehouse College, would be forced to change their policies or forego Federal funding. In the State of Virginia, we have already seen the displeasure among parents regarding such policy implementation. In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post in 2019, a former middle and high school teacher whose children attend Arlington public schools said: ``It would erode parents' rights over their children's education, corrode Title IX protections for girls, and risk convincing healthy, normally developing boys and girls that their bodies are wrong and must be altered with hormones and be vandalized by surgical instruments.'' The bill also lacks any pro-life protections, which is why I am submitting my amendment that will protect religiously affiliated groups and individuals from being forced to perform abortions. This bill is a brazen attempt to replace longstanding constitutional rights with the identity politics of the moment. We have entered treacherous waters by considering legislation that stifles proven, bipartisan solutions and, more seriously, our Bill of Rights. It is outrageous that Democrats would advertise these proposals as guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights. Mr. Speaker, as elected Representatives, we all strive for equality before the law, but H.R. 5 is another classic example of Democrats passing a law now and figuring out what it means later. This is no way to legislate.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years. Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. Yet, today, these essential rights are under attack. H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating. As a former educator and the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you the bill may have ``equality'' in the title, but it certainly does not serve all Americans. The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. According to the National Review, this extreme legislation redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth. Under H.R. 5, our Nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality. Government intervention often causes more harm than good. I've spent my time in Congress working to protect individual freedoms from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. I recognize that a strong family is vital to our nation's progress and prosperity, which is why I've worked to advance legislation that allows families to flourish and protects life at all stages. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of on entire generation. The right to life demands that we protect our Nation's most vulnerable, including the unborn. Our First Amendment is a powerful instrument that has protected our most sacred freedoms for hundreds of years. Few other countries provide the same protections and freedoms that our First Amendment guarantees. We are the `land of the free' because of it. Our individual liberties are the envy of people around the world and they are the cornerstone of the world's oldest democracy. Yet today, these essential rights are under attack. H.R. 5 is the latest example of Democrats' misleading and partisan manner of legislating. As a former educator and the Republican Leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I can tell you that the bill may have ``equality'' in the title, but it certainly does not serve ALL Americans. This legislation has a clever name and an allegedly noble purpose, but it is a vehicle for serious, harmful consequences. The Equality Act would empower the government to interfere in how regular Americans think, speak, and act. Specifically, it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. According to the National Review, this extreme legislation ``redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth.'' Under H.R. 5, our nation's K-12 schools would be forced to treat gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality. The bill would undermine Title IX protections for girls by outlawing sex-based athletic competitions. Even more troubling is the bill's meticulous and intentional destruction of religious freedom protections. Religiously affiliated colleges and universities that maintain student codes of conduct, hiring practices, or housing rules reflecting sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality risk losing federal funding under the Equality Act, as such policies would be deemed discriminatory. Beloved secular private colleges that maintain single sex admissions policies, like Smith College and Morehouse College, could be forced to change their policies or forego federal funding. In Virginia, we've already seen the displeasure amongst parents regarding such policy implementation. In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post in 2019, a former middle and high school teacher whose children attend Arlington Public Schools said, ``It would erode parents' rights over their children's education, corrode Title IX protections for girls and risk convincing healthy, normally developing boys and girls that their bodies are wrong and must be altered with hormones and be vandalized by surgical instruments.'' The bill also lacks any pro-life protections, which is why I am submitting my amendment that will protect religiously affiliated groups and individuals from participating in or funding abortions. This bill is a brazen attempt to replace longstanding constitutional rights with the identity politics of the moment. We've entered treacherous waters by considering legislation that stifles proven, bipartisan solutions and, more seriously, our Bill of Rights. It's outrageous that Democrats would advertise these proposals as guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights. Madam Speaker, as elected Representatives, we all strive for equality before the law, but H.R. 5 is another classic example of Democrats passing a bill now and figuring out what it means later. This is no way to legislate.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 477, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which impedes the ability of businesses and employers to fill in-demand jobs. Legislation deserves a proper, thorough, and bipartisan examination, which is why the House has long established procedures to do just that. Those procedures respect the majority and minority and ensure that both sides are represented. Democrats are ignoring these procedures and bringing this bill straight to the floor, steamrolling the committee of jurisdiction. Time and again Speaker Pelosi has shown more interest in ``our way or the highway'' governing than upholding the deliberative process of the people's House. Rushing a bill to the House floor without committee consideration simply because we have gaveled in a new Congress and need something to fill the time on the floor isn't a sustainable path forward under any circumstances. This is particularly frustrating considering the bipartisan agreement that our Nation's apprenticeship system needs to be updated to provide more opportunities for hardworking Americans. H.R. 447 closes pathways to work for students and job seekers at a time when our Nation is in desperate need of getting more Americans back to work. In recent years, steps were taken to increase the number of high-quality apprenticeships and introduce innovation into work- based learning programs. For example, the Trump administration created Industry Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which provide another avenue for companies seeking skilled workers who want to develop programs with more input from other industry leaders rather than from the Federal Government. Democrats like to say that IRAPs are ``untried'' or ``untested.'' Other words for that are ``new'' and ``innovative.'' This bill would take away opportunities for the 131 IRAPs that have been recognized in the last 4 months, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials. Limiting nursing credentials during a global pandemic is idiotic. By prohibiting these innovative programs, the bill assumes that a registered program that worked for one employer will meet the diverse needs of every business across the country, regardless of size or industry. In fiscal year 2019, 252,000 individuals entered apprenticeships, but only 81,000 graduated from the registered system. In fact, there have been, on average, over 190,000 new apprenticeships every year since 2015, but only 81,000 graduate in a year from the registered system. That is a graduation rate of 43 percent, at best. Yet Democrats refer to this program as the ``gold standard.'' Lord help us if this is the gold standard. Clearly, there is room to improve the registered system, make space for employer-led innovation, and get more Americans back to work. Instead, Democrats assume that simply throwing more taxpayer dollars at a broken system will lead to the creation of a million new apprenticeships. But they have failed to address the underlying problems with the system and, along the way, are shutting down a new, more flexible option that businesses have already found appealing. Stifling innovation and doubling down on an 80-year-old system that favors union-driven apprenticeships will hurt our efforts to get more Americans back to work. Yet language included in the legislation favors grant funding for entities partnering with unions. Turning the bill's grant program into a union slush fund would also block countless potential for participants from accessing grant money. Even worse, H.R. 447 will force job creators to deal with overly prescriptive requirements, additional bureaucracy, and time-consuming paperwork on top of the one-size-fits-all approach. It is no wonder this stifling environment has discouraged new and small businesses from participating in the registered apprenticeship system. Employers know best what skills their employees require to excel in the workplace. That is why Republicans believe Congress should encourage employer-led innovation in the apprenticeship space. Unfortunately, today's legislation falls woefully short. We know that apprenticeships will play a defining role in closing the skills gap and putting more Americans to work, but only if employees and job creators are given the flexibility to innovate and develop high-quality earn-and-learn programs without overreach from Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that these grants are not restricted to union programs, or programs that are associated with unions. But the language in the bill is ``to the extent practicable programs should be connected with the union.'' That term is not defined. The Department of Labor can arbitrarily deny grants to nonunion programs. There is no accountability for this. In fact, there is very little accountability in this bill at all. And the American people want to know where their hardworking tax dollars are being spent. This is just a lousy bill and we ought not to be passing it in these conditions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my other colleagues have pointed out, millions of workers will need reskilling due to the pandemic-related job loss and displacement, not to mention the devastating executive orders signed by President Biden which eliminated in one day hundreds of thousands of jobs. The World Economic Forum discusses this issue at length in their recent report titled: ``The Future of Jobs Report 2020.'' In the report, they point to a double disruption scenario impacting workers due to both automation and COVID-19 workplace disruptions. This double disruption is further reinforced in their findings that 84 percent of employers are set to rapidly digitalize working processes. And, again, as I mentioned, they don't even take into consideration what President Biden has done to eliminate hundreds of thousands, and it could be millions of jobs. The demand for reskilling workers is high, and we will be left chasing the need of our workforce with the current one-size-fits-all approach this bill seeks to enshrine into law. As in-demand skills evolve into the years to come, the skills gap will continue to grow in the absence of forward-thinking reform. Again, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join Republicans in creating new apprenticeship pathways through innovative models such as the industry-recognized apprenticeship model. 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, would you clarify how much time I have remaining.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which would be eliminated by this bill represent a new apprenticeship model that puts employers in the driver's seat to create programs that meet the unique needs of their workers. This new, innovative model was spearheaded by President Trump's Department of Labor. Currently, 80 percent of apprenticeships are employer-led and are not a part of the registered apprenticeship model. The registered apprenticeship model is riddled with burdensome red tape which discourages countless businesses from participating. IRAPs, on the other hand, give job creators the freedom to break away from the Washington-knows-best model and connect workers, families, and communities with fulfilling careers. This bill looks backwards and relies solely on a model created during the Great Depression. We should be looking forward and not closing opportunities for new models that reach more workers and industries like the industry-recognized apprenticeship model. Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the National Apprenticeship Act is in desperate need of an update. But the bill before us fails to deliver for students, workers, or job creators. While Democrats continue with this ill-advised legislation, Republicans will continue working hard to inject innovation and flexibility into the apprenticeship model so that more Americans, many of whom have been put out of work by this very administration, can get back to work. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my great affection for the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), I have to highlight at least one amendment in the en bloc that I am concerned with. The amendment offered by Representative Escobar would add Job Corps Centers to the list of education providers that may be considered as partners for program sponsors as they are developing their program. I understand Mr. Levin thinks this is a great idea, and it is well- intentioned, I am sure. But I do not believe we should be adding more responsibilities to a program that has consistently failed to do that which Congress has already authorized it to do. For decades, this federally funded program has struggled to ensure the safety and security of students. There is ample documentation about the deficiencies in Job Corps. In fact, over 30 different government reports and audits have raised concerns over the safety and security of participants. Until we have resolved the underlying problems with Job Corps, I do not believe we should encourage more individuals to participate in the program by listing this as an available option. The other amendments are largely minor changes to the bill that do not redeem the underlying policy or do anything to seriously reform and improve our apprenticeship system. While I wish we could have a serious debate about the opportunity for additional reforms in this space that would be supported by a large number of Republican Members, it is clear that Democrats are unwilling to have that conversation today. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and 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, no one on our side disagrees that millions of people in this country now and in the future need constant education and the opportunity to gain new skills. Mr. Speaker, we all support apprenticeships. I want to tell a little story about how long I have been involved in helping to create apprenticeships. I have a brother who is 8 years younger than I, and it took me 7 years to finish college. I had just barely finished and was working at a new resort in North Carolina, Beech Mountain. He was a senior in high school, and he came to me and said: I don't want to go to college, but I don't want you and mom and daddy to be ashamed of me. We have created a system in this country where we think people have to have a baccalaureate degree to be successful. That is not true. I asked my brother what he wanted to do, and he said: I want to be a carpenter. I said: That is about the most honorable profession in the world. Some famous people were carpenters. So, I went to my boss. I don't know how I knew this, but I said: My brother would like to be a carpenter. We are desperate for carpenters, electricians, and plumbers here. Could we set up a carpentry apprenticeship program? We did that with the help of a local junior college, community college, contractors, and AGC. We set up a carpentry apprenticeship program. Seventeen guys, mostly recent high school graduates, enrolled in it. Three-and-a-half years later, my brother and three other guys graduated with their journeyman license. Now, I consider that a great success. I have been interested in apprenticeships since 1969. I saw how successful they were. Those are the kinds of programs that we need to be fostering in this country. My brother went on to be an engineer with the telephone company. He never got a bachelor's degree, but he showed me how to use my first computer, taught me how to use it, set it up for me. My brother is a very successful man, a lot smarter than I am, but he did that by using his skills, his brain. And he continues to educate himself. What we need is constant education, the opportunity to learn new skills, but this bill and these amendments don't advance the cause. We need to stop looking backward 80 years and look forward to the needs of a modern economy. Yes, the President hit the ground running. He sure did. He eliminated thousands of jobs in his first week, and he continues to eliminate jobs with wrongheaded policy. This bill and many of the actions of our colleagues indicate how beholden they are to union bosses. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.