Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this en bloc incorporates eight amendments with bipartisan support. I want to highlight a few amendments from this en bloc in particular. First, the amendment offered by Mr. Feenstra from Iowa will ensure that the Departments of Labor and Justice collaborate on technical assistance to support the development of related instruction that is aligned with the mentoring program administered by the Department of Justice. Second, several amendments add industries to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations. Modernizing the 80-year-old National Apprenticeship Act ought to include apprenticeship opportunities within a variety of sectors. Far too often, society paints apprenticeships as only applying to the trades, which is unfortunate. While there are certainly valuable pathways within those fields, we need to expand the horizons of what apprenticeships are capable of providing for workers. This is also why I think it is important to call these professions rather than the trades. A broader policy should not be limited by how it has traditionally been viewed or how we speak about it. Third, the amendment offered by Mr. Lamb from Pennsylvania and Mr. Taylor from Texas includes veterans service organizations in several key places. Because apprenticeships recognize and build on prior knowledge and skills, veterans stand to benefit greatly from these opportunities and should be engaged in the system as much as possible. Unfortunately, I do need to highlight one amendment that could be much stronger. Our Democrat colleagues have obviously recognized that the underlying bill does nothing to promote innovation in apprenticeships but, instead, simply doubles down on the status quo. So several Members have offered an amendment allowing for ``demonstration projects'' to promote innovation. Mr. Speaker, this is insulting. This Chamber deserves a real debate as to how to promote innovation within apprenticeships and work-based learning. Republicans offered amendments to do just that, but they were not made in order. Representative Allen offered an amendment specifically to protect existing industry-driven apprenticeships currently operating out of the Department of Labor. Representative Thompson offered an amendment to create additional innovation in work-based learning. Rather than allowing that debate to take place and Members to vote on these proposals, Democrats blocked consideration of those amendments and offered this do-nothing fig leaf of an amendment instead. Even the limited authority for demonstrations must still be approved by an advisory committee with heavy labor representation, giving union bosses veto power over any new ideas that might threaten their hold on apprenticeships. In the absence of real innovation, fake innovation is better than no innovation, but we could do better. Despite my frustrations with Democrats' refusal to debate serious proposals to modernize the apprenticeship program, on balance, this en bloc amendment offers good ideas worthy of support. I support the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I find it intriguing that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are passing legislation that is cost- effective when they are anticipating millions of jobs and generating lots of revenue, especially when they are denying that they are taking money from hardworking taxpayers who want to have apprenticeship programs that are not controlled by the Federal Government, and not allowing those taxpayers--those employers--to tap into a system that has grant programs for them where they are creating real jobs not controlled by the unions. It is just intriguing to me that they could be doing that. I don't know if I will be here 5 years from now or if Mr. Levin will be here 5 years from now, but I sure hope somebody does a check on the promises that are being made here for all the wonderful things to come as a result of this bill. And I predict that those ``investments'' that are the income being taken from hardworking taxpayers are not going to produce what is being predicted by our colleagues. So it is intriguing for me to hear that. I do hope somebody will be around to check on it and give a report on it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to highlight a couple of amendments in the en bloc that I have some reservations about and that I think would benefit from additional discussion if this bill is taken up in the Senate. First, Moore amendment No. 15 creates a new reporting requirement on ``State agencies.'' I don't think new reporting requirements will achieve our goal of increasing employer engagement in the registered apprenticeship program when the underlying bill doubles down on the reasons employers choose not to participate in the first place. But I would at least encourage my Democrat friends to clarify if they mean for that reporting requirement to apply only to ``State apprenticeship agencies'' or if they truly want to empower the Department of Labor to demand reports of any and every State agency it chooses, regardless of that agency's involvement in apprenticeship programs. Second, Payne amendment No. 18 may well make it harder to engage small- and medium-sized employers by requiring grantees to have demonstrated expertise in engaging specific types of small- and medium- sized businesses. Madam Speaker, to be absolutely clear, I believe we should take reasonable steps to encourage grantees to partner with small businesses owned or controlled by women, minorities, or veterans. The underlying bill does this. Unfortunately, the Payne amendment actually requires demonstrated success in this area, which would likely shrink the pool of grantees significantly, particularly in locations that already offer fewer apprenticeships programs. This is a well-meaning amendment, but as well-intentioned as it is, I hope the Senate will take another look at how to increase the participation of minority-, women-, and veterans- owned businesses without creating requirements that will reduce apprenticeship opportunities. The balance of the amendments are unobjectionable. They are unobjectionable because they mostly don't do anything noteworthy. In some cases they repeat provisions already in the bill. In other cases they add additional items to existing laundry lists. In short, these amendments are fine. They don't make the bill better in any substantive way, but they don't make it worse. But, Madam Speaker, the fact that the majority is spending our time on mostly meaningless amendments highlights the fundamental flaw in this bill and process. We are on the floor debating amendments that don't do much, while amendments that could have made significant improvements to the bill were blocked by the Democrats from consideration. We have talked repeatedly during this debate about how the Democrat bill eliminates existing work-based learning programs at the Department of Labor, mostly nursing apprenticeship programs, at a time our economy, particularly the healthcare sector, needs all the help it can get. Representative Allen offered an amendment to remedy this flaw in the bill, but my Democrat friends were afraid of taking that vote. So we aren't considering that proposal today. We have talked repeatedly about how this bill doubles down on the existing flaws of the current 80-year-old system while offering no opportunities for employers or workers to pursue meaningful innovation in the work-based learning space. Representative Thompson offered an amendment to fix that problem in the bill, but Democrats didn't want to take that vote either. We have talked repeatedly about how this bill seeks to protect big labor at the expense of workers in desperate need of high-quality apprenticeship programs. Representative Keller offered an amendment and Mr. Perry spoke of this inequity in his floor amendments. The amendment from Mr. Keller would have put union and nonunion apprenticeship programs on equal footing. Democrats won't let the people's House weigh in on that issue. Madam Speaker, I am going to support this en bloc amendment, but I hope at some point we will have an honest debate about how to truly improve this bill to provide workers the apprenticeship opportunities they need, or at least to protect the apprenticeship opportunities they currently have. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleagues talk a lot about the fact that 94 percent of people who complete apprenticeship programs get jobs immediately, but they never talk about the gold standard they call the registered programs, which graduate only 43 percent of the people who enter them, so I think they are very selective in the statistics that they use. Madam Speaker, expanding funding and giving funding to State apprenticeship offices, in my opinion, is just a hook for more Federal control. And everything about this underlying bill is to have more and more control at the Federal Government level, which enhances the role of unions in apprenticeship programs. That is not the way we should be going. Our colleagues have not noticed, I think, how quickly the workforce is having to adapt to, particularly, technological changes that are occurring in our country. These programs change very, very little over time because of the hidebound unions and the hidebound system that we have. We need the employers on the ground who are dealing with creating new jobs all the time in new industries to be able to tap into their taxpayer dollars that are coming into the Federal Government, which are denied to them unless they are hooked to a union. That is wrong, and we need fair systems. As Mr. Keller and Mr. Perry have pointed out, even the standards set for industry programs that are controlled by unions are different than they are in the private sector. There are more regulations on the private sector than on the union programs. This is not a good way for us to be going in the year 2021. We need innovation. We need to be forward-looking, not backward-looking. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. Currently, the underlying bill favors grant funding for entities that partner with unions. This would block countless potential participants from accessing these funds and would further cement the program in the way it has been since the 1930s. If we want to reach 1 million apprenticeships in this country, I fail to see how limiting access by creating earmarks and kickbacks will achieve that goal. The amendment offered by Representative Hill would make it optional for grant applications to partner with unions. If the majority truly believes that this is not a requirement intended to push more workers into unions, this should be no more than a technical clarification. Although it would not redeem the underlying bill, this amendment would be a step in the right direction toward opening more apprenticeship opportunities for Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Stefanik, a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee. Modernizing the apprenticeship system in this country is more important now than ever, as millions are in need of reskilling. This amendment would drastically improve the Registered Apprenticeship Program while also permitting DOL to pursue models of work-based learning outside the registered system, such as Industry- Recognized Apprenticeship Programs. The exclusion of this amendment would stop this innovative progress and scrap the 131 IRAPs that have already been recognized, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials. Unlike the Democrats' narrow-minded bill, Representative Stefanik's amendment recognizes the needs of students, workers, and job creators. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense alternative.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on December 4, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Clyburn announced the unveiling of a new exhibit in the Capitol that pays tribute to Joseph Rainey, the first Black Member of the House of Representatives. He served from 1869 until 1879. He was the first African American to preside over the House, and he was the longest-serving Black lawmaker in Congress during Reconstruction. In fact, he was a founding member of the South Carolina Republican Party. Two other Republicans, George White and Jefferson Long, made history as the first Black Members of Congress from North Carolina and Georgia during the same period. George White, from North Carolina, was a staunch advocate for other Black Republicans in the State and often took Democrats to task for not accepting the values that other Black Republicans held as well. Their stories deserve due recognition, and they also serve as reminders that political affiliations of any type are based on the values that one espouses, not just the color of one's skin or sex. It is unfortunate that more Black Republicans are not elected to the House of Representatives or to the Senate. That is because Black Republicans have been attacked repeatedly by the Democratic Party and their friends in the mainstream media. Mr. Speaker, even now, Democrats are still peddling a facade of being the party of the people. However, their outright rejection of those who hold different beliefs just goes to show how contradictory the party truly is. Meanwhile, the Republican Party welcomes members from all different backgrounds. Just look at the diverse new Republican representatives that the American people elected to Congress: women, veterans, and minorities. Those are the Republican candidates from across the country who have proven that Republican values are not the values of a few; they are the values of many. If we look at the centennial of the 19th Amendment that happened this year, we see the same disinformation tactics at play. Democrats harp incessantly about how they were the ones that fought for the 19th Amendment, but history tells a different story. On May 21, 1919, 200 Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment in the House, while many Democrats objected. Mr. Speaker, facts can't be forsaken as we look back at these historic events. However, flip through the pages of any classroom textbook and you do not see the Republican Party getting the credit it deserves for fighting for equality, women, and minority populations. Americans are not consigned to one set of political ideologies based on immutable characteristics. Free societies are built by an open exchange of ideas, and that exchange must be respected. The American people do not need to be told how to feel, how to think, and what values they should support. That is irresponsible. The American people are perfectly capable of coming to their own conclusions, but they need the facts presented to them. The Republican Party is the party of equality, and the facts clearly show that.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of news coverage lately on coordinated efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate America's institutions. I am particularly troubled by reports revealing efforts by the CCP to exploit academic integrity on U.S. college campuses. We know the CCP is using Confucius Institutes to further its agenda. Located on college campuses across the U.S., Confucius Institutes use their platform to spew Chinese Government propaganda. While Democrats turn a blind eye to China's threat, I am proud my Republican colleagues and I joined forces on the China Task Force and made bipartisan recommendations to Congress on how best to counter threats from the CCP. There is no place for Chinese censorship in America, especially not on college campuses where American ingenuity should take flight. Congress must deliver a strong message: CCP propaganda will be met with consequences.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, liberal Governors across the country have shown they know nothing about good governance. Many times I have heard impassioned speeches from my Republican colleagues on how liberal Governors running their States have gone off the deep end. Today, I am here to share North Carolina's story. For months, Governor Roy Cooper has avoided numerous opportunities to keep North Carolina open for business. He imposed phases of reopening that only caused more businesses to go under while he claimed it was the best option. Now he believes a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew will somehow eliminate COVID-19 altogether. What this curfew will do in the end is remind North Carolinians that their Governor has no idea what he is doing. COVID-19 is not a creature that roams the streets in the dead of night and retreats to its burrow once daybreak hits. This is a virus. Necessary safety precautions can be taken to protect yourself, your loved ones, and those around you. But when ill-conceived directives from Governor Cooper come into play, North Carolinians begin to question where the ambition ends and where leadership begins. The American people hear time and time again that we must follow the science, but when we question the science that is used to justify lockdowns, we seldom receive true clarity. We can all agree that the imperative here is to protect people from the scourge of the virus. That is abundantly clear. However, that imperative becomes horribly diluted when State and local economies suffer, people lose their jobs, and ends can't be met because of lockdowns. That is the sad reality of what lockdowns can do. I have a message for Governor Cooper: Your abject failures during this pandemic have hurt the livelihoods of people who are proud to call North Carolina home. The last thing North Carolinians need is a bureaucrat sitting in the Governor's mansion who hands down blanketed mandates. Hopefully, Governors across the country, including yourself, will look to common sense as a guide moving forward; but based on what has been done to date, you would probably squander that opportunity, too. Leadership is not a foreign concept. So why not lead the right way and put aside your desire to see North Carolina closed for business? North Carolina is an economic powerhouse because of its hardworking citizens who show up to work and get the job done. It is high time it is treated that way.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Patrolman Tyler Herndon of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, who passed away on December 11 in the line of duty. He was a dedicated public servant, and many who knew him knew that he loved his job and his community immensely. To his father, Mark; mother, Debbie; sister, Lindsey; and girlfriend, Holly, Tyler was someone who always put a smile on people's faces. Tyler always wanted to be in law enforcement. After he received his bachelor's degree in criminal justice from UNC-Charlotte, he went on to pursue his dream. May God bless Tyler's family and the many brave men and women serving with the Mount Holly Police Department.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, American innovation is in the express lane, and we have President Trump and both the private and public sectors to thank. The progress that has been made to date on viable vaccine candidates is astonishing, and it is a promising sign for the American people. It is truly a testament to the grit and resilience that resides within this country, and we have come a long way since the beginning of this year. We are on the cusp of eradicating COVID-19 once and for all, and the livelihoods of the American people will be restored. Mr. Speaker, never bet against American innovation. It has the power to change the world. Personal Battle With COVID-19

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, recently, my family faced a test that was unlike any we had faced before: fighting COVID-19. My husband contracted the virus and spent 4 days in Watauga Medical Center, where he received excellent care from doctors and nurses. I tested positive, was totally asymptomatic, but, of course, was quarantined and understand the frustration associated with that. Thankfully, though, I was able to continue my work without interruption, unlike so many others. We have always been grateful for those in healthcare, treating others at their own risk, but we understand the situation they are facing better than ever. We are even more grateful for the men and women fighting on the front lines to protect the American people. They do so not out of self- interest but rather through a solemn commitment to protect the sanctity of human life. We will be forever grateful for their countless sacrifices and will continue to pray for their safety and for God's grace to continue. To those impeccable men and women serving, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to a test indicating a positive result for a COVID-19 infection during the most recent district work period, I was unable to travel to the Capitol to vote on December 4, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 233; YEA on Roll Call No. 234; and NAY on Roll Call No. 235.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to a test indicating a positive result for a COVID-19 infection during the most recent district work period, I was unable to travel to the Capitol to vote on December 3, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 230; NAY on Roll Call No. 231; and NAY on Roll Call No. 232.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to a test indicating a positive result for a COVID-19 infection during the most recent district work period, I was unable to travel to the Capitol to vote on December 2, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 228.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment because I am opposed to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, frankly, the amendment offered by Representative Levin is a perfect distillation of the problems with the underlying legislation. The amendment limits the grant program in the bill so that only entities partnering with unions would be eligible to receive funding, notwithstanding what he has said. My colleagues across the aisle may claim that this is not the case because they require union partnership only ``to the extent practicable.'' However, ``to the extent practicable'' is in the eye of the beholder. We have checked with CRS, and CRS has said it is purposefully ambiguous. Whatever their intent, this is not how this provision would be implemented. Even if the ``as practicable'' is implemented as not being a requirement, it is certainly suggesting Congress has a strong preference for unions and organizations partnering with them to receive grant funds. This would block countless potential participants from accessing these funds and would further cement the program in the way it has been since the 1930s. Unfortunately, Democrats are doubling down on the problems with their program and once again are choosing to provide benefits to politically favored unions rather than addressing the underlying problems. If we want to reach 1 million apprenticeships in this country, I fail to see how limiting access by creating earmarks and kickbacks will achieve that goal. The majority has said over and over again that this bill would create 1 million new apprenticeships. That isn't true without this amendment, and it will be even less accurate if this amendment is adopted. It isn't true because they misunderstand the reason that growth in the registered apprenticeship program has been limited in the past. Businesses choose not to participate in registered apprenticeships because the government already makes it too complicated. Despite my colleagues' hopes, simply authorizing more money cannot solve that issue. A number of groups have recognized the problems inherent with this amendment and have spoken in opposition, including the Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, and Independent Electrical Contractors. They understand that reaching 1 million apprenticeships is not going to happen by turning the grant program in the underlying bill into a union slush fund. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, you know what is so sad to me is that I am out every week in my district talking to job creators and businesses who are desperate for workers and who want to create apprenticeship programs but will not go through the onerous process of the registered apprenticeship program. Yet, these are the people who are paying the taxes, and hardworking Americans in those jobs are paying the taxes. What the Democrats want to do is to transfer hardworking taxpayer dollars over to their friends in the unions, keeping them solvent. We know union membership is down. This is a way to boost their membership, by forcing business and industry to go into the registered apprenticeship program. This is wrong. They are not representing hardworking Americans who want to develop skills for the in-demand jobs. This is the wrong way for our country to be going. We need to support all types of business and industry that wants to help people gain the skills that they need for the in-demand jobs. This amendment is wrong. This bill is wrong. We should vote against the amendment, and we should vote against the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his work on the committee, which has been excellent, and for his work on this bill and this amendment, in particular. Mr. Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act has remained untouched for the last 80 years, until today. The legislation we put forward now should modernize the registered apprenticeship system and create forward-thinking solutions for the American workforce. This amendment makes real reforms to the registered apprenticeship system, sparks innovation, expands opportunities, and encourages alternate pathways for apprentices and employers. Who knows better what the workforce needs than employers? Washington bureaucrats have run the one-size-fits-all system for decades, and far too many businesses still choose not to participate because it simply isn't workable for them. This means job opportunities are left on the table because the current system isn't built for success, opportunities we cannot afford to close the door on if our workforce is going to recover from the damage done by the pandemic. If we want the registered apprenticeship system to adapt to the ever- changing needs of the economy and workforce, we need to provide employers a seat at the table in making a model that actually addresses the skills gap. This amendment eliminates the barriers that have developed over time in the current system, creates parity between union and nonunion- sponsored programs, and makes it easier for everyone to participate, particularly the small businesses and sponsors who have been shut out before. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, millions of workers will need reskilling due to pandemic-related job loss and displacement. 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.'' The demand for reskilling workers is high, and we will be left chasing the needs of our workforce with the current one-size-fits-all approach this bill seeks to enshrine into law. As in-demand skills evolve in the years to come, the skills gap will continue to grow in the absence of forward-thinking reform. I, again, 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from California (Congresswoman Davis) for her work on this bill and her career in Congress. We all respect her. And I earnestly wish we could have come up with a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).