Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our bench on the Republican side is very strong, and it is especially strong because of the Representatives from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, others have spoken to this bill being a gift to the unions this afternoon. It is no surprise that the Democrats want to pay favor to the union bosses who line their pockets. Their end goal must be what all socialist countries have in common: control of the workforce through unions. After all, they have spent this Congress pushing one socialist agenda after another. The bill before us is just another example. Democrats' blatant favoritism towards unions will block countless jobseekers from receiving apprenticeship opportunities. America's workers and their families will pay the price. This bill reinforces the idea that there is only one way to do things--the government's way. When will Democrats learn that the American people are not interested in government-mandated socialist policies? Once again, Democrats are choosing to bend to the will of Big Labor instead of putting American workers first. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, earlier we heard from our colleagues that there is going to be a $3 return to the American people for every tax dollar they give up to get this program funded in the next 5 years. I want to tell you that I think the American people would be happy to see that return. Show me any Federal program that returns to hardworking taxpayers $3 for every dollar they pay in, and I will show you some swampland in New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. When it comes to Democrats' delivering on promises, Americans are often left disappointed. Workforce development and apprenticeships are no exception. Take their so-called Heroes Act as an example. Democrats tout the impactful role apprenticeships will play as our country recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet their bill allocates a miniscule percentage of money for workforce development initiatives, and it doesn't do anything to ensure the money is used to develop and educate workers. In the first Heroes Act only .07 percent of total funding was allocated to the Employment and Training Administration. Unsurprisingly, in the Heroes Act 2.0, only 0.1 percent of total funding was allocated to the Employment and Training Administration. This is hypocrisy at its best. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, workforce programs like apprenticeships will aid in closing the skills gap and put 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. That is why Republicans want to expand employers' opportunities to address the needs of their current and prospective workers through an all-of-the-above approach to apprenticeships rather than closing potential pathways to work. Unfortunately, H.R. 8294 doubles down on a narrow and prescriptive approach and gives Washington bureaucrats, not job creators, more control. This flawed legislation will prevent more job seekers from accessing apprenticeship opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 8294, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that Representative Stefanik's amendment was made in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Representative Stefanik's amendment is a valuable change that would make it easier for programs of shorter length to be approved specifically in fields where apprenticeships have not traditionally seen growth or expansion. While most of the other amendments in this en bloc are unobjectionable, I do want to highlight three amendments where I have concerns. The amendment offered by Representatives Beyer and Pressley is mostly unobjectionable. We certainly share the majority's intent in ensuring access to apprenticeships for people with disabilities. However, it also includes a provision that would actually hold apprenticeship program sponsors to a higher standard than the standard to which section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 currently holds Federal agencies, which are the target of that particular provision. While this was likely well intentioned, the underlying bill already prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires program sponsors to provide accommodations for individuals with disabilities, so holding small business and other employers who are seeking to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities to a higher standard than we hold ourselves in the Federal Government is a guaranteed way to ensure fewer apprenticeship opportunities rather than more. Another amendment concealed within the en bloc is offered by Representative Moore, which will lead to excessive paperwork and little real outcomes for low-income individuals or individuals with barriers to employment. Finally, the amendment offered by Representative Horsford claims to ensure equity and opportunity in the apprenticeship system. In reality, I am afraid it may cause confusion at best. The amendment would add new criteria to the definition of ``national qualified intermediaries,'' requiring them to support the increased participation of nontraditional apprenticeship populations and nontraditional apprenticeship industries or occupations. Even if they wanted to, some national qualified intermediaries may not be in a position to do this, either because of their location or the nature of their program. If there is an opportunity in the new Congress to resume bipartisan conversations on reauthorization of the National Apprenticeship Act, I welcome the chance to discuss what the intent is here and to seek out common ground. In fact, I hope the new Congress brings about true bipartisan work from my colleagues. While these three specific amendments cause me concern, on balance, this en bloc consideration is worthy of support even if it won't ultimately redeem the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8294, which kills the ability for businesses and industry to fill in-demand jobs. Republicans and Democrats agree that apprenticeships play a critical role in addressing our Nation's workforce needs and preparing workers for meaningful, well-paying careers; however, the narrow-minded approach taken by Democrats in H.R. 8294 doubles down on a system that limits apprenticeship opportunities. Many who know me here in Congress know that I have advocated for these job-creating programs all my career. Nothing can prepare a student quite like on-the-job experience, and apprenticeships are a tried-and-true method of preparing students to enter the workforce with the skills they need to succeed. Unfortunately, the potential for a strong bipartisan effort to expand beyond the existing registered apprenticeship model to reach more workers and industries has been eclipsed by the Democrats' typical partisan games. While our economy continues to recover from COVID-19, workers and job creators need the flexibility to innovate. Republicans understand that employers, not Washington bureaucrats, know best what skills their employees require to excel in the workplace. The Trump administration also recognizes the importance of employer- led innovation in the apprenticeship space and has taken important steps to expand and innovate work-based learning programs. More than 430 companies and organizations have signed the President's pledge to American workers, committing to providing more than 16 million new education and on-the-job learning opportunities for American students and workers. Additionally, the Department of Labor is moving forward with Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs to give employers the flexibility to shape apprenticeship programs that will attract workers and prepare them for the 21st century. We have seen real success stories unfold when we let employers innovate. Opportunity America and the Brookings Institution recently published a study on the Federation for Advanced Manufacturing Education, or FAME, an organization that connects educators, employers, and students with hands-on learning to strengthen the manufacturing industry. The study found Kentucky FAME graduates, when compared to their non- FAME counterparts, earned up to 63 percent more 1 year after graduation. Five years after, FAME graduates earned $98,000, compared to $52,783 for non-FAME graduates. This study represents not only a success story in Kentucky, but it uncovers a larger narrative. There is untapped potential in the apprenticeship space waiting to be unleashed because the existing registered model doesn't meet the need of many companies right now. Instead of giving workers and employers more autonomy to create programs that are responsive to workforce needs, the Democrats' bill clings to an 80-year-old system that shuts the door on flexibility and innovation and enshrines union giveaways. In a letter to Committee Republicans, John Pallasch, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training at the Department of Labor, cautioned that ``if enacted, this bill would inhibit the ability of the Department to fulfill its mission in providing more Americans access to apprenticeships.'' Mr. Pallasch went on to warn that H.R. 8294 puts job-filling programs in jeopardy due to an ``excessive number of requirements that are overly prescriptive.'' Still, House Democrats want to make registered apprenticeships the only possible model under the National Apprenticeship Act. This approach is flawed. The numbers speak for themselves. In fiscal year 2019, 252,000 individuals entered apprenticeships, and only 81,000 graduated from the registered system. It is obvious that we can and should do better, but Democrats are turning a blind eye to needed improvements that will allow more Americans to get back to work and achieve the American Dream. The bill before us will force job creators to deal with overly prescriptive requirements, additional bureaucracy, and time-consuming paperwork. This stifling environment has discouraged new and small businesses from participating in the registered apprenticeship system for years now. The majority claims that this legislation will create 1 million new apprenticeship programs simply by virtue of throwing more money at the registered system without solving the underlying problems that prevent employers from participating or allowing for alternative models. It seems the new definition of insanity is the Federal Government spending more taxpayer dollars on decades-old programs and expecting different results. An all-of-the-above approach is the best way to connect more workers with apprenticeship opportunities so they can secure meaningful, well- paying careers. That is why Republicans on the Education and Labor Committee introduced a commonsense amendment during the bill's markup to unleash the full potential of apprenticeships and help fill in- demand jobs. Among other provisions, it would allow the Department of Labor the flexibility to pursue other forms of work-based learning under the National Apprenticeship Act, including in response to COVID-19. It would reduce the paperwork burden on States by allowing them to submit State plans under the preexisting framework of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act rather than forcing them to establish a duplicative application process. Rarely is more government intervention the solution, which is why the amendment would strike provisions in H.R. 8294 that would add to the existing bureaucracy in the form of advisory committees and interagency agreements. The amendment also provides States with more discretion over how they spend their money, instead of letting the Federal Government dictate where their dollars must go. This amendment also makes it easier for more programs, and therefore, more apprentices to access the registered apprenticeship system by removing the requirement setting an uneven playing field between union and nonunion program sponsors for the ratios of apprentices to instructors. This particular provision is just another scheme by Democrats to force workers into unions. Unfortunately, this commonsense, forward-looking amendment was struck down on a party line vote by committee Democrats. Thankfully, the full House will have the opportunity to vote on this amendment during floor consideration, and I hope Democrats will take this opportunity to adopt legislation that will actually increase work- based learning opportunities. At a time when workers and job creators are working hard to overcome the challenges presented by COVID-19, we shouldn't close potential pathways to work. Apprenticeships can help put more Americans to work as we recover from the pandemic, but only if job creators are given the flexibility to innovate and develop high quality earn-and-learn programs. And the Democrat bill fails on that front. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who has been an extremely valuable member of this committee, and we will miss him in the next term.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we aren't here debating a bloc of amendments that will work to address the failings of the underlying bill. I am pleased to see at least one amendment in this group will help bring some flexibility to States. I urge support of the en bloc consideration of these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this en bloc incorporates three amendments to the underlying bill that would enhance opportunities in the registered apprenticeship system. The amendment offered by Mr. Kilmer of Washington and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania amends the grant program within the underlying bill to promote offerings for computer science programs. 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.'' 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. Computer science is a high-growth and promising career path leading to in-demand lucrative jobs for workers. We hear too often that students are graduating without the technical skills they need to be successful in today's workforce. This amendment would support employers in recruiting and developing new employees with the computer science competencies they need to make up for these deficits and help fill a widening skills gap. Similarly, the amendment offered by Ms. Titus of Nevada and cosponsored by several Members on both sides of the aisle adds hospitality and tourism to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries that are eligible for grants under this act. If this grant program is to live up to its name and reflect the economy of the 21st century, we must break free from antiquated, narrow ideas of apprenticeships and bring more opportunities to promising sectors. The hospitality and tourism industries are a prime example of areas in which students would benefit from more on-the-job learning experiences and employer-led instruction than they would from a traditional college education. Finally, the amendment offered by Mr. Lamb of Pennsylvania and Mr. Taylor of Texas includes veterans service organizations in several key places. Specifying VSOs as partner organizations for involvement in the registered apprenticeship system ensures the needs of veterans will be considered and incorporated into apprenticeship programs. The amendment also highlights the VSOs as entities that should be contacted for promoting and raising awareness about apprenticeship opportunities, making sure our veterans have full access to and information about apprenticeship opportunities. 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. We want apprenticeships to support all workers seeking to access and enhance career opportunities. These amendments ensure the 21st Century Grant program expands opportunities in promising sectors and that the registered apprenticeship system engages veterans. I support these amendments, encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it has become quite apparent over the past few months that House Democrats just don't want to show up for work. They rallied behind proxy voting the moment the idea was conjured up, and ever since, they have become complacent in their duties. The American people are showing up to work because their livelihoods depend on it. But when it comes to Democrat Members of Congress, it is the exact opposite. What a stark contrast. For months, my Republican colleagues and I have made the trip from our districts to Washington to conduct the business of the people's House in the open. We have been present at committee hearings, votes, and other important functions, but it certainly seems that our Democrat colleagues don't share that same level of commitment. What does that tell you about them? Mr. Speaker, we can't ignore the fact that we are in the middle of a global pandemic, but that does not mean that we get to abdicate our duties as Members of Congress. Members of the United States Senate have shown up to conduct their business. So why isn't the House doing the same? What is concerning most of all is that the initial endeavor to implement proxy voting has now evolved into something more asinine: vote by text. This attempt to consolidate power by Speaker Pelosi is just another feeble move, and one that runs counter to the operation of this deliberative body that has stood for hundreds of years, yet House Democrats seem perfectly content with this idea. The American notion of showing up to work and fulfilling your duties seems to be a foreign concept to them. If they spent their time working, and less time looking for ways to get out of work, we would be making progress. This is not an effective way to legislate and, in the end, the American people are the ones who will bear the brunt of this imprudent course of action. The people's House must return to regular order, and if we keep kicking the can down the road on conducting business in the open, this institution will become rife with complacency. It is time we get back to work. Stop the delays. Stop the political ploys. The American people are counting on us.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the mainstream media will never acknowledge that 2020 is the year of the Republican women. They wrote us off on countless occasions, and yet, we proved them wrong time and time again. Across the country, the American people made their voices heard in voting booths, and they chose numerous Republican women candidates to be their voice in Washington. To conservative women who aspire for public office, people will work to discredit you, they will claim your priorities are misplaced, and they will do everything they can to undermine your hard work. But what they won't acknowledge is that you represent the best of the values of the American people. That is what truly matters.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Blake Lovette, a true giant not only in the North Carolina agriculture community, but in the civic community, passed away unexpectedly. Blake was a good friend, and to say he made a profound impact on the Wilkes County community would be an understatement. From his time on the Wilkes Board of Education to his role as the president of ConAgra Poultry, Blake was never satisfied with the status quo and believed that complacency was never an option. As chairman of the Wilkes County Republican Party, Blake exercised a level of diligence and grace that was second to none. To Blake's family, I pray that God will continue to bless you and give you comfort during this difficult time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 8265 to extend the Paycheck Protection Program to keep millions of employees on the payroll of America's small businesses.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in November, thousands of marines will graduate from Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion. These brave men and women will go on to serve and protect the United States and our allies across the world. One such marine is Rece T. Rader from Winston-Salem. His mother, Angela, recently wrote to me about his graduation from boot camp at Parris Island and his subsequent move to Camp Geiger. In her letter, she spoke passionately about how COVID-19 has made it incredibly hard for military families to celebrate alongside their loved ones who have completed their program requirements. Her story applies to so many families, and it highlights the importance of recognizing the many accomplishments of these airmen, marines, soldiers, sailors, and guardsmen. COVID-19 has disrupted the lives of all Americans in many ways. It is, however, very unfortunate that COVID-19 has deprived the servicemembers of the physical and moral support that comes with the attendance of their families at graduation ceremonies. To all servicemembers who are currently preparing for duty: We are incredibly proud of you. Your hard work and dedication have not gone unnoticed, and you serve as the role models that young people look to for inspiration. Today and every day, we should celebrate your accomplishments and the strides you continue to make. Though we may not be able to congratulate you all in person, please know we will always celebrate you no matter how close or how far away you may be. May God bless you, your families, and the United States of America. Life Is Winning

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, life is winning. Recently, a great new book by Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, has been published that is entitled, ``Life Is Winning.'' Currently, I am halfway through the book, but can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning about the fight for life in our country and to learn more about the role of elected officials in this fight. Many people, publicly known and unknown, have been working diligently to preserve what our Declaration of Independence says we are guaranteed: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Speaker, without question, life is the fundamental component to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Speaker, I thank Marjorie, all the staff at Susan B. Anthony, the staff at National Right to Life, and the wonderful people at the State and local levels who pray diligently and work every day to promote the culture of life, which we know is supported by a majority of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump and Vice-President Pence for their steadfast support of life. They understand that life must be protected and fought for at every turn.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle try to convince Americans that this bill is a compromise and bipartisan. That is a joke, Mr. Speaker. Compromise, to Democrats, means do it their way. When it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, hard-earned money, though, the Democrats just can't seem to help themselves. The latest example is this $2.2 trillion socialist wish list, which is riddled with radical left priorities that are unrelated to the pandemic. For example, it props up failing pension plans for select community newspapers. What does this have to do with the COVID-19 pandemic? The newspaper industry has been in decline for decades, and these companies have had a longstanding inability to meet their pension obligations. The bill also forgives up to $10,000 of private student loan debt. Again, this does nothing to combat COVID-19. But massive loan forgiveness, despite the high cost to taxpayers, has long been a Democrat objective. So why are we considering this partisan scheme? Because come election day, Democrats are hoping to cash in on this bill's many empty promises. It is disingenuous and it is disappointing. We all must vote ``no.''

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are in the height of robocall season, and the American people are beyond fed up. The recent 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court that upholds a Federal ban on robocalls warrants a serious conversation that is long overdue. Under the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA, prerecorded voice messages and the use of automatic dialing systems were effectively banned. The prevailing argument was that the American people would no longer face intrusive nuisances that we have now come to recognize as robocalls. In retrospect, the TCPA was a novel endeavor, but the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 introduced setbacks that compromised the progress that had been achieved in the fight against robocalls. Debt collectors received a special carve-out that allowed them to place automatic calls to Americans who owed money to the Federal Government. Though the Supreme Court eliminated this carve-out on the basis that it was a violation of the First Amendment, bountiful opportunities to enact meaningful reform remain on the horizon. Unwanted robocalls have become the bane of many, and with phones ringing off the hook in households across the country, Americans are wondering when they will get a reprieve from these nuisances. Imagine you are sitting down for dinner with your family, and within seconds of the meal starting, your phone begins ringing. It is yet another robocall. Now, magnify the scene to households across the country. It is an enraging scenario that all of us have been affected by, but I have a blueprint that can set things right. Since 2005, I have introduced the Robo Calls Off Phones Act, legislation that directs the FTC to revise its regulation for the National Do Not Call Registry and allows politically oriented messages to be added to that list. In fact, the genesis for this legislation came from my constituents. Many were livid that they had been bombarded with unwanted calls during the 2004 election year. They demanded that Congress act to end these nuisances, and I took it upon myself to carry the mantle. Ever since I have reintroduced this legislation to address the cyclical issue, and I remain adamant that Congress must address this immediately. For years, politicians in Washington have told their constituents that they would fight against robocalls. Now it is time to hold ourselves to account and be part of the solution. H.R. 805, the bipartisan Robo COP Act, is the vessel by which we can achieve meaningful reform. The simple truth is that no American is immune to receiving robocalls. It is becoming a nagging problem that has evolved to the point where we now believe it is commonplace to receive them at any point during the day. The answer to this problem is right before our very eyes, and Congress finds itself in an opportune moment to enact meaningful reforms that have been overlooked for far too long.