Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, the American people eagerly awaited President Trump's announcement of his third Supreme Court nomination, and he did not disappoint. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is the embodiment of a fierce constitutional scholar, and her long list of accomplishments is nothing short of impeccable. She is highly regarded by her former students, clerks, and colleagues as a woman who possesses a piercing legal mind, a generous spirit, and a keen intellect. Her dedication to interpreting the Constitution rightfully by adhering to how it was expressly written and her impressive track record serve as the underpinnings of her nomination. I look forward to her swift confirmation to the Supreme Court and her continued work serving our great country.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Operation Warp Speed moves us closer to a cure for COVID-19. Thanks to President Trump, the administration, and the private sector, a viable vaccine is now within reach. Operation Warp Speed has proceeded at an unprecedented pace, and it reflects a profound level of urgency. It is a direct reflection of President Trump's commitment to protecting the American people. Taxpayers at the Federal level have committed over $10 billion to support the development of a vaccine, and the private sector has stepped up to meet this challenge head-on. Keep in mind that many vaccines and their subsequent clinical trials can take many years to complete. Without a doubt, we are closer to eradicating COVID-19 thanks to Operation Warp Speed. Progrowth Policies Benefit Americans

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in a recent report released by the U.S. Census, it was revealed that the median household income in the United States rose by 6.8 percent in 2019. I want to repeat that. The median household income in the United States rose by 6.8 percent in 2019. This was the highest annual increase on record, and it is all thanks to the commonsense, progrowth policies that are being led by President Trump and congressional Republicans. Not surprisingly, household incomes also grew 50 percent faster last year than the entire 8 years of the Obama administration. The good news doesn't stop there. New small business applications increased twice as much in President Trump's first 2 years in office versus President Obama's last 2. Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that progrowth policies are the difference between inflating government bureaucracy and empowering American families. It is just that simple. Mr. Speaker, on September 23, there was an article in The Washington Times titled ``Trump creates jobs. Biden destroys them. It's not complicated,'' and I include in the Record the article. Trump creates jobs. Biden destroys them. It's not complicated. Trump's record proves that he knows how to create a strong economy. Donald Trump has proven that he knows what it takes to create jobs on a massive scale and ensure that prosperity is shared by all Americans. Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden doesn't even know how many letters are in the word ``jobs.'' President Trump's record proves that he knows how to create a strong and growing economy that generates enormous opportunity for all Americans to succeed. Prior to the artificial contraction caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the national unemployment rate had been consistently hovering at a 50-year low, and joblessness had reached the lowest level ever recorded for both black and Hispanic workers. The president's pro-growth economic policies played a major role in creating the strongest economy in history, which was a particularly impressive feat after eight years of stagnation under the Obama-Biden administration. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example, cut taxes for every income bracket, particularly benefitting middle-income Americans. The tax bill also created Opportunity Zones, driving tens of billions of dollars in new investment to historically underdeveloped communities in every state, providing jobs, housing, and infrastructure necessary to revive those communities. Mr. Trump's emphasis on targeted deregulation has also made it easier and more efficient to create jobs and start new business ventures in this country.In 2012, halfway through the Obama-Biden era, federal regulations were placing a massive burden on the small businesses that account for almost half of all jobs in this country, costing an average of $11,724 each year in regulatory compliance costs for each new employee they hired. The Trump administration slashed tens of billions of dollars worth of harmful, job-killing regulations, saving American households over $3,000 per year on average. Mr. Biden, however, is vowing to undo these effective policies and replace them with even more crippling taxes and regulations than before, particularly on middle- income Americans. His proposals to eliminate entire industries such as fracking and increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would be a blow to small- and medium- sized businesses that are only just getting back on their feet after months of pandemic-related lockdowns. We don't have to take him at his word, though. Mr. Biden, a career politician who has spent nearly half a century in Washington, has a long history of supporting job-killing policies such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which cost Americans over a million jobs. Mr. Biden also supported normalizing trade relations with China, paving the way for the repressive communist country to secure membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), leading to the loss of over 60,000 American factories and millions more blue collar jobs. The former vice president clearly has no idea how to manage an economy, and his extensive record of bungling the job as both a senator and vice president proves it. Under the Obama- Biden administration's job-killing policies, the American middle class experienced a double-whammy in the aftermath of the Great Recession, contributing to this country's slowest economic recovery since World War II. While Mr. Biden was still struggling to pinpoint just how many letters are in the word ``jobs,'' former President Obama entrusted him to manage the administration's economic recovery agenda--and it turned out to be a miserable failure. President Trump turned things around in a hurry once he took office, and he's already working the same magic as he orchestrates a ``V-shaped'' recovery from the artificial coronavirus downturn. Results matter, and Donald Trump is the only candidate with a proven track record of delivering the sort of results the American people need.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, Democrats love to throw around the term ``constitutional crisis'' to distract the American people from the facts. Was it a constitutional crisis when 22 past Presidents made Supreme Court nominations in election years? We didn't hear Democrats harping then, but we sure do now. Democrats believe that the vacancy on the Supreme Court is theirs for the taking, and they claim it would be illegal for President Trump to appoint a Justice this year. It is absurd to say that a duly-elected President fulfilling his constitutional duty is illegal. Democrats aren't respecting the Constitution; they are using their distorted interpretation of it to justify attacking President Trump for simply doing his job. The seat must be filled without delay.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, maligned policies from Democrats that seek to defund, destroy, and dismantle our country are dangerous. Quite frankly, these policies pose a threat to the liberties and freedoms that define the American dream as we know it. Republicans understand this threat, and we refuse to sit idly on the sidelines. That is why we have developed our Commitment to America. The message is simple. Restoring, renewing, and rebuilding America is a mandate that we must work every day to uphold. We are fighting for families, for generations of Americans to come, and for a country that has always served as a beacon of hope to the world. In short, it is a blueprint that gets our country back on track. The American people deserve leaders who fight for freedom, the values that we hold dear, and the promise of the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, at such a pivotal moment in the history of our country, we must work to advance policies that are pro-growth, pro-family, and pro-America. Anything less is unacceptable. Time and time again Democrats have turned their backs on the American people with a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating. This year alone, the House of Representatives has taken up a myriad of bipartisan messaging bills that do nothing to help our country. If anything, these bills send a concerning message about the Democrat vision for America. Substantive legislation has been pushed to the back burner, the spirit of bipartisanship has been rendered virtually nonexistent, and political posturing has replaced meaningful conversations on pressing issues. We have had ample opportunities to work together, but Democrats have taken it upon themselves to prolong a partisan blockade that stifles progress. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong and that is not leadership. Leadership is fighting for the American people at every turn. Leadership is defending the promises of the American Dream. Leadership is advancing policies that raise America to new heights. I am proud to stand alongside Leader McCarthy and my Republican colleagues as we chart a meaningful pathway forward. The road ahead may seem uncertain, or even arduous, but we are confident that with steadfast leadership and commonsense policies, America will flourish.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. House Republicans have long supported protections in Federal law for all workers, but especially pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, empowering them to achieve their highest potential. I speak not only as a concerned Congresswoman on this issue but also as a mother and a grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination. However, there are already important protections under Federal law to prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that rightfully protect pregnant workers. Take the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example. These Federal laws ensure workers are not being unlawfully discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. My Republican colleagues and I agree with the underlying goal of H.R. 2694. That is why Republican Members on the Education and Labor Committee negotiated in good faith with Chairman Scott to make important and necessary improvements to the bill, and I thank Chairman Scott for his willingness to do so. H.R. 2694, as introduced, did not require a pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, to be able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill with additional language that a temporary limitation, which prevents performance of an essential function, may qualify for a reasonable accommodation. Further, a definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially excluded, but the bill now includes such a definition and a requirement that employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly. Additionally, the original version of H.R. 2694 appeared to allow employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations, but the bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be determined through a balance and interactive dialogue between workers and employers, similar to the process implemented under the ADA. The bill also now includes a provision ensuring that if an employer makes a good faith effort to determine a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process with the employee, the employer is not liable for damages. Finally, H.R. 2694, as introduced, did not limit its application to employers with 15 or more employees, as do title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. The bill now includes a 15-employee threshold. These bipartisan changes were considered and incorporated in the bill passed out of the committee in January. Unfortunately, despite the necessary improvements made to the original bill, an important issue remains unresolved. Namely, the legislation before us today does not currently include a longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. To address this omission, Republicans offered an amendment to include this narrow but longstanding provision when the bill was considered by the committee. The Civil Rights Act protection, which already exists under current law, ensures religious organizations are not forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. Unfortunately, committee Democrats defeated this amendment on a party- line vote. The purpose of America's nondiscrimination laws, and the agencies enforcing them, is to give all Americans equal opportunities to succeed. That being said, overzealous government intervention often causes more harm than good. In the case of H.R. 2694, by failing to include a longstanding Civil Rights Act provision, we are doing just that. As it is currently written, H.R. 2694 will create legal risks for religious organizations and their religiously backed employment decisions. Last year, a Democrat-invited witness at the committee hearing on H.R. 2694 highlighted Kentucky's recently enacted pregnancy accommodation law as a template for Congress to follow. Madam Speaker, I would like to read that again. Last year, a Democrat-invited witness at the committee hearing on H.R. 2694 highlighted Kentucky's recently enacted pregnancy accommodation law as a template for Congress to follow. Kentucky's law includes a religious organization protection very similar to the one found in the Civil Rights Act and incorporated in the Republican-sponsored amendment. At least 16 States and the District of Columbia in their pregnancy discrimination or pregnancy accommodation laws also include a provision similar to the Civil Rights Act religious organization protection. Even if certain Members believe including such a provision in H.R. 2694 is somehow unnecessary, it would do no harm to include the protection and, in doing so, address the concerns I have raised. I remain perplexed why Chairman Nadler and Chairman Scott continue to oppose the current law protection. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion, and for over 240 years, Supreme Court decisions and laws written by Congress have maintained strong protections for religious liberty. H.R. 2694 should do so as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, at the sole subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2694 and at the committee markup, Democrat members encouraged the committee to follow the examples of States that had enacted pregnancy accommodation laws. However, the majority of these States have laws that are different from H.R. 2694 because they do include important protections for religious organizations. At least 16 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy discrimination or pregnancy accommodations laws that include a religious organization protection similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. The States include Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It is a broad range of States in the country. Our attitude is the States can do this, and we already have very, very good protections at the Federal level. Unless we are going to follow the example of the States and include this very important section 702 of the Civil Rights Act, then maybe we should leave this up to the States. We should be following their example and put that provision in this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, at the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 2694 earlier this week, the bill's sponsor, Chairman Nadler, said it is not necessary to incorporate into H.R. 2694 the Civil Rights Act's provision that protects religious organizations. He stated that because H.R. 2694 does not repeal this provision, it will still be effective if H.R. 2694 becomes law. Color me skeptical; I strongly disagree. H.R. 2694 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act provision in H.R. 2694? At worst, the provision will be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers. Let's remember that the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, better known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has caused no harm. My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 2694 are saying the quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the Rules Committee hearing this week, Chairman Scott said the religious organization protection should not be included in H.R. 2694 because it is overinclusive and would provide too much protection. Is the chairman saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for religious organizations should also be repealed? Again, this is a provision that has been in law for 55 years. As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 2694. At worst, it would do no harm, and, at best, it will prevent a religious organization from being required to violate its faith. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is a great disappointment to me that I will be voting against this legislation before us today. My Republican colleagues and I have long been committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to achieve success, and this includes protections in Federal law for pregnant workers. We agree that discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination. I will repeat that, Madam Speaker. We agree that discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination. After meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to H.R. 2694 during the committee markup, it is unfortunate today's legislation falls short in protecting one of our Nation's most treasured rights, freedom of religion, the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense provision that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith is short-sighted, disappointing, and easy to fix. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, this motion is the final opportunity to amend this legislation and would do so without any delay in passage. Madam Speaker, Republicans support protections in Federal law for pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. I support the provisions in H.R. 2694, which were previously outlined during the general debate. I also recognize that improvements to the bill were the result of bipartisan negotiations, and I commend Chairman Scott for his outreach in this regard. Unfortunately, despite our agreement on these changes, there remains an important outstanding issue that must be resolved. The bill before us today does not include a narrow but longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. The motion to recommit adds this important protection. This very limited provision is already in current law, and it allows religious organizations to make religiously based employment decisions. Without this longstanding Civil Rights Act provision, H.R. 2694 will create confusion and legal risk for religious organizations in their religiously based employment decisions. At least 16 States and the District of Columbia in their pregnancy discrimination or pregnancy accommodation laws also include a provision similar to the Civil Rights Act religious organization protection. In fact, a Democrat-invited witness at a committee hearing highlighted Kentucky's recently enacted pregnancy accommodation law as a template for Congress to follow. Kentucky's law includes a religious organization protection very similar to the one found in the Civil Rights Act. At the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 2694 earlier this week, the bill's sponsor, Chairman Nadler, said it is not necessary to incorporate into H.R. 2694 the Civil Rights Act provision that protects religious organizations. He stated that because H.R. 2694 does not repeal this provision, it will still be effective if the bill becomes law. At the same hearing, Chairman Scott said the religious organization protection should not be included in H.R. 2694 because it is overinclusive and would provide too much protection. I strongly disagree with both of these perspectives, and I am not sure Chairman Nadler's explanation is in line with Chairman Scott's position. Without the current law protection, H.R. 2694 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. Madam Speaker, what would the harm be in including the Civil Rights Act protection in H.R. 2694? At worst, the provision would be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers. At best, it will prevent a religious organization from being required to violate its faith. By adding this simple reference to H.R. 2694 from the Civil Rights Act, we can ensure the protections in the bill are harmonized with the protections for religious organizations found in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, PDA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. I would also briefly like to address recent claims made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--a trade association which represents few, if any, religious employers--that, under this bill, required workplace accommodations would not come into conflict with a religious organization's beliefs. The chamber acknowledges that leave, including paid leave, can be part of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, from which H.R. 2694 incorporates the definition of reasonable accommodation. Therefore, if a religious organization has a paid leave policy, H.R. 2694 could require the organization to allow paid leave for purposes that conflict with its religious tenets. The chamber also contends that H.R. 2694 is not a bill that addresses hiring, unlike the PDA and the ADA, which apply to hiring. This is false. H.R. 2694 applies to both employees and job applicants, so it is indeed a hiring statute. Therefore, the religious organization protections in the Civil Rights Act and the ADA are just as relevant to H.R. 2694 as they are to those statutes. Madam Speaker, to conclude, the motion to recommit includes H.R. 2694 in its entirety, with one important addition related to religious organization protections. My amendment simply incorporates the title VII religious organization protection to ensure these organizations are not forced to violate their faith in making employment and accommodation decisions. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this simple but important addition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act. My Republican and Democrat colleagues agree that separate is not and never was equal; racism is wrong; segregation is wrong. I am going to repeat that. My Republican and Democrat colleagues agree that separation is not and never was equal; racism is wrong; segregation is wrong. Although this body has taken measures to ensure racism and segregation are not to be tolerated, its lingering effects still persist. We continue to strive toward a future where all students, regardless of race or color, have the chance to succeed. While there is more work to be done, the bill before us takes the wrong approach. This bill seeks to create a private right of action for disparate impact claims under section 602 of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI protects federally funded programs and entities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. While the Democrats will falsely characterize this bill as restoring a right--and, indeed, my colleague has just done that--in reality this bill radically alters civil rights law without giving any consideration to its potential ramifications. The leftist Center for American Progress called title VI and disparate income impact claims the ``sleeping giant of civil rights laws'' that are a ``potentially powerful tool'' to advance liberal goals through activist litigation. While title VI is most used in the context of education, the law itself is not confined to that issue. Title VI applies to any program or entity that receives Federal funding, which would include education, policing, employment, and healthcare, the list goes on and on. This is more than an education bill. Despite its far-reaching implications, Democrats deprived the committee of primary jurisdiction any opportunity to debate or consider this bill. That is a really important point to consider, Madam Speaker. As the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, the consequences of this legislation within the education community are very clear. The creation of a private right of action would lead to additional burdens on already taxed State and local agencies, especially school systems who would have to defend themselves against tenuous allegations advanced by parents and activists. Through such lawsuits, these activists could require State and local governments to adopt a myriad of policies that Congress and State and local lawmakers never authorized or intended and cost those entities a lot of money paid to trial lawyers. H.R. 2574 also creates a new special assistant for equity and inclusion at the Department of Education. Rather than create multiple siloed positions competing for resources and attention, committee Republicans believe an integrated approach to the Education Department's equity and inclusion efforts would lead to better results. Republicans and Democrats largely agree on the importance of equality and integrated schools. Unfortunately, instead of working toward a bipartisan solution, H.R. 2574 is the result of Democrats' choosing a partisan path. The question is whether in the long run these ideas will have helped or hurt the ongoing effort to achieve greater equality for children. H.R. 2574 fails on this front. Committee Republicans believe no effort to erase the evil legacy of segregation and discrimination can be complete without eliminating the State's ability to trap students in low-performing schools. Instead of debating this bill, we should look at bipartisan solutions that help expand educational freedom for all families. We know that school choice gives parents and families the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and enroll their child in an institution that challenges them, develops their skills and intellect, and encourages them to reach higher. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Democrats have made a habit of letting bipartisan solutions fall by the wayside in lieu of partisan politics in an attempt to help those who help them. The Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act is no exception. Republicans and Democrats agree on the importance of equality and integrated schools. I am going to repeat that again. Republicans and Democrats agree on the importance of equality and integrated schools. Unfortunately, instead of working toward a bipartisan solution, H.R. 2574 is the result of Democrats choosing a partisan path. The creation of a private right of action could lead to additional burdens on school systems who would have to defend themselves against tenuous allegations advanced by activist lawyers and does nothing to eliminate the State's ability to track students in low-performing schools. This bill is designed to score political points rather than build on a history of bipartisan and bicameral solutions to racial inequality and discrimination. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2574, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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