Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is time, yet again, to correct the record. For years, my colleagues across the aisle and the mainstream media have been spouting off unfounded claims that Republicans are complicit with the presence of statues in the Capitol that memorialize figures who had ties to the Confederacy. Democrats seem to have forgotten that members of their own party on the State and Federal levels are the ones responsible for these statues in the first place. Since 1870 statues have been present in the Capitol, and since then, Democrats retained a majority in the House 39 times. They had ample opportunities to remove controversial statues from the Capitol, yet, they did nothing. Why has it taken this long for them to even broach the issue? We can all agree that racism, in any shape or form, must be denounced and rejected. But it is odd that my colleagues across the aisle want to skew the narrative, do everything they possibly can to rewrite history, and insert themselves into a conversation where they lean on conjecture more than they do on facts. For years, I have advocated that both of North Carolina's statues of Charles Aycock and Zebulon Vance be removed based on their ties to the Confederacy. I have suggested that two statues of people that all North Carolinians and Americans can be proud of be put in their place. I am proud that the first Republican majority in North Carolina's legislature in 140 years voted in 2015 to replace the Aycock statue with a statue of Reverend Billy Graham. For years, the North Carolina Democrat Party has used former Governor Aycock's name, along with Governor Vance, for major fundraisers, and have held meetings in buildings named after him. Where was the initiative then? North Carolina's former Democrat Governor, Bev Perdue, sidestepped questions about buildings named after former Governor Aycock in press conferences. Instead, she pivoted to his impact on public education in North Carolina. Again, I say, where was the initiative to remove the statutes then? Even in 2007, in a Democrat primary for Governor in North Carolina, it was said that addressing controversial statues was not the answer and that ``the issue of equality is one that North Carolina must deal with on a more broader level.'' If our colleagues across the aisle want to have a meaningful discussion on this issue with us, we welcome it. The decision to replace these statues goes beyond bipartisan collaboration. It is about doing what is right, in an expeditious manner, as opposed to exploiting a situation to score cheap political points. Mr. Speaker, describing the vote we will hold today as ``political showmanship'' would be an understatement. Maybe it is to compensate for the fact that Democrats are responsible for the statutes having been placed in the Capitol and the times Democrats failed to act in the past. You be the judge.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the flaws of this amendment as ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor, which has jurisdiction over the Federal student loans. Federal student loans dominate the education loan marketplace, with roughly 92 percent of all outstanding student loans. Mr. Speaker, proponents of Big Government have succeeded in offering the most generous loan terms in the marketplace, but the private student loan marketplace hasn't made the same mistakes the Federal Government has. The private student loan companies underwrite their investments. Their model fosters student success because that is the only way they, as a business, can succeed. It was stated earlier that students had to make payments on their loans in the past few months. Well, that is what they agreed to do and what all borrowers agree to do, Mr. Speaker. That is the way it works. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which will complete the government takeover of the student loan industry and, in the process, fail to set students up for success.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. The gentleman from California has no time remaining?

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration is, first and foremost, bad for borrowers but is also another partisan attempt to complete the socialist takeover of the student loan marketplace. This debate detracts from the underlying bill's important work of providing for the national defense. In a functioning Congress, this student loan policy dispute would be reserved for the committee of jurisdiction, not the National Defense Authorization Act. While the amendment may sound beneficial to private loan borrowers, it inserts the Federal Government into private transactions in which neither party asked for assistance. The authors of this amendment assume prior education loan borrowers are all struggling to meet their obligation and that borrowers need a year-long reprieve from making their agreed-upon payments. The fact is, private student loan borrowers must typically go through rigorous underwriting standards and find a cosigner before taking on debt. These critical features lead to a much better performing portfolio than the Federal student loan program. Only 2.7 percent of private student loans are in default, compared with the Federal student loan cohort default rate of over 10 percent. There are existing options like forbearance to weather the storm without Federal Government interference. Indeed, there are many examples of private student loan companies creating COVID-19-specific relief options for their borrowers. That is the beauty of a competitive marketplace. When there is consumer demand, the market incentive will generate creative solutions. The truth is, borrowers benefit from making consistent payments and paying off their debt as quickly as possible. Congressional mandates to block this healthy habit can have negative outcomes for the borrowers. Furthermore, the proposal would not reimburse private lenders for this forced hiatus, which would likely lead to a collapse of the industry and complete the Federal takeover of student loans. I urge my colleagues to object to the inclusion of this misguided policy. We can and must do better for students across the country. The best way we can serve our constituents is to have a robust debate within the proper committees of jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment is bad policy. It involves the Federal Government in completely private transactions and attempts to solve a problem the facts suggest does not exist. Again, the people who borrowed this money agreed to pay it back. They are not victims. This is a trend of our colleagues never to hold people responsible for their actions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration seeks to punish a small business because it had the audacity to try to help military and veteran students achieve their educational and career potential. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to deny proprietary colleges and universities permission to operate the DOD educational assistance programs if such an institution of higher ed receives more than 90 percent of its revenue from ``Federal education assistance funds.'' Federal education assistance funds include DOD tuition assistance, GI Bill benefits, and all Federal student aid in the Higher Education Act, like Pell Grants and student loans. Congress should not deny educational choices to military servicemembers because of arbitrary accounting gimmicks based on the whims of Congress. Sadly, that is exactly what this amendment would do if passed and implemented. What is particularly damaging about the amendment is it seeks to judge institutions on how students pay for school and not on the success of the students. This is not what good, fair accountability looks like. Mr. Speaker, I believe in accountability for all institutions, no matter their tax status. If this accountability framework is so great for students, then my colleagues should not mind applying the accounting standard to all institutions. But that is not what this is about. This is about putting hardworking Americans out of business. Students are an afterthought in Democrats' zeal to eliminate for-profit colleges. My colleagues would like you to believe that for-profit colleges act only to pad their bottom lines at the expense of students. This belief comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the goals and aims of a business. Any successful small business owner can tell you that cutting corners and delivering an inferior product to customers in the hopes of making a bit more money will only result in fewer customers and less business. The profit motive, in fact, is a powerful incentive for proprietary colleges to act in the best short- and long-term interests of students. That is why you see several for-profit institutions spending all the money received from the CARES Act on direct student aid. Without a reputation for delivering successful results, these colleges would cease to exist. Additionally, this amendment has the perverse incentive of forcing colleges to increase their tuition, thereby shutting out opportunities for students who might be unable to afford these increases. We should not be putting forward additional harmful regulations that cause college costs to increase. Instead, we should be looking to provide incentives to decrease costs while also judging all institutions based on how they improve the lives of the students they serve. I urge all Members to reject the inclusion of this amendment. Vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. We have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that for-profit institutions, proprietary schools, are taking advantage of veterans, in particular. The bottom line is this amendment is arbitrary and is not a meaningful accountability tool. Let me point out that the University of Maryland University College, which recently changed its name--I hear it advertising every morning on the radio--actively recruits and enrolls many, many veterans, a very high percentage of veterans, and is a university supported by the taxpayers of Maryland, along with Federal taxpayers. But it has for many, many years had a graduation rate less than 10 percent. I don't hear my colleagues talking about, again, other institutions which have abysmal graduation rates and serve many veterans being held to the same accountability measures. This is not fair. We hear a lot about fairness from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let's be fair. Let's apply the rules to everyone--everyone-- Mr. Speaker. Our students, particularly the brave men and women in uniform, deserve better from us no matter where they might choose to continue their education. So let's be fair. Let's make the rules the same for everyone. Let's not go after institutions that have been in existence, some for hundreds of years, because our colleagues don't like groups of people that make a profit. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and 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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, Representative John Lewis was a man with such character and conviction, and it is with great sadness that we gather here on the House floor without him today. Though many of my colleagues referred to him simply as ``John'', I always recognized him as ``Mr. Lewis'', because of the profound respect I had for him. No matter the occasion, when John spoke about an issue, rooms would fall silent and people would grasp onto every word. Undeniably, he helped carry the mantle for the civil rights movement in the United States, and he stood on the front lines of the campaign to end Jim Crow laws with the same passion he held during his time as a member of the People's House. John was more than just a legislator; he was a friend to both Republicans and Democrats alike. Issues of the day may have brought heated debate, but John was always willing to extend his hand across the aisle in both partnership and friendship. May God provide his family with both counsel and comfort during this time. We will never forget his passion, his spirit, and the pursuit of justice that encapsulated his life's work.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, I joined Secretary Scalia of the Department of Labor on a trip to North Carolina's Fifth District to meet with local business leaders and frontline workers. The events we attended at Innovation Quarter, Forsyth Technical Community College, and Lowes Foods came together in record time, and it is a clear reflection of Secretary Scalia's and his staff's commitment to witnessing North Carolina's economic drivers in action. COVID-19 has impacted North Carolina in many ways, but the resiliency of our State's frontline workers and businesses, which we witnessed on a firsthand basis, continues to propel North Carolina in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, no matter the challenge, the American people rise together. The men and women I was privileged to meet on this trip are the epitome of American resiliency in action. Though they are not recognized in the media for their tireless work, they show up to work every day with the same goal: to support their communities. We still have work to do on the local, State, and Federal levels to combat COVID-19 and to restore our economy, and I am certain progress will continue to be made on all fronts. As a Nation, we have overcome monumental challenges before, and we will do it again with the same spirit and grit we have always had. The great American comeback is unfolding before our very eyes, and the progress we have seen to date is undeniable. Look to the performance of the stock market, the recent jobs report, the multitude of businesses reopening their doors to the public across the country, and the skyrocketing innovation that has been spearheaded by the private sector. Many times I have come to the floor and spoken about American resiliency. I have highlighted businesses in my district, constituents who have stepped up to the plate in their communities, and the unwavering spirit of frontline workers. Resiliency, in and of itself, has no designated boundaries. It does not ebb and flow or wax and wane. It is a trait that is engrained within our work and within our values as Americans. We will continue to work until this virus is defeated, and we will come out stronger and more resilient than ever before.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ruth Kelley, an exemplary student from Kernersville, North Carolina, who was selected to be part of the National Youth Orchestra of the United States. Every year, thousands of students submit applications to take part in the National Youth Orchestra, and only 200 applicants are selected. This, without question, is an amazing achievement. In this program administered by Carnegie Hall, young musicians are exposed to digital learning, mentorship, and performances by principal players from top American orchestras. Additionally, participants are invited to take private lessons, studio sectionals, and master classes to perfect their craft. Congratulations to Ruth. I am confident this experience will propel her to new heights and teach her lessons she will carry with her into her future career.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the jobs bill and tax cut bill which Republicans alone passed in 2017 cut taxes for low-income Americans. Again, my colleagues are welcome to their opinions, but they are not welcome to make up facts, and that is what happened. The top 1 percent of the people in this country pay more in taxes as a result of that bill. Madam Speaker, I grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and no running water. My father had to work away from home in the north. I grew up in North Carolina, and he was forced to be a member of a union and he hated it. He hated it because he had to pay union dues that supported policies he didn't support. He was forced to take breaks. He was forced to slow down jobs. What he wanted to do was do his job and do it well and not come under the heavy hand of union bosses. I learned a long time ago about negative aspects of union membership from my father. But we are not here today to talk about personal issues; we are here to talk about the future of this country. I also am the lead Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, and I fought all of my life to help people gain the skills they need to get good jobs and better their lives. I am proud of what I have done over the years, and I will continue to do those things and focus on helping individuals become masters of their own lives and not be the subjects of anyone--not the unions, not the government, not anyone--but preserve their own freedom. We are here today to consider a massive progressive wish list. The majority has made no attempts to pay for any of the program increases or offset any of the other $1.5 trillion added to this bill, which puts the American people in debt. In the surface transportation provisions, $2 out of every $5 is tied up in Green New Deal goals. Let's be clear. Also, this bill has no chance of becoming law. With so many Americans already out of work because of the pandemic, this costly shift in our transportation programs creates more uncertainty and does nothing to address longstanding inefficiencies. Rather than pushing partisan wish lists that would heap enormous amounts of debt on future generations, we instead need to find commonsense solutions to modernize our infrastructure spending so we can get the most from every dollar invested. That is what Republicans want to do. We are not hypocrites. We believe, again, in freedom. We believe in what founded this country, the values that founded this country, and we are about to celebrate Independence Day. That is what we should be focused on: How do we do everything we can to celebrate independence and preserve that for the American people? One of the ways we do that is by not incurring more debt on their behalf. I ask my colleagues to join me in taking a step toward fiscal restraint by overturning this antiquated law from a bygone era. At this critical junction in our Nation's history, we need to maximize our commitment to job creation, wise investment, equitable spending, and solutions to our unending deficit. Support my amendment to get the real investment in our Nation's infrastructure that our citizens deserve. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2. This amendment will modernize our infrastructure spending to yield more investments in infrastructure projects, more jobs for frontline workers, and equitable spending for communities across our Nation. I am always hesitant about measures that are brought before this Chamber that are partisan, which is what H.R. 2 is. I am disappointed that Democrats decided to turn the infrastructure bill into a partisan exercise by spending over a trillion dollars, while failing to address this longstanding problem and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. Instead of recognizing and addressing ongoing issues with the Highway Trust Fund's inevitable insolvency, this bill relies on deficit spending and adds to the taxpayers' growing burdens at a time when many families are struggling with the uncertainty created by the COVID-19 crisis. Instead of building the infrastructure Americans need, this bill gives priority to rail lines and urban hubs, even as Americans across the country begin to flee these high-cost areas. Instead of building a bipartisan consensus to streamline the project review process, this bill binds the hands of States and localities and burdens the American public with unworkable mandates. Madam Speaker, at a time when numerous other bills that had been brought to the floor carry a $1 trillion price tag, without offsetting cost, we must look for ways to rein in out-of-control spending. My amendment would inject a modicum of fiscal research into this $1.5 trillion bill by reversing a Federal contracting policy that was designed to protect established union work at the expense of would-be competitors, taxpayers, and our Nation's investment in infrastructure. My amendment will allow us to continue to fund important highway projects by making commonsense reforms to lower the cost of infrastructure contracts funded by the American taxpayer. The Davis-Bacon Act requires Federal contractors and subcontractors to pay the local prevailing wage for construction projects on which the Federal Government is a party. It sounds innocent, but the devil is always in the details. The prevailing wage is severely dictated not by market forces but by the domination of union bargaining power. By using this metric, Congress is effectively pricing out any would- be competition for contracts and shielding entrenched interests from competition. What is the result of Davis-Bacon, which was adopted before Federal minimum wage standards existed? According to a report from the Joint Economic Committee, Davis-Bacon-determined wages tend to inflate labor costs an average of 22 percent above market rates. Additionally, research from Suffolk University found that Davis-Bacon requirements cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $8.6 billion annually and add 9.9 percent to construction costs. The Congressional Budget Office has found that removing this burdensome mandate would free up $13 billion over 10 years. Perhaps that is why the Government Accountability Office advocated for its repeal over 40 years ago. I know Congress is often derelict in its duty, but that is simply inexcusable. These inflated costs mean bloated government spending and less bang for the taxpayers' buck. Beyond requiring taxpayers to overpay for construction projects, Davis-Bacon requirements force businesses working on Federal highway projects to comply with burdensome paperwork and reporting regulations, which further inflate costs and slow project completion. The premise of this bill is that it invests in America. If that is the goal, then we must address this outdated stumbling block to our Nation's progress. Davis-Bacon concentrates wealth by government fiat instead of growing our economy. It artificially limits the number of construction projects in which we engage. Finally, it limits the number of jobs created. Madam Speaker, our economy needs expansion, not constraint. Federal spending needs efficiency, not bloated profit-making. People need jobs, not barriers to entry to employment. Madam Speaker, if we want investment, support my amendment and inject our infrastructure projects with a healthy dose of the 21st century. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, you know, the gentleman, I think, maligns the State of North Carolina. I didn't think I would have to really stand here and defend what a wonderful State North Carolina is, but I think it is the fourth largest growing State in the country. People are coming there in droves. It is considered one of the best States in the country for workers. The minimum wage may be $7.25, but I think we know only about 2 percent of the people in this country are making the minimum wage, and they are entry level people. I think we are talking more about an average wage of about $20 an hour for people in North Carolina. So that is a straw dog that he is bringing up. We have a wonderful State, and people are flocking there. The quality of life is great. And I will put up our quality of life in North Carolina against the quality of life in Oregon or anywhere else in the country as a great place to live. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. May I hear the gentleman say what he said again, please? I am sorry, someone was distracting me, Madam Speaker. I am only asking.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. As I understand it, the gentleman is withdrawing his remarks and asking for unanimous consent that his remarks be withdrawn. Is that correct?

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. No objection.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Davis-Bacon stifles competition and discourages small and minority- owned businesses. Small business owners often do not have the financial resources to bid on or win Davis-Bacon contracts. These restrictions mean less infrastructure and fewer jobs in America, but more jobs and higher pay only for union members, concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while many Americans are out of work. That is something our colleagues seem to be opposed to in every other situation. Suspending this mandate would make each public construction dollar go at least 10 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ hundreds of thousands more construction workers. Repealing these restrictions would allow the government to build more infrastructure and create 155,000 more construction-related jobs at the same cost to taxpayers. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, under the nearly $500 billion surface transportation reauthorization piece of H.R. 2, the Highway Trust Fund, HTF, which pays for Federal highway and transit programs, it will require a $145 billion general fund bailout to cover the cost of the majority's irresponsible spending decisions. Instead of trying to find a responsible way to pay for this huge increase in surface transportation funding and address the HTF's long- term solvency issues, the bill simply piles more debt onto future generations. Infrastructure is vital to our economy and the flow of commerce, but it is reckless to push such a massive bill that relies so heavily on more deficit spending, adds billions of dollars to programs without providing any reforms to reduce costs associated with the infrastructure project approval process, and ignores the Highway Trust Fund's solvency issue. In addition, these partisan changes to our Federal transportation programs focus more on climate change and less on building infrastructure projects, creating more uncertainty for transportation workers and businesses. Rather than kicking the can down the road and burdening future generations with the spending habits of today, we need to recognize and address inefficiencies that have lingered for far too long. By repealing the Davis-Bacon Act for transportation projects, we can stretch taxpayer dollars further while updating, improving, and advancing the development of our Nation's critical infrastructure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.