Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Future Farmers of America Week. Without question, the hardworking men and women in the field of agriculture serve as the backbone of our Nation. Since its founding in 1917, the Future Farmers of America has prepared the next generation of chemists, veterinarians, entrepreneurs, and premier agriculture professionals. These individuals will go on to solve the world's challenge of providing resources to growing populations. In North Carolina, the Future Farmers of America continues to grow. Last year, it had over 20,000 members, and its 321 chapters contributed more than 1 million service hours across the State. When you see these young people in their dark blue jackets with the gold trim, you are seeing leaders and patriots. By learning to do, doing to learn, earning to live, and living to serve, the Future Farmers of America ensure that our Nation's agricultural future remains bright. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not address imprudent comments about our Nation's farmers that were recently brought to light. At an Oxford University event in 2016, Michael Bloomberg offered commentary that was truly unsettling. He said: ``I could teach anybody, even people in this room, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole; you put a seed in; you put dirt on top, add water, and up comes the corn.'' When you write off America's farmers, you write off the lifeblood of our country. To show you the impact of our farmers, we will look at the facts in just a moment. Contrary to the idea, as Michael Bloomberg said, that farming is so simple, the truth is that farmers must be among the most intelligent, innovative, and creative people in the world. They face challenges every day that threaten their survival. Now, let's look at the facts: Annually, one U.S. farm will feed 166 people in the U.S. and abroad; In 2018, $139 billion of American agricultural products were exported around the world; Ninety-eight percent of U.S. farms are operated by hardworking families; and About 11 percent of U.S. farmers are serving or have served in the military, compared to only 2 percent of the general public, showing that American farmers are very patriotic. These facts speak for themselves. The work of American farmers goes far beyond Michael Bloomberg's claim of simply digging holes, planting seeds, and adding water. I am proud to represent over 7,000 farms and over 11,000 agricultural producers in the Fifth District of North Carolina. Collectively, they generate over $1 billion every year and represent almost 10 percent of North Carolina's agriculture sales. Recently, Alleghany County honored some of its farmers, young and old, and to hear of their efforts and dedication would inspire anyone. I commend and thank our farmers and our future agricultural leaders for their unwavering commitment to our families, communities, and to our country.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 79. As a woman who has worked all her life, often in male-dominated professions, I detest discrimination in any form against any group, and I have always done all that I can to eliminate it. Furthermore, I welcome any discussion on how to root out discrimination against women where it exists. But do not be deceived. This is not what this legislation is about. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already provides women and all Americans equal protection under the law, but the goal of this legislation is different. The goal here is to expand access to abortion up to birth and to overturn the broadly supported policies that protect taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions. As we know all too well, Roe v. Wade has broadly legalized abortion in the United States, but the equal rights amendment that this resolution tries to ratify goes much further. There is a broad consensus that the ERA could be used to overturn pro-life laws, legalize abortion up to birth, and mandate taxpayer- funded abortions. The expansion of abortion is not the only harmful impact of the ERA. It would have a harmful impact on shelters that protect women from violence, eliminate women-specific workplace protections, and destroy women's sports. Furthermore, were this resolution ever to become law, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly rule that it does not ratify the equal rights amendment. As everyone in this room knows, when Congress initially passed the equal rights amendment, it intentionally included a 7-year deadline for the required 38 States to ratify, a deadline which has long since passed. Multiple States have also rescinded their ratification. As such, Supreme Court precedent requires that any attempt to ratify the ERA must start at the beginning. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently quoted saying she would like the process to start over. To be perfectly clear, with this resolution, the Democrats are attempting to write into the Constitution the right to an abortion at all three trimesters, force taxpayers to pay for them, and eliminate all conscience protections for medical providers who wish to abstain from abortion. This resolution is not about protecting women. It is a partisan messaging bill designed to appease radical pro-abortion groups. If the majority were serious about the equal rights amendment, it would start the process anew and give all States the option to consider the ERA again.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the departure of a long-term servant of the House, Brandon Renz. Brandon has served the House of Representatives for nearly two decades and has been a trusted leader of my staff for well over a decade. Most recently, he has worked with me and fellow Members on the Education and Labor Committee as Republican staff director and has provided trustworthy counsel and excellent organizational prowess. He also served as my chief of staff during my time in leadership as House Republican Secretary and was a respected liaison for me and other Members, staff, and House offices over my eventful time in that office. While Brandon has been a tremendous asset and key contributor in all those significant positions, he did some of his best work in the same trenches that many of our staff do, in positions and in rooms that do not receive attention from C-SPAN or grab headlines. Brandon started as a staff assistant for a Member from his home State of Iowa, Representative Steve King, reluctantly coming to Washington on the recommendation of a friend and only after committing to himself that he would stay only 1 year. In less than 3 years on Capitol Hill, Brandon earned a reputation as an astute legislative mind with bedrock conservative principles and became my legislative director. In him, I found a partner who shared my commitment to accurate, grammatically correct documents of all types. He labored with me on constituent letters and on many important legislative projects, including providing the Puerto Rican people with an opportunity to express all their preferences when considering their territory's future, developing legislation to lessen unfunded mandates, and expressing Congress' disapproval of the bailout funds expended on the TARP program. He also worked as a rules associate with the House Rules Committee, sitting through interminable hearings at all hours of the day and night. He did important work there, ensuring Members' voices were heard and that the House could work its will on legislation considered on the House floor. After several years guiding my legislative staff and agenda, he accepted my request to serve as chief of staff and used his terrific skills to benefit constituents and ensure my offices paid back the trust given to them by America's taxpayers. After seeing his success there, it was easy to entrust the responsibilities of staff director to him when I became the chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce Committee. Both then and now in the minority, Brandon has been a leader on the issues before the committee, including education and regulatory reform, government accountability, and this week on the issue of surprise medical billing. It has been a joy to work with and learn from Brandon as a colleague and as an individual. While his parents clearly reared him right, his wise, beautiful wife, Kate, has been a key part of his recent life. She was, herself, a fine staff member in both the U.S. House and Senate and is here today. It is comforting to know they are passing on their principles to their sons, Cole and Hunter. Brandon and Kate are an example to us all. As Brandon leaves the service of the House to embark on new responsibilities in the private sector, I thank him deeply for his years of dedication to the work of the House, to me and my constituents, and to our Nation. He truly has lived up to the oath he swore when he first started with the U.S. House of Representatives, to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' and to ``well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.'' Mr. Speaker, I know he will continue to faithfully discharge the duties of his future offices, as he did so honorably for me. So, sadly, I discharge him to that work, so help him God.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, the Boy Scouts of America celebrated its 110th anniversary. With over 2 million active participants, it is one of the largest youth organizations in the country. Since its founding in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America has shaped the lives of young men by teaching them character development, self- reliance, and principles of responsible citizenship. In my district, the Old Hickory Council of the Boy Scouts of America, originally a single troop organized in Winston-Salem, serves over eight counties and has almost 5,000 members. In 2018, they provided more than 17,600 service hours at local charities and organizations. I congratulate the Boy Scouts of America on 110 years of service, and I am confident that they will continue to positively impact communities across our country for many years to come.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019. Big Labor is in a panic over plummeting union membership. Union bosses could self-correct and increase transparency and accountability to serve workers better, or dedicate more resources to union organizing, rather than attempting to organize less than one-tenth of 1 percent of eligible employees, as they did in 2018. Instead, the largest federation of labor unions in America spends more than three times as much money on political activities as it does on its stated purpose of organizing and representing workers. And they are resorting to their usual arm-twisting and intimidation tactics by demanding Democrats pass the PRO Act. Before I get into the many, many failings of this bill, I want to correct the Democrats' false narrative that the decline in union membership is hurting workers. Americans are benefiting from a booming economy, thanks to Republican tax and regulatory reforms. Despite Democrats' false claims, wages are rising fastest for lower- and middle-income workers. Unemployment is at a 50-year low, and millions of jobs have been created since President Trump took office. In fact, millions of poor Americans continue to move into the middle class, and millions in the middle class are moving into the ranks of the wealthy. The substantial economic mobility many Americans are experiencing should be celebrated. Instead, Democrats are trying to claim falsely that the economy isn't working for average Americans, and the only way to fix it is to expand enforced unionism through coercive, socialist schemes like the PRO Act. Let's also remember that Federal law already protects the rights of employees to organize, and Republicans respect that right. Any reforms to U.S. labor laws should help workers, not union bosses. The PRO Act will require employers to hand over workers' private, personal information to union organizers, without workers having any say in the matter. This would make it even easier for union organizers to target, harass and intimidate workers. It would also overturn all State right-to-work laws. These are laws that allow workers to decide for themselves whether to join a union and pay dues. If the PRO Act becomes law, workers will be forced to take money from their paychecks and give it to labor unions, even if they don't want to be represented by a union. This provision is astonishing since we know that from 2010 to 2018, unions spent $1.6 billion in members' dues on hundreds of left-wing groups, without first receiving consent from workers to do so. The PRO Act will also undermine workers' rights to vote by secret ballot. This is hypocrisy at its worst, or best. House Democrats elect their own leaders by secret ballot, and Democrats held up the USMCA trade deal to guarantee workers in Mexico had the right to a secret ballot. Yet, they are willing to deprive American workers of that same protection. Among the PRO Act's most harmful provisions is the incorporation of California's newly-enacted, overly broad, and confusing definition of employee, which will deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to work independently and start their own businesses. Bottom line, there are over 50 harmful provisions in this bill that are bad for workers, job creators, and the U.S. economy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 10 seconds.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I have to say that saying that this is the most antiworker President ever in the country is just pretty far off the mark. And we are, on our side of the aisle, I believe, the most proworker people in the Congress. American workers have the right to organize, and Republicans support that right. This bill is not needed to protect those rights. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, among the PRO Act's most harmful provisions is the ABC test to determine employee status. Like many of the Democrats' worst ideas, the ABC test was enacted in California in a law known as AB5 and is already causing pain since going into effect on January 1 of this year. Last week, hundreds rallied to repeal the law. One worker said: ``I worked years to gain my skill as an American Sign Language interpreter. It was my goal since I was 9 years old. After AB5, I lost all three of my agencies. The dream I worked for is lost. I can't provide for my family, and thousands of California deaf won't be serviced.'' One artistic director at last week's rally summed it up for the Chico Enterprise-Record: ``We are not stupid. We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We can negotiate our own contracts. AB5 is insulting.'' Mr. Chair, this is the reaction of California workers who are being harmed by a section that will be in this piece of legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, for nearly 80 years, Federal labor law has struck a careful balance among the rights of employers, employees, and unions, resulting in a growing economy and greater prosperity. But the Democrats are seeking to upend that balance and radically tilt the playing field in favor of unions and against workers and small businesses. We now have additional proof about the motivations of House Democrats for advancing this radical special interest legislation. It comes from Democrats' most feared, Big Labor union boss, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, who said the following yesterday: Those who would oppose, delay, or derail this legislation, do not ask us, do not ask the labor movement for a dollar or a door knock. We won't be coming. That truly says it all. The PRO Act is all about serving the interests of union bosses at the expense of workers and business owners. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PRO Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is little more than an attempt to protect the few well-connected interests that received a carveout from the California Democrats' disastrous Assembly Bill 5, but it is a fig leaf meant to provide cover for vulnerable Democrat Members. AB-5 redefined California's wage and hour laws to expand the definition of ``employee'' using the same language found in the PRO Act, but with dozens of industries exempted from the onerous standard that has placed tens of thousands of jobs at risk. If the PRO Act becomes law, workers could find themselves in a confusing scenario where they are classified differently under State wage and hour law and Federal labor law. Democrats will draw a distinction between Federal labor relations law and State wage and labor laws, but, in reality, the distinction means little to businesses that will be hit with costly new and confusing employment regulations and to the workers whose jobs are put at risk as a result. Moreover, once all workers are deemed employees for collective bargaining purposes, as required by the PRO Act, they will become subject to union organizing. Once unionized, the collective bargaining agreement would govern their wages and benefits, even if State law still considers them an independent contractor. Essentially, if unions have their way, this fig leaf amendment will accomplish nothing in the way of preserving a worker's independent contractor status under State law. The only winners in this scheme will be the unions and trial lawyers, whom Democrats always seem to find a way to benefit, no matter the issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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