Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Americans continue to enjoy substantial economic mobility, despite Democrat claims that the decline in union membership has led to a permanent upper class. 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, a group heavily criticized by the Democrats' class-warfare politics. In inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars, from 1967 to 2018, the portion of U.S. households earning less than $35,000 a year fell by 25 percent. The portion earning between $35,000 and $100,000, the middle class, fell by 22 percent, from 53.8 percent to 41 percent of the country. But it did not fall because the middle class is worse off. The ranks of the poor and middle class are shrinking as the ranks of the wealthy and upper middle class are growing. From 1967 to 2018, the portion of U.S. households making more than $100,000 rose from 9 percent to more than 30 percent of the country. In 1967, nearly 25 percent of workers belonged to a union. In 2018, that number was just 10.5 percent. That means that while the union membership rate fell by more than half, the share of American households earning six-figure incomes--that is more than 100,000--more than tripled. And, yes, contrary to another popular Democrat claim, throughout most of the country, these wage gains are outpacing the cost of living. No one can argue with this good news, yet, in an attempt to score political points and bail out their allies in Big Labor, Democrats claim that the economy isn't working for the poor and the middle class. As lawmakers, we can always do more to increase opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream. But to suggest the economy isn't working for average Americans, and the way to fix it is to expand forced unionism through coercive socialist schemes like H.R. 2474, is flatly untrue. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, again, I really respect my colleague from California, and he knows that. However, it is not the unions who have created the middle class in this country. What has created the middle class in this country is freedom, the capitalistic society, the rule of law, our Judeo-Christian beliefs. We are the most prosperous, most successful country in the world, and it is because of those things. Did unions help at one time? Yes, they did. But they have outgrown their usefulness. We don't need to force unionism on the American people. We need to preserve their freedom and do everything that we can. That is what grows this country and makes it great. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment imposes yet another unnecessary and harmful requirement on employers as they prepare for a union election; and this new mandate will be imposed on business owners who will have already lost numerous employer rights because of other provisions in the PRO Act. During the Obama administration, the National Labor Relations Board drastically changed its union election procedures, adding dozens of new requirements and restrictions on employers in an effort to short- circuit the union election process and increase union membership. On top of this, the PRO Act makes over 50 changes to existing labor law, adding a litany of burdensome constraints that will harm employers, particularly small employers who do not have infinite time and resources to respond to a union organizing drive. Unions often begin organizing campaigns weeks, or even months before employers are made aware; creating a scenario in which workers are only hearing one side of the issue prior to a union election. When an election petition is filed, employers have only a few days to prepare their case, depriving them of their rights to due process and all parties of their right to a fair and robust election process. This amendment would further burden employers and tilt the playing field in favor of union bosses. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Democrats insist that the PRO Act expands workers' rights. But, in reality, this bill coerces workers and undermines their rights in order to increase the wealth and power of union bosses. Unions have a long and sordid history of harassing and intimidating workers into supporting them, and this bill makes it worse. For example, in 2013, Ms. Marlene Felter, a medical records coder in California, testified that union organizers ``were calling them on their cell phones, coming to their homes, stalking them, harassing them . . . to convince them to sign union cards.'' In 2017, one Minnesota personal care attendant, who chose not to provide her full name, described her experience with an SEIU union organizer for a Forbes.com piece: ``The woman identified herself as a SEIU representative, and asked if they could talk for a few minutes. Holly said she didn't have time right now, but the woman persisted, placing herself between Holly and the front of the door and repeatedly asking her how she intended to vote in the upcoming union election. ``Holly became frightened; arms full of groceries, she could hear her patient becoming agitated and distressed inside, and here was this strange woman blocking her way and demanding to know how she would `vote.' Holly finally extricated herself and entered her home, slamming the door behind her. But that wasn't the end of things. Over the next weeks and months, she received multiple calls and visits from the union.'' The author of the piece asked Holly how she would characterize the nature of these calls and visits. ``Stalking, absolutely,'' said Holly. ``They wouldn't leave me alone.'' Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, testified before our committee in May 2019 that unions need workers' personal information because ``it is essential in order to be able to communicate with them. . . . You may have to meet with them at a grocery store, anyplace else where you can get them. The most efficient place and the best place for them to be able to talk is in their home setting, at their home, so that you can have a real conversation with them.'' The PRO Act's own supporters admit unions will harass workers at their own homes, at work, and at the grocery store, yet Democrats claim this bill expands and protects workers' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, again, I have respect for the gentlewoman on this, but I have to respectfully oppose this amendment, which is intended to tilt the playing field even further against workers and in favor of union bosses, more so than the underlying bill already does. By requiring union elections to be held as early as practicable, union bosses will have an unfair advantage because it deprives workers of adequate opportunity to hear from their employer about potential risks of unionization. The PRO Act codifies the Obama NLRB's ambush election rule, which shortened the time before a union election takes place from a median of 38 days to as few as 11 days. This amendment would further reduce that time, increasing union bosses' advantage. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague and I agree that workers should be protected. There is absolutely no disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on that, but we believe that the existing law is sufficient both for protecting the right to organize as well as protecting workers. Democrats bemoan attacks on the right to organize, but the right to organize has not changed in more than 70 years. Unions have simply abandoned their stated purpose of organizing workers and are trying to take a shortcut through the Congress. NLRB data shows that the number of representation petitions filed by unions with the NLRB fell from 5,000 in 1997 to fewer than 1,600 in fiscal year 2018, the fewest in over 75 years. Let me repeat that. The number of representation petitions filed by unions with the NLRB fell from 5,000 in 1997 to fewer than 1,600 in fiscal year 2018, the fewest in over 75 years. In fiscal year 2018, there were more than 110 million private-sector employees available for organizing under the National Labor Relations Act, but the number of employees who actually petitioned for union representation was just 73,000. That means that unions sought to represent less than one one-tenth of 1 percent of potential new members in this country in fiscal year 2018, yet Democrats blame falling unionization on conservatives. This lack of attention to organizing is reflected in unions' financial priorities, as well, and not just by UAW leaders spending workers' dues on cigar parties and golf. The AFL-CIO's 2018-2019 budget dedicated less than one-tenth of the budget to organizing efforts. The largest portion of the budget, more than 35 percent, was dedicated to political activities. In addition to spending massive sums on political activities, unions also generously spent workers' dues, money intended for collective bargaining representation, to advance political causes. From 2010 through 2018, unions sent more than $1.6 billion in union dues to hundreds of leftwing advocacy organizations, including Planned Parenthood, the Progressive Democrats of America, and the Center for American Progress. Much of this spending came amidst a Presidential cycle in which more than 40 percent of union households voted for the Republican Donald J. Trump for President, yet Democrats blame conservatives for plummeting union membership. That is not the problem.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment changes nothing about the underlying bill and the pain it will inflict on American workers and businesses. It is simply another weak attempt to pay lip service to address one of the many glaring flaws in the PRO Act. The National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, already applies to nearly every business in the country, and the PRO Act's harmful provisions will also. This amendment does nothing to protect small business entrepreneurs and independent contractors. If adopted, small businesses will still be saddled with new costs and mandates. They will still be forced to turn their employees' private information over to union organizers. They will still be subject to completely unrestricted union harassment even if they aren't the subject of a union organizing campaign. They will still have their rights throughout that process completely obliterated. Independent contractors will still be at risk of being classified as employees under the bill's onerous ABC test. The NLRA's existing jurisdictional standards do not change that reality. The ABC test is not about whether independent contractors are businesses covered by the NLRA but, rather, whether they are employees covered by the act. This amendment does nothing to change the fact that millions of independent contractors will be classified as employees against their will and, as a result, will have their livelihoods put at risk by socialist Democrats in Washington. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I enter into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2474. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2474--Protecting the Right to Organize Act--Rep. Scott, D-VA, and 218 cosponsors The Administration opposes H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. The Administration supports the rights of workers to freely join a union. In fact, under President Trump, on average over 250,000 more Americans are members of a private-sector union than under President Obama. This growth has been driven, in part, by the tremendous strength of the Trump economy. The Administration is willing to work with Congress to strengthen protections for union members. Unfortunately, H.R. 2474 contains provisions that would kill jobs, violate workers' privacy, restrict freedom of association, and roll back the Administration's successful deregulatory agenda. H.R. 2474 would hurt workers in several ways. First, the bill would kill jobs and destroy the gig economy. It appears to cut and paste the core provisions of California's controversial AB 5, which severely restricts self-employment. AB 5 is actively threatening the existence of both the franchise business sector and the gig economy in California. It would be a serious mistake for Congress to impose this flawed job-killing policy on the entire country. Additionally, H.R. 2474's job-killing effects could be even greater, as it would empower third-party arbitrators to impose collective bargaining agreements. Involuntary contracts that do not work for employees or their employers could force layoffs or even bankruptcies--ultimately, harming workers. Second, H.R. 2474 would violate workers' privacy. It would require companies to give union organizers their employees' home addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal e-mail addresses, and it also would allow unions to bypass secret- ballot elections. Secret ballots protect workers from both employer and union coercion, and the Administration believes voting privacy should be protected. Third, H.R. 2474 would also restrict workers' freedom of association. It abolishes State right-to-work laws, and would thereby make union dues compulsory nationwide. Additionally, the bill would legalize ``secondary boycotts,'' which Congress previously banned because they pressure workers to join a particular union. And it would rush union elections, depriving employees of time to make a considered choice. The Administration is willing to discuss legislation clarifying that unions do not need to represent workers who do not pay dues. But it believes that workers' decisions to join and support a union should be the product of choice, not compulsion. Finally, by imposing unnecessary and costly burdens on American businesses, this bill would take the country in precisely the opposite direction from the President's successful deregulatory agenda, which has produced rising blue-collar wages and record low unemployment. For example, by expansively defining joint employer liability, the bill would discourage investment and job creation and reduce opportunities for workers. If H.R. 2474 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he veto it.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I would like to quote from a part of the Statement of Administration Policy. ``The administration opposes H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. The administration supports the rights of workers to freely join a union. In fact, under President Trump, on average, over 250,000 more Americans are members of a private-sector union than under President Obama. This growth has been driven, in part, by the tremendous strength of the Trump economy. The administration is willing to work with Congress to strengthen protections for union members. Unfortunately, H.R. 2474 contains provisions that would kill jobs, violate workers' privacy, restrict freedom of association, and roll back the administration's successful deregulatory agenda.'' ``Finally, by imposing unnecessary and costly burdens on American businesses, this bill would take the country in precisely the opposite direction from the President's successful deregulatory agenda, which has produced rising blue-collar wages and record low unemployment.'' Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, I oppose the underlying bill. We need to keep this economy doing very well, and we need not to support this piece of legislation which is unfair to American workers, unfair to businesses, unfair to the American taxpayers. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina. I agree with my colleague from North Carolina, let us not confuse what we are talking about here today. I very much appreciate the postal employees who deliver the mail to my house. When I go into a post office and need to mail things, they are wonderful people and give great service. That is not the issue here. The issue is: Are we going to fund, properly, the retirement and healthcare services? I am not necessarily opposed to addressing the United States Postal Service's requirement to prefund its retiree health benefits. Doing so, though, in this manner would be disastrous for the American taxpayer. This bill's elimination of the prefunding requirement without instituting any reforms to tackle its fiscal status, as my colleague has said, would simply mean that Congress continues to play the game of kicking the can down the road. The fact is that there is already a long history of public retirement accounts that have either dramatically cut retiree benefits or had to rely on a taxpayer bailout as a result of not fully prefunding their plans. This is a snowball going down the hill that is going to pick up steam. The only way to pay off the unfunded liabilities created by the U.S. post office retiree health benefits--without enacting cost-saving reform to the U.S. Postal Service, which this bill does not--would be a taxpayer bailout. That is why President Trump's Task Force on the United States Postal System issued formal opposition to removing the prefunding requirement. To quote the task force: ``The task force does not believe that this general policy should change or that the liability for USPS retiree health benefits should be shifted to the taxpayers.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree, to be clear, this bill moves taxpayers one step closer to a bailout of the USPS, and we should oppose this change on the taxpayers' behalf.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jessie Craft, an exemplary Latin teacher at Reagan High School in Pfafftown, North Carolina. Simply put, Jessie goes the extra mile to provide his students with a high-quality education. Instead of relying only on textbook instruction, he crafts lesson plans that meet the unique needs of his students. From creating online language tutorial videos to reading and speaking entirely in Latin, Jessie keeps his students engaged while unlocking new ways to help them learn pertinent material. His novel approach serves as a reminder that when educational innovation is deliberately exercised, students succeed. Reagan High School is fortunate to have Jessie Craft as a teacher, and I am confident that he will continue to impact the lives of students now and in the future.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Hickory, North Carolina. In 1870, Adolphus Shuford founded Hickory Tavern, which would later become the city of Hickory. Originally, it featured seven businesses, seven manufacturing plants, and had a population of 330 people. In the 1800s, Hickory was a primary trading center along the Western North Carolina Railroad, and it grew into one of the largest hubs for business manufacturing and textiles in the Southeast United States. Today, Hickory is home to more than 40,000 people. It holds data centers operated by the world's largest technology companies, and over 40 percent of the world's fiber optic cable is manufactured there. Hickory's history goes even beyond its industrial roots. Some other noteworthy features are: the Hickory Motor Speedway, one of the most legendary short tracks in the history of American stock car racing; the local community college, Catawba Valley Community College, which is providing some of the most excellent education offered anywhere in the country to the citizens of the area; Lenoir-Rhyne University, one of North Carolina's premier schools, which was founded in 1891; a wonderful art center; and a Minor League Baseball team, the Hickory Crawdads, which was founded 25 years ago. While the city continues to grow, its historical landmarks still stand as a testament to its rich history. From the Propst House to Maple Grove, Union Square to the Henry River Mill Village, Hickory's legacy as a leader in textiles manufacturing and trading is ever- present. Hickory has played a pivotal role in North Carolina's history, and it continues to make a sizeable impact on North Carolina's economy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Hickory, North Carolina, and I am certain it will continue to prosper and celebrate many more significant milestones in the future.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Trump for providing much-needed relief and regulatory clarity through the enactment of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Under the Obama administration, in an era rife with government overreach and constricting regulations, our Nation's hardworking farmers were subjected to regulations--specifically, under the Waters of the United States rule--that impeded on their businesses and their livelihoods. Instead of enacting meaningful environmental protections and returning power back to State, local, and municipal governments, WOTUS put government overreach in the express lane. Farmers were forced to hire expensive attorneys to define which bodies of water on their properties were subject to Federal regulations. The most concerning part is that bodies of water such as small ponds, ditches, drains, and even areas of dry land were subject to these regulations. Sadly, this is just another textbook example of the types of government overreach that must be eliminated. Thanks to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, erroneous, misguided regulations enacted by the Obama administration are finally repealed. Hardworking Americans will once again have the freedom to compete within the marketplace, spur innovation, and create lasting value. Under this rule, regulatory certainty will be returned to farmers, landowners, and manufacturers; the laws and specific powers that the Federal Government has been given under the Constitution and the Clean Water Act will be respected; and the relationship between the Federal Government and the State regarding the managing of land and water resources will be rebalanced. By eliminating these constructive regulations, President Trump continues to deliver on his promises to our farmers, landowners, and manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand alongside the President as we support, defend, and fight for the men and women who provide food, shelter, and essential commodities that Americans rely on every day. Recognizing National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, January has been proclaimed as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. These appalling criminal acts not only tear at the fabric of our society, but they also reflect a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life. Though human trafficking is often a hidden crime, its effects are far-reaching. It is estimated that over 25 million people--children and adults around the world--are victims of both human trafficking and slavery. Traffickers rob victims of their freedom, split families apart, and impose sizeable threats to communities. Let's be clear. We must remain relentless in our fight to end these abhorrent crimes. We must all work together to protect and support survivors, prosecute those responsible, and proactively foster a culture of justice and accountability for these crimes.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, since 2011, National School Choice Week has been recognized as the largest annual celebration of opportunity and education in the world. In North Carolina, over 2,313 school choice events are scheduled for this week, including events in my district at the Quality Education Academy High School in Winston-Salem and at the DT Early Learning Center in Wilkesboro. Unfortunately, the media continues to conjure up misleading claims about school choice, and it is time we corrected the record. School choice is not about picking winners and losers; it is about letting families choose the educational options that meet the unique needs of their children. A high-quality education is an indispensable tool, and America's children deserve nothing less than an education that empowers them to reach their greatest potential.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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.J. Res. 76, the latest attempt by House Democrats to undermine the Trump administration. It seems these attempts will never end. Specifically, the resolution would undo the Education Department's efforts to assist students who have been defrauded by colleges and universities while also protecting taxpayer interest. Any school that has taken advantage of students must be held accountable. Students who have been lied to and suffered financial harm are entitled to relief and forgiveness. We can and should have bipartisan agreement on these points. Sadly, Democrats have a long track record of pursuing radical ideological objectives at the expense of taxpayers, students, and schools. Today it is clear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more interested in tearing down the Trump administration than providing real solutions. Before I touch upon the advantages of the Trump administration's new rule, I would like to provide some context on the previous administration's so-called borrower defense rule and its many shortcomings. The Obama administration's overzealous political actions created a dangerous domino effect. In 2016, during the final months of his Presidency, President Obama implemented a borrower defense regulation that was irresponsible, drastically exceeded the scope of current practice, and came with the shocking price tag for the American taxpayer of $42 billion. The Obama regulations blurred the line between fraud and inadvertent mistakes made by schools. The difference between the two is critical, Mr. Speaker, because the Education Department can levy significant financial penalties on institutions found to engage in fraud which can cause a school to have to close despite no intentional wrongdoing. Most schools do not have a reckless disregard for the truth. With this flawed rule in place, many schools could face harsh financial penalties forcing them to close leaving millions of students without access to their higher education opportunity. In fact, several historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, wrote to President Obama's Education Secretary John King, Jr., with concerns about Obama's defense rule. Their letter stated: In fact, the proposed regulation language could undermine the financial viability of a number of academic institutions and could possibly bankrupt less financially secured colleges and universities. In the end, the Obama regulations created more chaos than clarity and encouraged tens of thousands of borrowers, whether they were harmed or not, to apply to have their loans forgiven. This was nothing more than a political move by the left to provide a backdoor scheme to hand out free education. So it is not surprising that claim filings for loan forgiveness went from 59 in the first 20 years to roughly 300,000 claims submitted in the last 5 years. President Trump realized quickly that placing a $42 billion burden on the backs of taxpayers was not the answer, and his administration made it a priority to halt the Obama-era regulation from going into effect. The Trump administration worked to instill some common sense into the rulemaking process. As a result, the administration produced a rule with clearer standards for borrower defense and increased transparency for both students and institutions. Among other benefits, the new rule makes sure students who have been lied to and suffered financial harm receive relief; reduces the cost of the 2016 Obama-era regulation by $11 billion because it helps students complete their education rather than indiscriminately closing schools; holds all institutions, not just for-profit colleges, accountable for misrepresentation instead of picking winners and losers at considerable cost to taxpayers; ensures due process for all parties; extends the look-back window to qualify for closed school loan discharges from 120 to 180 days, so when schools close more students are eligible for forgiveness; and allows for arbitration which could result in borrowers' recovering resources not provided by the Education Department such as cash payments or other expenses. The bottom line is this: the Trump administration's borrower defense rule protects student borrowers, holds all higher education institutions accountable, and saves taxpayers $11 billion. The American people sent us to Washington to work together and solve important issues. Our constituents would be far better served if the Democrat majority used its time to find real solutions to our Nation's issues instead of continuing to lament the 2016 election results. Republicans stand ready to provide relief to students who have been harmed by fraud, and the borrower defense rules issued by the Trump administration are the answer. I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do away with the political blame game so we can move forward and work in a bipartisan manner to address issues facing America. Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 76, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Mr. Johnny Taylor at the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA, January 15, 2020. Hon. Susan Davis, Chairman, U.S. House Education Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment, Washington, DC. Hon. Lloyd Smucker, Ranking Member, U.S. House Education Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Smucker: Every new rule comes with the risk of unintended negative impact even when the best of intentions exists on both sides. This is particularly prevalent in higher education--a space I know well following seven years as the President and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and having served as a Trustee for the University of Miami, Drake University and the Cooper Union. It is with this lens and my current lens as President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, Chair of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs, and member of the White House American Workforce Policy Advisory Board that I feel compelled to provide perspective on the U.S. Department of Education's updated rule governing borrower defense to repayment. It's important to take a step back. Three and a half years ago, the Department unveiled proposed revisions to the borrower defense to repayment rule. During the comment period many constituencies, including the HBCU community, asserted that certain elements of the revisions had the potential to be ``injurious and burdensome'' and could cause many schools financial harm. These concerns referred mainly to the standard by which institutions would be judged to have misrepresented the conditions of a borrower's loan, broadening of the definition of ``misrepresentation,'' and the basis for potential administrative action by the Secretary--including fines or termination from participation in Title IV programs under the Higher Education Act (HEA). One of Secretary DeVos's first actions was to postpone the effective date for the proposed borrower defense rules. She then reconvened the negotiated rulemaking committees to address, among other things, the concerns raised by HBCUs and other Minority Serving Institutions that primarily serve first-generation, low-income students. The Secretary encouraged all parties to take a step back and find a solution that would be fairer to students and schools and relieve taxpayers of significant costs. A year later, having not reached consensus about the best way forward, the Department of Education published its own revised rules clarifying who is eligible for relief, the maximum amount of said relief, and how long a borrower can bring a claim. More importantly, the Department made a commitment to consumer education for students and their families prior to them enrolling in college instead of having them litigate poor college choice decisions after-the-fact when they've poured significant amounts of time and money into earning a degree without any reasonable hope of achieving a fair return on their investment. I'm of the opinion that the Department's new borrower defense rules protect individual borrowers from fraud, ensures accountability across institutions of higher education, and protects taxpayers. While the resulting new rules are not perfect, they go a long way toward addressing the challenges of students and colleges. The HBCU Community had major concerns about the initial 2016 revisions because they placed all of the accountability on the schools and had a low threshold for punitive action. In addition, many college leaders disagreed with the ``triggers'' for administrative action. The new rules provide flexibility for schools to make changes to their course offerings and graduation requirements based on costs, student interest and employer needs without being characterized as fraudulent. Now that nearly all of the major concerns raised by the HBCU Community were addressed by the Secretary, it is time to pass the rules so we can put our collective energy into educating America's diverse future workforce. America has a talent shortage--one that will only get worse in the foreseeable future due to our low birth rate. Adding insult to injury, we have a workforce in critical need of re- skilling with a very large percentage of Americans sitting on the sidelines as a result and not participating in the labor force. As borrowers and schools move forward, both groups should be laser-focused on addressing this issue and improving the employability of the U.S. workforce. On the front end, borrowers should select schools and programs that lead to good jobs and whose costs are commensurate with salaries for their industry of choice. Then colleges, having enrolled the right students in the right programs, must proactively develop relationships with employers to co-design relevant curricula that meet our country's need for skilled workers. All parties must put aside petty partisan differences to arm our country with a highly-skilled future U.S. workforce sans unnecessarily burdensome student loan debt. Supporting the new borrower defense rules proposed by the Department of Education is an important first step. Sincerely, Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., President & CEO.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some quotes from the letter. ``This is particularly prevalent in higher education--a space I know well following 7 years as the president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and having served as trustee for the University of Miami, Drake University, and the Cooper Union. It is with this lens and my current lens as president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, Chair of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs, and member of the White House American Workforce Policy Advisory Board that I feel compelled to provide perspective on the U.S. Department of Education's updated rule governing borrower defense to repayment. . . . ``I am of the opinion that the Department's new borrower defense rules protect individual borrowers from fraud, ensures accountability across institutions of higher education, and protects taxpayers. . . . ``The new rules provide flexibility for schools to make changes to their course offerings and graduation requirements based on costs, student interest, and employer needs without being characterized as fraudulent. Now that nearly all of the major concerns raised by the HBCU community were addressed by the Secretary, it is time to pass the rules so we can put our collective energy into educating America's diverse future workforce. . . . ``All parties must put aside petty partisan differences to arm our country with a highly skilled future U.S. workforce sans unnecessarily burdensome student loan debt. Supporting the new borrower defense rules proposed by the Department of Education is an important first step.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.