Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. All institutions, regardless of their tax status, must be held accountable for fraudulent behavior, and that is exactly what the 2019 borrower defense regulation accomplishes. I am very interested in the way our colleagues are using the term and the way the Obama administration categorizes the schools we call for- profits. They are called predatory. Why is that? It is very interesting to me that I have always thought that what makes this country great is our capitalistic system, yet our colleagues think that anybody that makes a profit is predatory. That is so counter to the American theme, the American way of life, but that is what they call them, predatory. It is really, really unfair to do that. Republicans care about all students, all institutions, and all taxpayers. It is a shame my friends across the aisle feel otherwise. Back in 2016, the previous administration let ``selective, regionally accredited liberal arts schools'' off the hook from facing consequences for inflating data in marketing materials. Students who filed a borrower defense claim in this situation would be denied relief. Why? Because President Obama's administration believed this theoretical school and the education the student subsequently received is somehow superior to other institutions. Justice was not served in this example. Before my colleagues argue that this example is theoretical and rarely happens, let me list a few examples, without naming names. A public flagship university gave U.S. News incorrect information about alumni contributions from 1999 to 2019. Last year, five schools were unranked from U.S. News & World Report after all five of those schools--two public and three private not-for- profits--acknowledged they provided incorrect information. In 2018, a public university admitted, over the course of several years, that it intentionally--intentionally--submitted false data to boost the rankings of its online MBA program. Other examples in the past decade include prominent institutions fudging acceptance rates, SAT scores, high school GPAs, and graduation rates. The Trump administration recognizes the borrower defense to repayment process must be fair to students, taxpayers, and institutions. I am glad they struck a balance that gives due process to all parties involved. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 76, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure the American people understand the truth, and it is especially important when we are on the floor of the House. What has been happening here this morning is that apples and oranges are being compared, and it is very important that that not happen here because that can mislead the public. I think most of us learned this in school. When laws are passed and rules are passed, they go forward, not backward, Mr. Speaker. The new rules go forward. They apply in the future. They don't go backward. They don't affect the people who were in school in some of these schools that closed before. Those students, unfortunately for those students, are under the previous rule, the Obama rule, and that is how they are being handled. That is the major problem here. Our colleagues are saying many of these people didn't know what the rules were. That is not the fault of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. It is up to the students to understand the rules. And, yes, many of them are having difficult times because the rule is so bad. That is exactly what the new rule is trying to fix. It is trying to bring clarity and help these students understand when they will be able to apply. But the students who were at Corinthian and ITT are being handled under the Obama-era rule, and that is exactly why they are having problems. We have been pointing that out over and over and over again, yet our colleagues refuse to acknowledge that that is the nub of the problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I have had the privilege of being in that chair, I have often been reminded to ask Members to refrain from making comments about the President or Members of the Cabinet. I am not hearing that being said this morning, and I would just like to call it to the Speaker's attention. I would also like to say that as long as people are getting up on the floor and misrepresenting what is happening in this administration, I will continue to remind them that the rule that is being enforced is the Obama-era rule, and any students who are being harmed are being harmed as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The taxpayers ought not pay the tab for a student who files a claim that says I didn't like the president of this school; therefore, my loan should be forgiven. Those are the claims being filed by some of the students. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the 2016 borrower defense regulation does a great disservice to our Nation's students and institutions of post-secondary education because the previous administration did not design the borrower defense rule to improve post-secondary education. Let me explain. The Higher Education Act establishes that a borrower can receive loan forgiveness if he or she attends an institution that engages in an act or omission which led the individual to borrow a loan. An example of an act or omission could be an institution lying about its graduation rates in order to lure more students to enroll in that program. That seems fair. It is important to note that in the 2019 rule, students who suffer financial harm from fraudulent institutions are eligible and will receive loan relief. But where the Obama administration went haywire was when they blurred the distinction between what acts or omissions constitute fraud versus an inadvertent mistake. Many institutions, including HBCUs and public flagship universities, were concerned that a single marketing error could set off a domino effect of borrowers seeking and receiving forgiveness. For example, in a New York Times article published in 2018, Henry N. Tisdale, the President of the small campus of Claflin University in Orangeburg, South Carolina, expressed concern over the Obama-era regulation. Mr. Tisdale said, ``A small mistake or error at a college like Claflin could put us out of business. We don't have the resources ready to respond to frivolous claims.'' Claflin University is just one of the many small, nonprofit institutions that serve low-income, minority, and first-generation students that have become at risk due to the Obama-era rules. Institutions like these would be on the hook for debt and could close due to financial pressures. This would deny students their education, act as an economic drain on the community benefiting from the institution's business, and harm taxpayers who may ultimately be responsible to pay off the loans. It is reasonable to conclude that the Obama administration's borrower defense rule could be the deciding factor in colleges prematurely closing. In fact, the Obama administration estimated it would have the effect of closing many institutions, which is why their rule is projected to cost over $40 billion in 10 years. Luckily, the Trump administration acted quickly to correct the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. 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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no further people to testify. We are ready to close.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say again, the Secretary has been faithfully executing the law. The problem is that our colleagues don't like the law as it is, and so we need to change the law if they don't like what the Secretary is executing. However, that is not where we are today. Students who have been harmed by fraudulent practices deserve relief, period. There is no disagreement on that issue, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, President Obama's overzealous and flawed borrower defense regulation abandoned due process and limited student choice. So the Trump administration acted quickly to reverse this struggling regulation. In 2019, the Education Department issued a new borrower defense rule to better protect borrowers and taxpayers. The rule is the result of more than 2 years of deliberations, public hearings, negotiations with the higher education stakeholders, and considering, incorporating, and responding to public comments on the issues. To hear our colleagues speak about it, it is something that came straight off of Secretary DeVos' desk. Not true. Thanks to this regulatory reset, all colleges and universities will be held accountable, defrauded students will see relief, and taxpayer dollars will be better protected. Today's resolution would repeal the Trump administration's rule and go back to Obama regulations that harm students and taxpayers. That is unreasonable to think about, that our colleagues want to do that. They want to actually harm the students they claim they want to help. Students deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, life is the most precious gift from God. From conception until natural death and every moment in between, we must recognize, celebrate, and bear witness to the sanctity of life. Next Friday tens of thousands of people from across the country will come to Washington and participate in the March for Life. This event serves as a clear reminder that preserving and protecting the lives of the most vulnerable is not simply an option, it is a mandate that we all must uphold. Madam Speaker, I refuse to stand idly by as the unborn are brazenly targeted. Amidst the shroud of rancor and divisiveness that hangs over this House at present, I will continue to fight for their right to life. They deserve nothing less than unwavering advocates.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Let me be clear: every worker, including older workers, should be protected from workplace discrimination at his or her job. This is why Congress has passed a number of laws to protect Americans of all ages against discrimination in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRA; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, ADEA; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Rehab Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, makes employment discrimination because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability unlawful. Although I appreciate the stated purpose behind H.R. 1230, the rushed approach taken by committee Democrats and the lack of evidence and data to prove that this legislation is needed have led to a seriously flawed bill. Careful examination and scrutiny of any legislative proposal is necessary to determine whether it is needed and whether it appropriately and effectively addresses the relevant issues. Unfortunately, in developing H.R. 1230, the committee majority failed miserably in this regard. Committee Democrats chose not to hold a single hearing solely dedicated to examining either age discrimination or H.R. 1230; rather, they examined this bill during a hearing that covered multiple topics and several other pieces of legislation completely unrelated to the bill. As we have seen many times during the 116th Congress with other legislation, H.R. 1230 was rushed through the Education and Labor Committee without necessary examination, discussion, or consideration. As a result, we are here debating yet another one-size-fits-all ``government knows best'' mandate that rewards special interests and disregards real-world workplace experience and decades of Supreme Court precedent. However, the flawed process is far from the only issue with this legislation. The committee also has no evidence or data indicating this bill is necessary. In fact, the lone Democrat-invited witness who testified on H.R. 1230 at a committee hearing covering many bills and topics admitted the impact of the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. is unknown. She also admitted there is no data indicating workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC or bringing cases. The data simply does not indicate workers have been discouraged from filing discrimination or retaliation charges with the EEOC. Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment numbers for older workers have trended upwards in recent decades. In 2018 older workers earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers, a large increase from 20 years ago. For workers age 65 and older, employment tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment among younger workers grew by about one-third. Likewise, over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part-time. Rather than considering misguided proposals such as H.R. 1230 which furthers government intervention, we ought to be empowering all workers, including older workers, to continue participating and thriving in America's workforce to build upon, not stifle, these impressive trends. Unfortunately, H.R. 1230 does the opposite. This legislation will actually harm older workers while simultaneously enriching trial lawyers. H.R. 1230 overturns Supreme Court precedent by allowing a plaintiff to argue that age was only a motivating, not decisive, factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action, and it allows these kinds of mixed-motive claims across four completely different nondiscrimination laws. Moreover, allowing mixed-motive claims in cases alleging retaliation puts employers in an untenable position of trying to prove that a legitimate employment decision was not in response to a prior complaint. The only party who will be paid in nearly all mixed- motive cases is the plaintiffs' attorneys because most employers will be able to demonstrate that they would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor. So the very people this legislation is intended to help will not receive any monetary damages under H.R. 1230. H.R. 1230 will also increase frivolous legal claims against businessowners. Such undeserving claims will take valuable resources away from efforts to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination. Finally, committee Republicans offered amendments to advance important priorities and practical solutions for older workers and highlight fundamental flaws in H.R. 1230. Unfortunately, our commonsense amendments were defeated on a party-line vote in committee. Mr. Chairman, all workers should be protected from workplace discrimination, but by rushing today's legislation to the House floor in an attempt to make up for an abysmal first year in the majority, Democrats have failed older workers. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1230, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle contend that the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services has weakened age discrimination protections. They also contend the decision had deterred workers from seeking relief from age bias. Let's look at the data. In the 9 years preceding the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate, received an average of 19,320 charges of discrimination per year relating to age discrimination--19,320. An EEOC charge is a signed statement asserting employment discrimination. In the 9 years following Gross, the EEOC received an average 20,973 charges per year relating to age discrimination, a slight uptick from the previous 9 years. There is clearly no evidence workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC since the 2009 Supreme Court decision. We also found that age discrimination charges as a percentage of all charges filed with the EEOC are approximately the same for the 9 years before and after the Gross decision, 23.2 percent before and 22.8 percent afterward. Again, this does not indicate workers are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges. Congress should make fact-based decisions. In this case, the facts do not support what H.R. 1230's proponents have asserted. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, older workers are doing quite well in today's modern economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, employment for workers age 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment for younger workers grew by a third. The number of employed people age 75 and older nearly quadrupled from 461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle paint a bleak picture of these valued workers standing in the workforce, when, in fact, employment trends for older workers are positive in recent decades. According to BLS, in 1998, the median weekly earnings of older full- time employees was 77 percent of the median for workers age 16 and up. In 2018, older workers earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers. The labor force participation rate for older workers has been rising steadily since the late 1990s. Participation rates for younger age groups either declined or flattened over this period. Over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part time. As I said, the picture is bright. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I really find it puzzling that our colleagues paint such a dismal picture of employers. We hear this over and over and over again from the other side of the aisle. As my colleague from Michigan said a little while ago, we have 7 million unfilled jobs in the country right now. Every employer I know, before I came to Congress and since I have been in Congress, cherishes his or her employees. They don't dismiss employees out of hand just because of their age. They just don't do that. They value their employees. But the other side of the aisle has a real distorted picture of what happens in the private sector. I want to say that H.R. 1230 doesn't achieve the goals espoused by the bill's sponsors, and let me provide much-needed truth in advertising about this bill. Under the bill as written, most plaintiffs, even if they are successful, will not be entitled to receive any monetary damages, payments, or reinstatement. Here is why. Generally, a victim of discrimination is entitled to be made whole, to be put in the position the individual would have been in without the discrimination. This can include monetary damages, back pay, reinstatement, attorney's fees, and court costs. The Supreme Court, in the 2009 Gross case, eliminated the defense that allows an employer to demonstrate it would have taken the same employment action regardless of age. H.R. 1230 restores this employer defense. An overwhelming majority of employers will be able to make this demonstration to the court, and when they make that demonstration, under H.R. 1230, the plaintiff will not be entitled to receive any monetary damages, payments, or reinstatement, although the plaintiffs' attorneys will be entitled to fees. So the only party who wins in these cases are the trial lawyers. In addition, H.R. 1230 is specifically written to allow plaintiffs to survive a summary judgment motion that would end their case. But the plaintiff is in for a surprise later when, after going to court, he or she receives no monetary damages, and the only one getting paid is his or her attorney. To add insult to injury, the employee may have to pay income taxes on the fees that are awarded to his or her attorney. The bill's sponsors never explain how adding the provisions that include mixed-motive claims and restoring the employer defense allowing employers to demonstrate they would have taken the same action regardless of the impermissible factor, such as age, will benefit employees. In fact, these provisions will only help trial lawyers. H.R. 1230's title and provisions are yet another case of false advertising and empty promises for older workers. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is encouraging to see more and more older Americans continue to make invaluable contributions in the workplace, and committee Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace to ensure a productive and competitive workforce. Unfortunately, H.R. 1230 is an unnecessary and misleading bill that does not ``protect older workers'' and is yet another case of false advertising and empty promises. Committee Democrats failed to allow a proper examination of H.R. 1230, depriving Members of the opportunity to review the legislation appropriately before it was considered by the committee, and, as a result, we are left with the ill-advised bill before us today. This one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best approach is not the answer and will significantly benefit trial lawyers at the cost of older American workers. I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1230, 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. Chair, as my colleague from California and my colleague from Illinois know, I respect both of them greatly, and I would have thought that they would have come up with an amendment that would have helped us understand this issue before we pass such a bill instead of after we pass it. As I understand it, this amendment requires the GAO to report on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ability to investigate and process age discrimination cases after H.R. 1230 unnecessarily reduces the burden of proof in these cases and nullifies decades of Supreme Court precedent. This amendment is not needed. The EEOC already reports on its workload management and ability to respond to age discrimination charges in the agency's annual budget request and recurring strategic plans. We should not mandate that GAO waste resources on an unnecessary, redundant report. In addition, assuming this GAO report discovers new information, such information would be useful before the House votes to expand liability in four employment statutes. The new law will be in place, and the horse will have already left the barn by the time we receive the information. We all agree, American workers should be protected from discrimination in the workplace in every form possible. It is already against the law to discriminate based on a workers' age, as it should be. Congress has enacted separate nondiscrimination statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because age discrimination includes issues that are different from other forms of discrimination addressed in other statutes. Under H.R. 1230, a plaintiff can argue that age was only a motivating, not a decisive factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action. Allowing such mixed-motive claims will lead to more frivolous litigation and upset the careful balance Congress enacted in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Unfortunately, H.R. 1230 will not help workers. Under the bill, a plaintiff is very unlikely to receive any monetary damages from a defendant because most employers would be able to show to the Court that they would have taken the same employment action, regardless of the worker's age. The only parties who will win in nearly all cases in H.R. 1230 are trial lawyers. Disappointingly, Democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial- lawyer agenda by bringing H.R. 1230 up for consideration, a bill falsely advertised as a protection for workers. H.R. 1230 is yet another one-size-fits-all mandate that fails to address the purported problem, ignores real world experiences, and disregards decades of Supreme Court decisions. This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 1230, is redundant with other government reports, and will not provide the House with timely information. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply will say again that I think we should vote ``no'' on this amendment. I think it is redundant and unnecessary. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.