Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, as I understand it, this amendment requires the Chair of the EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate, to submit five annual reports to congressional committees on the number of age discrimination claims brought to the EEOC under this act. These reports will come after H.R. 1230 unnecessarily reduces the burden of proof in these cases and nullifies decades of Supreme Court precedent. Before discussing my concerns with this amendment, I admit I am puzzled that it requires a study on how this legislation will affect future age discrimination claims when evidence is sorely lacking that there is a need for H.R. 1230 in the first place. The lone witness who testified on H.R. 1230 before the Committee on Education and Labor acknowledged that EEOC data has not shown workers are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC following the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services. This witness testified that: ``It is difficult to quantify the impact that the Gross decision has had on the number of older workers who bring cases and the number of those who win them.'' More information on whether H.R. 1230 is needed would have been useful, but Democrats were unable to provide it. With respect to this amendment, I have concerns about the feasibility of the mandated reports. The amendment requires the EEOC to report each year for 5 years on charges filed with the EEOC under H.R. 1230. H.R. 1230 expands liability by allowing mixed-motive claims in cases involving the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, and three other statutes. However, when a worker files charges with the EEOC, the worker will likely not indicate whether the charge involves mixed motives, nor is the EEOC likely to be able to classify charges as mixed motive or not. The EEOC, therefore, will be unable to determine whether charges have been filed pursuant to H.R. 1230. I am very doubtful the EEOC would be able to comply with this amendment's requirements, and Congress should not include an unrealistic mandate on an agency. As I said before, we don't need to be doing studies after the bill is passed, Mr. Chair. We need to know whether this bill is necessary. We don't think it is necessary, and doing the studies afterward seems a little ridiculous. The amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 1230 and places an unrealistic mandate on the EEOC. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Since the gentleman has yielded back, I believe, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment requires the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to produce a report on mixed-motive claims in age discrimination cases filed by Federal employees against their Federal agency employers. I have several concerns with this amendment. First, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a small agency that is not well equipped to undertake such a study. This amendment requires ``funds appropriated in advance,'' otherwise known as taxpayer dollars, to be spent to do the report, which means the agency doesn't have the resources to take on this mandate. Second, while H.R. 1230 was only referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, this amendment involves the interests of two other committees that are not represented in this debate. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is tasked with doing the report directed by the amendment, and the Oversight and Reform Committee has jurisdiction over the employment relationships between Federal agencies and their employees. Third, this report will be submitted to Congress no later than 5 years after the bill goes into effect. I am not sure what good a report published 5 years from now will do for us who are being asked to vote on H.R. 1230 now. Fourth, perhaps most importantly, there is a lack of evidence that a report is needed on age discrimination claims in Federal agencies. The Committee on Education and Labor received no evidence on this matter. With H.R. 1230, Democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial lawyer agenda with legislation that masquerades as a protection for workers. H.R. 1230 is yet another one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address the purported problem, neglects the experience of workers and employers, and disregards decades of Supreme Court precedent. This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 1230, and it directs a small agency to conduct a study without a clear basis of the need for that study. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, this is a solution in search of a problem. We all know that it is almost impossible to fire a Federal employee. In fact, I think the number is less than 1 percent who are fired each year. Maybe the reason we haven't had an updated report is because there hasn't been the need for an updated report. I think, again, this is a totally unnecessary amendment, and I am totally opposed to it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Phillips Moore McClanahan of King, North Carolina. Margaret was born in Louisville, Kentucky, on January 16, 1920. Margaret is a graduate of King High School and the Women's College of the University of North Carolina--now the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. After graduation, she went on to complete a dietetic internship at the Duke University Medical Center and then served as an industrial dietitian at Western Electric for 33 years. From age 65 until her 80's, she was heavily involved in public health in Stokes County. A woman who is invested in her community, family, and faith, Margaret has made a profound impact on western North Carolina. She was a founding member of the King Outreach Mission in the mid 1970's and was a founder of the Stokes County Habitat for Humanity in 1999. Since the founding of the King Outreach Mission, she's served as a weekly volunteer, board member, newsletter writer and editor, and organizer of a fundraising rummage sale which eventually led to establishment of a thrift shop. As an active member of her church, Margaret plays the piano for the Special Ministries program and previously served as the church historian. For years, she directed the preparation of Wednesday night suppers for church members who attended weekly groups. But her activities don't stop there. She also competed in Seniors Games and has gone in to win medals at the regional, state, and national levels in swimming. To her family, Margaret is the quiet, wise matriarch, and continuously showers love, pride, and wise counsel to her three children, two grandchildren, and three greatgranddaughters. Her compassion, modesty, and faith make her a remarkable role model. I wish Ms. Margaret Phillips Moore McClanahan a very happy--and blessed--100th birthday.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, since 2002, January has been recognized as National Mentoring Month. We should all recognize the positive impact that mentoring has on young people. From our servicemembers at Cherry Point to the volunteers of the Winston-Salem United Way, the coaches of LifeConnections in Alexander County to the Western Youth Network in Boone, North Carolinians remain actively engaged in mentoring opportunities across my State. According to Mentoring.org, at-risk youth who were paired with a mentor are 55 percent more likely to enroll in college; 78 percent more likely to volunteer regularly in their communities; and 130 percent more likely to hold leadership positions in their careers. Madam Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Mentoring is a cornerstone of the growth and development of young people across our country.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, since 2002, January has been recognized as National Mentoring Month. We all should recognize the positive impacts that mentoring has on young people. From our servicemembers stationed at Cherry Point to the volunteers of the Greensboro United Way, the students and staff of Wake Forest University to the Journeymen of Asheville, North Carolinians remain actively engaged in mentoring opportunities across my State. According to mentoring.org, at-risk youth who were paired with a mentor are 55 percent more likely to enroll in college, 78 percent more likely to volunteer regularly in their communities, and 130 percent more likely to hold leadership positions in their careers. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Mentoring is a cornerstone of the growth and development of young people across our country. I commend the individuals involved in being mentors.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, over the past year, we have seen a troubling rise in anti-Semitic crimes and activity across the United States and the world. In 2019, 229 anti-Semitic hate crimes were reported in New York City. There was a 46 percent increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes in Chicago. From January to October, there were 58 reported anti-Semitic crimes in Los Angeles. The facts are indisputable. These heinous acts of violence were not the result of random, isolated incidents. These acts were deliberately orchestrated with a clear intent to target and harm the Jewish community. Attacks of any kind on communities of faith are unacceptable. Simply broaching the issue of anti-Semitic crime is not enough to protect these communities. Those responsible for committing these senseless acts of violence must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We must foster engagement between law enforcement and targeted communities, and we must all work together to confront this issue.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the inclusion of S. 2788, a taxpayer bailout of a failing multiemployer pension plan, in the FY 2020 appropriations package. There is bipartisan consensus that Congress must address the current multiemployer pension crisis, but this particular provision is a fiscally irresponsible and shortsighted approach that sets a dangerous precedent for future attempts to address the dire predicament facing certain multiemployer pension plans. Unfortunately, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) 1974 Pension Plan has failed the hardworking miners, retirees, and their families who sacrificed pay during their working years with the expectation that they would receive a modest retirement income. The UMWA Pension Plan covers 96,000 participants, the vast majority of whom, 92,500 to be specific, are retired. That leaves a mere 3,500 active participants paying into the plan. What's more, the pension plan is underfunded by $6.5 billion as its liabilities far exceed assets. That's $6.5 billion that the UMWA's Pension Plan trustees, both union and employer officials, promised workers, but will not deliver. Let me be clear, my opposition to S. 2788 does not diminish my belief that miners and retirees should receive the benefits they were promised and rightfully deserve. Instead, I oppose how these benefits will be paid and administered. Under current law, when a multiemployer pension plan becomes insolvent, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) provides financial assistance to the plan to pay benefits up to the guaranteed amount. S. 2788 circumvents that process and allows unprecedented federal funding for one specific plan. S. 2788 is deceptive in its approach. The bill funnels interest earned on the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund (AML Fund) to the UMWA Pension Plan. If the AML Fund does not sufficiently cover retiree benefits, money from the U.S. Treasury will make up the difference. Under current law, UMWA retiree health plans already receive funding transfers from interest earned on the AML Fund and Treasury to pay for retiree health benefits. The combined transfers are capped at $490 million annually. S. 2788 makes these transfers available to the UMWA Pension Plan and raises the cap to $750 million. In FY 2019, the UMWA health plans received $54 million from the AML Fund and a whopping $225 million from Treasury. The AML Fund is insufficient to pay the UMWA retiree health benefits, which it is already obligated to pay. Any additional funding will come from Treasury. To put it simply Madam Speaker, the American people will foot the bill for this bailout. For the first time ever, taxpayer money will be used to prop up a failing, privately-negotiated retirement plan. As the Republican Leader of the Education and Labor Committee, I would be remiss if I didn't consider S. 2788 in the context of the broader multiemployer pension plan system. The UMWA Pension Plan is just the tip of the iceberg; it is just one of dozens of ailing multiemployer plans at risk of insolvency and breaking their pension promises. The passage of S. 2788 sets an ill- advised and irreversible precedent for future multiemployer pension plan solutions. Multiemployer pension plans are currently underfunded by $638 billion; PBGC's multiemployer insurance program is operating with a $65 billion deficit and is expected to become insolvent by the end of FY 2025. The responsibility for these broken promises lies exclusively with the union and employer representatives who negotiated and managed these plans. The UMWA Pension Plan is no exception. Plans and trustees promised benefits without putting aside the adequate funds to meet these promises, all to the detriment of workers and retirees. It should not be the role of Congress to address funding shortfalls one pension plan at a time. That is not responsible legislating. Instead, we should work together to address the faults of the entire multiemployer pension system. S. 2788 sends the wrong message to other unions and employers who have failed adequately to fund their pension promises. It puts us on a dangerous path that could ultimately result in Congress burdening American taxpayers with billions of dollars in future bailouts, no questions asked. If Congress is serious about protecting the hard-earned retirement benefits, which are at risk because of failing multiemployer plans, it should address a system that is plagued with chronic underfunding, dependency on rosy economic assumptions and expectations, and passively accepts that plan trustees and actuaries will continue to underestimate pension promises.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the process and to the resolution. When Congress sees fit to examine its solemn power of impeachment, it is imperative that it does so in genuine pursuit of justice: fairly, transparently, and objectively. Anything less is unacceptable. This partisan impeachment has fallen far short of that. Sadly, Alexander Hamilton's prediction in Federalist No. 65 has come true, where he warned: ``In many cases, it will connect itself with the preexisting factions and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases, there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' After years of investigations, hearings, and millions of taxpayer dollars, Democrats found no proof that the President committed a crime--no proof--as the vague accusations in these articles clearly reflect. A basic prerequisite for impeaching for ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is a charge that an actual crime was committed. These empty, baseless articles expose for the American people what this is: a desperate, partisan attempt to avenge the loss of the Democrats' preferred candidate in 2016. We must respect American voters and reject these articles.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4920, the Department of Veterans Affairs Contracting Preference Consistency Act. This bipartisan bill provides a necessary fix to ensure that nonprofit organizations that provide jobs for the blind and those with significant disabilities and companies that are owned by veterans receive their due and are no longer in conflict. The AbilityOne Program was enacted by Congress to give nonprofit organizations that employ the blind or those with significant disabilities preferential treatment in competing for certain Federal procurement contracts. Unfortunately, due to an unnecessary conflict between AbilityOne and a similar program, the Veterans First program, which sets aside some Department of Veterans Affairs contracts for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, a legislative fix became necessary. H.R. 4920 provides that fix by grandfathering in VA contracts that predate the creation of the Vets First program to restore eligibility for nonprofit organizations that employ blind individuals or those with significant disabilities. This bipartisan legislation is proof that the choices between helping veterans and those with disabilities is not mutually exclusive. I thank Chairman Takano, Ranking Member Roe, and all the members on the committee for their work on the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of our bill, one that now awaits a final vote in Congress before it heads to the President's desk. I thank Representative Jimmy Gomez for helping author this piece of legislation, the Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency Act, or GREAT Act. Representative Gomez has been a tremendous partner on this bipartisan, bicameral bill to create more transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the Federal grant reporting process, and I thank him for his hard work. Mr. Speaker, according to USAspending.gov, in 2019, the Federal Government awarded $764.9 billion in grants funding to State agencies, local and Tribal governments, agencies, nonprofits, universities, and other organizations. Roughly translated, this equates to the gross domestic product of Switzerland--or more than the GDP of every country outside the G20. Within our Federal Government, there are 26 agencies awarding Federal grants, and all of them continue to rely on outdated, burdensome, document-based forms to collect and track grant dollars. Society has moved into a new age of information and technology, and it is time that our government follow suit. The GREAT Act represents bipartisan legislation to modernize the Federal grant reporting process. It would do so by mandating a standardized data structure for information that recipients report to Federal agencies. Unless the reporting requirements for Federal grants are searchable, the auditing process will continue to yield waste and inefficiency at best and, potentially, fraud and abuse at worst. Adopting a governmentwide open data structure for all the information grantees report will alleviate compliance burden, provide instant insights for grantor agencies and Congress, and enable easy access to data for oversight, analytics, and program evaluation. Digitizing and, therefore, automating the reporting process would have a twofold effect: First, it would allow greater scrutiny of how the money is being spent. Second, it allows grantees to maximize every dollar they receive from the government to ensure it goes back into communities, supporting local businesses, organizations, and education. Lastly, the GREAT Act has received a broad breadth of support from an array of good government groups and associations within the grant recipient community. The coalition endorsing the GREAT Act includes the Association of Government Accountants, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the American Library Association, the Data Coalition, the Grant Professionals Association, the Native American Finance Officers Association, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. In order to fix the way Federal grants are reported, we must move from a document-centric reporting system to a data superhighway. I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate to support the GREAT Act and bring grant reporting into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, our current post-award grant reporting process is a cumbersome, document-based process. It burdens administrators and grant recipients. It hinders agencies in their ability to manage grant programs and conduct performance evaluations. These problems are exacerbated for those conducting governmentwide and congressional oversight work, but that comes to an end today if we pass this bill. As I said earlier, this week's vote on the GREAT Act is the legislation's final stop in Congress before it heads to the President's desk. In addition to thanking Representative Gomez, I thank Senators Lankford and Peters and their staffs for their tireless work this Congress. Put simply, we could not have gotten this important legislation through Congress without their sponsorship of the Senate companion bill and their advocacy throughout this process. Further, I thank my House bill's original cosponsors for their work on this bipartisan achievement: Congressman Gomez, Congressman Walker, Congressman Quigley, Congressman DesJarlais, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, Congressman Palmer, and Congressman Kilmer. Again, Mr. Speaker, the fragmented, decentralized, and redundant grant reporting structure ends this week. Instead, we usher in a new age, one that moves this government spending from Document Street to a data superhighway with the passage of this legislation. When we do, it will mark a great moment not just for our Nation's grant recipients and those working for the common good but, ultimately, the American taxpayer. The transparency, accountability, and efficiencies that this legislation is bound to produce are ultimately intended for them. I proudly ask that my colleagues support this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Democrats are putting politics over progress by advancing a socialist drug pricing scheme that will hurt the development of money-saving treatments and, more importantly, people's lives. Sadly, workers and families are being let down by Democrats. That is why I am proud to sponsor and support H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. This legislation includes 40 provisions backed by Democrats and Republicans, and it can go to the President's desk today. Unlike H.R. 3, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts will result in 38 fewer cures, H.R. 19 protects access to new medicines and cures. It also lowers out-of-pocket spending, strengthens transparency and accountability, and champions competition. Mr. Chair, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act is policy that acts in the interests of hardworking Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All of us in this Chamber have heard the troubling stories of mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends, and colleagues who suffer every day because they can't afford their medications. That is why Congress started a collaborative and bipartisan process to tackle this issue earlier this year. In October, this bipartisan collaboration was cut abruptly short by Speaker Pelosi with the introduction of H.R. 3, which was written in secret without Member input or the regular committee process. Instead of a bipartisan solution, we are left with H.R. 3, which is nothing more than a Democrat downpayment on a government-run healthcare system that would eliminate private insurance and implement government- controlled rationing of prescription drugs. I serve as the senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee. H.R. 3 is the latest string in a series of radical Democratic bills that I have seen in the committee and in the House that promote unprecedented government interference in private markets and increased regulatory red tape. Proposals that can and should be bipartisan, such as addressing the skills gap, pension reform, and now drug pricing, are being rewritten by Democratic leadership, which is held hostage by their most leftwing Members. An amendment adopted during our committee markup proves just that point. Representative Pramila Jayapal's amendment pushes this radical bill even further to the left by requiring the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury to study and issue regulations on extending government price controls to private healthcare plans. The mandate for additional price controls suggested in this amendment tells private companies how much they can increase their prices each year or forces them to pay a fine. House Democrats aren't satisfied with only setting prices in government programs, and they continue to find ways to expand the already radical scope of H.R. 3 to the private market as well. Since the Education and Labor Committee markup, this issue has been a key area of disagreement between moderate and progressive Democrats, but Speaker Pelosi, yet again, caved to the demands of her Progressive Caucus and agreed to keep the amendment in the final bill. The flawed and extreme approach taken by H.R. 3 includes troubling and unprecedented government interference in private market negotiations. Governments don't negotiate; they dictate. So this radical scheme will eliminate choice and competition and jeopardize innovation, investment, and access to future cures. Breakthrough cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, sickle-cell disease, and others will be at risk. In fact, if we pass H.R. 3, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says we could see up to approximately 38 fewer cures for deadly diseases over the next 20 years, and the Council of Economic Advisers says up to 100 fewer cures over the next 10 years. If those estimates aren't concerning enough, just look at real-world examples for proof. Countries that have adopted drug pricing systems like those included in H.R. 3 face decreased access to innovative new medicines, increased wait times for treatment, and supply shortages for in-demand drugs. Democratic supporters of this bill have said fewer cures in exchange for government control prices is ``worth it.'' This is shameful. Democrats may be okay with fewer cures. I am not, and neither are my colleagues. The American people deserve better from Congress. They deserve a real solution that will lower the costs of prescription drugs without jeopardizing access to new treatments and cures. That is why House Republicans have introduced H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. This bill contains measures that have bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, and it can become law this year. Specifically, H.R. 19 will help lower out-of-pocket costs, protect access to new medicines and cures, strengthen transparency and accountability, and champion competition. Yet, House Democrats are ignoring this bipartisan, commonsense legislation. Clearly, they prefer politics over progress. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).