Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, House Democrats have once again decided to pursue politics over progress and advance a radical drug pricing scheme that will eliminate choice and competition, and jeopardize innovation, investment, and access to future cures, putting breakthrough treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, sickle-cell, and others at risk. As many as 100 lifesaving drugs--and that needs to be repeated, Mr. Chairman, as many as 100 lifesaving drugs--could be kept from Americans desperately in need because of Speaker Pelosi's socialist drug-pricing scheme. This is unacceptable. We shouldn't be pursuing policies that will harm the health and well- being of American patients, and we shouldn't destroy a system that allows the U.S. to lead the world in new cures and treatments. Bottom line, this radical legislation offers fewer cures, and American families will suffer because of it. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) very much for yielding, and I very much appreciate his work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Republican Foreign Affairs Committee staff and Ranking Member McCaul for their tireless defense of Israel. Furthermore, I want to state that I have a long history of working in a bipartisan fashion with my dear friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. That is why it pains me to be here today debating a partisan resolution, a resolution that purports to defend a negotiated two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that is simply not what this resolution is about. If it were, it would be bipartisan. This is a partisan resolution because it makes pointed criticisms of the Israeli Government on delicate, divisive, internal issues. It does so at a time when our Israeli counterparts struggle through the democratic process of forming a new government. House Democrats would only move this unconstructive resolution to the floor if it achieved aims of radical leftists in scoring points against the Trump administration. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask this majority, at what cost? At what cost are we voting on this? Moving forward to this vote risks the bipartisan support that a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution has enjoyed for decades. That is why I offered an alternative resolution at the Rules Committee, one that would support the peace process without alienating our major strategic partner and ally of the United States, the nation of Israel. If there is any imperative for Congress, it should be to hold the Palestinian Authority to account for its efforts to bypass negotiations and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. For decades, the Palestinian Authority has undermined the peace process by appealing to the United Nations and other international organizations to impose its own solution and impose parameters for negotiations with Israel. In 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected it. If there is any story that deserves more attention from this Congress, it is that Israel has made numerous concessions in the pursuit of peace while seeking only the right to exist, and this despite the continued efforts by Palestinian leadership to evade direct negotiations for peace. That is the story this House should be telling, and that is why I oppose this partisan resolution that politicizes and, therefore, jeopardizes the sacred issue of Congress' support for Israel. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while still more work needs to be done to confront our Nation's challenges with opioids, I am pleased to report that my home State of North Carolina is working to stem the tide and has witnessed a drop in opioid overdoses. In my district, Surry County and its healthcare professionals, first responders, and addiction counselors deserve recognition as contributing to the county witnessing a drop of over 75 percent in opioid-related emergency room visits within the last year. This comes as we implement one of the most significant bills that Congress passed last year, the comprehensive SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. I helped introduce that legislation with bipartisan colleagues, and I am glad to report that the bill is achieving its goal in stemming the tide of addiction by improving prevention and public health efforts, enhancing treatment and recovery programs, and providing communities more tools in their fight. Again, Mr. Speaker, more work needs to be done to confront our Nation's challenges with opioids, but Congress laid the groundwork for this work to be done at the State and local level with the passage of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. American workers deserve to be kept out of harm's way while on the job, allowing them to return home to their families and loved ones healthy and safe. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, healthcare and social service workplaces experience the highest rate of workplace violence, totaling 71 percent of all workplace violence injuries in 2017, and these workers are more than four times as likely to suffer a workplace violence injury. There is no question that these caregivers deserve meaningful and effective protections, but H.R. 1309 is shortsighted and partisan, and it fails to address the important issue in an effective, feasible manner. In the Education and Labor Committee's single hearing on this issue back in February, Members on both sides of the aisle expressed a desire to work together to produce real policy solutions. Committee Republicans believe there can be a bipartisan response to this issue that would aid in the rulemaking process and provide protection to healthcare and social service workers. Instead, committee Democrats have decided to advance legislation that circumvents the long-established rulemaking process and blocks valuable input from workers and other stakeholders who know better than we do how to prevent workplace violence in these unique circumstances. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, the Federal agency that helps ensure safe and healthful working conditions, is currently working on a workplace violence prevention rule for healthcare and social assistance workplaces, which includes gathering important stakeholder input to create the most feasible and effective Federal safety and health standards possible. However, by requiring OSHA to circumvent established rulemaking procedures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, H.R. 1309 would undermine and threaten this ongoing collaborative and evidence-based process by denying OSHA the ability to be responsive to important feedback from the public and impacted stakeholders. H.R. 1309 severely limits the participation of industry, worker representatives, the scientific community, and the public from having a say in the development of a new comprehensive standard. Democrats are rejecting a thorough response to this complex and highly technical issue that is backed by meaningful input. Furthermore, this legislation turns a blind eye to comprehensive research and data. Currently, there is no agreed-upon set of policies to prevent and mitigate workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers, and researchers in the field have pointed out the need for additional studies to determine the most effective response. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said further research was needed to identify effective strategies that prevent workplace violence in healthcare and social service settings. Additionally, in 2016, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, noted there have been a limited number of studies done on the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention programs, and GAO chose not to call on OSHA to establish a standard without further study. Continuing with their record of rushed and haphazard legislation, Democrats are pushing a false sense of urgency with H.R. 1309. This bill wrongly implies that Congress should impose a swift and sweeping standard immediately, ignoring that OSHA is already enforcing workplace violence prevention. In 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission upheld penalties issued by OSHA under the general duty clause against healthcare facilities for not adequately addressing workplace violence. I will remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents indicated they already have workplace violence policies in place. To make matters even worse, H.R. 1309 mandates yet another costly and burdensome regulation. Simply put, financially struggling healthcare facilities such as rural hospitals and small businesses cannot afford another costly, congressionally imposed mandate from Washington. Democrats will argue they didn't intend for the bill to have such a large scope and to cost so much. What else didn't they intend to happen when they rushed through this process, forcing an overly prescriptive mandate on the public? Madam Chair, Republicans are committed to ensuring that healthcare and social service workers are protected from workplace violence. There is bipartisan support for OSHA's current efforts to create a standard on workplace violence prevention. However, Congress should aid in the rulemaking process, not circumvent it, as H.R. 1309 does. H.R. 1309 will likely have many unintended consequences which negatively impact healthcare and social services workplaces, in addition to imposing a costly mandate on healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unnecessary legislation so we can get to work on a bipartisan solution. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, let me be clear, the safety of our Nation's healthcare and social service workers is not a partisan issue. Regardless of political beliefs, all of us in this Chamber can appreciate the hard work and empathy that healthcare workers and community caregivers demonstrate every single day on the job. Their dedication to caring for the most vulnerable members of our communities is extraordinary, and these workers deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our commitment to ensuring they are safe on the job. The nature of the work in these industries requires healthcare and social services workers to interact directly with individuals who are experiencing tremendous stress, trauma, and grief, which can cause situations to devolve and put workers' safety at risk. American workers should be kept out of harm's way on the job, so they can return home to their families every day healthy and safe. These caregivers deserve protections, but H.R. 1309 is not the right way to address this important issue. Our healthcare workers and caregivers deserve a thoroughly vetted and researched solution that protects them in the workplace. I think we can do better by working together. 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. Madam Chair, yesterday the Department of Labor issued its fall 2019 regulatory agenda. The department announced plans to initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel for the prevention of workplace violence in healthcare and social assistance in January. This is a very positive and important development. Unfortunately, H.R. 1309 encourages and allows OSHA to skip this important step of gathering feedback and advice from small businesses, all to satisfy the arbitrary 1-year deadline for issuing an interim final standard. Shortchanging the views of small businesses at the expense of a rushed, sweeping, and overly proscriptive standard is not an appropriate trade-off. Additionally, the legislative text and scope of H.R. 1309 are so proscriptive that OSHA wouldn't be able to deviate from the mandates in the bill even if the recommendation from the small business panel are contrary to that of H.R. 1309. The Trump administration is moving forward with the rule-making process. Rather than pass H.R. 1309, we should be allowing OSHA to do its work on a comprehensive standard, including soliciting necessary input from small businesses. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the impact of H.R. 1309 on healthcare providers, I note that this bill is in violation of the House's pay-as- you-go, or paygo, rule. The paygo rule requires that legislation affecting direct spending not increase the deficit. Any legislation projected to increase direct spending must be offset by equivalent amounts of direct spending cuts, revenue increases, or a combination of both. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1309 will increase the deficit by $60 million between 2020 and 2029. In addition, CBO estimates the cost of H.R. 1309 to private entities will be at least $1.8 billion in the first 2 years and at least $750 million annually thereafter. Democrats wrote this particular paygo rule months ago, and they are already abandoning it. It is not hard to find $60 million in savings for the taxpayers, and the Democrats' failure to do so speaks volumes about their regard for fiscal discipline. This significant violation of the budget rules is yet another reason to oppose this bill. Madam Chair, protecting the safety of healthcare and social service workers is not a partisan issue. I reiterate that statement. All of us here today, regardless of our political beliefs, appreciate the hard work and empathy that healthcare workers and community caregivers demonstrate every single day on the job. There is much agreement on both sides of the aisle that these workers deserve protections in the workplace. Given this bipartisan interest, it is frustrating that the Democrats have moved forward with the rushed and ill-conceived legislation we are debating today. H.R. 1309 ignores expert and practical input; imposes mandates that may ultimately harm the very people this legislation intends to protect; forecloses better, more protective and feasible solutions that would result from the established rulemaking process; fails to allow meaningful public input; and imposes costly requirements on regulated entities. Our healthcare workers and caregivers deserve a thoroughly vetted and researched solution that protects them in the workplace, but H.R. 1309 badly fails to deliver on that front. Madam Chair, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment is unnecessary. The underlying bill already mandates that each workplace violation prevention plan required by the bill ``be made available at all times'' to covered employees. This amendment adds yet another overly prescriptive requirement on healthcare establishments. OSHA, as it proceeds with its rulemaking, should have the ability to determine the specific elements required of each employer after analyzing their effectiveness and potential cost. Ultimately, H.R. 1309 circumvents the longstanding, established OSHA rulemaking process, which is intended to research thoroughly the underlying circumstances that may merit a health and safety regulation and gather meaningful stakeholder input in order to create the most feasible and protective safety and health standard possible. By dodging the established regulatory process, H.R. 1309 is foreclosing other potential solutions. H.R. 1309 will require OSHA to enforce an interim final standard in healthcare and social service settings within a year. The legislation does not allow OSHA to consider important information, such as the experience of California which has a brand-new standard in place, the views of experts in the field, and the input of workers who have invaluable workplace experience. H.R. 1309 discounts the complexity of the underlying issue and the importance of the knowledge and experience stakeholders can offer that will help create a workable and effective solution. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment adds yet another overly prescriptive regulatory requirement on healthcare providers, small and large, without going through the established rulemaking process. This amendment provides no opportunity for OSHA to examine whether the requirements listed in the amendment would be beneficial and useful. The provision in this amendment could be examined during a small business stakeholder panel and a public comment period if OSHA were permitted to engage in these important steps before issuing an interim final rule. We still need additional research and data to identify the best ways to mitigate and prevent workplace violence in healthcare and social service settings. There have been calls for additional research on the project, including from the Government Accountability Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Democrat amendments to the bill, such as the one we are debating, do not change these basic facts. Democrat window-dressing amendments that add more red tape don't change the fact that H.R. 1309 fails to allow for the development of a workable, effective, and feasible workplace violence prevention standard. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, this amendment underscores two obvious points: first, that healthcare and social service workers should be free to report workplace violence incidents to law enforcement; and second, that this bill was drafted poorly. Such a commonsense provision should not need to be added to the underlying legislation. But in the Democrats' rush to force OSHA to promulgate workplace violence prevention standards, they are bypassing key elements of the established rulemaking process that would ensure a provision such as this amendment, if needed, is in the regulatory text. H.R. 1309 circumvents the longstanding, established OSHA rulemaking process, which is intended to gather information on the underlying circumstances that may merit a health and safety regulation and to receive meaningful stakeholder input in order to create the most feasible and protective safety and health standard possible. By dodging the established regulatory process, the Democrats are ignoring or unaware of many key issues like the ones addressed in this amendment. Madam Chair, I will support the amendment, and 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 is yet another example of Democrats assuming bad motives on the part of American employers and handcuffing them with additional, overly prescriptive micromanagement from Washington. The vast majority of employers in America follow the laws, take good care of their employees, respect their rights in the workplace, and do not need more red tape imposed on them. Yet this amendment adds additional requirements on America's small businesses without receiving any meaningful input from them or other stakeholders. Democratic amendments, such as the one we are debating, do not change the basic fact that H.R. 1309 is already overly prescriptive and forecloses important input from knowledgeable stakeholders. H.R. 1309 will require OSHA to enforce an interim final standard in healthcare and social service settings within a year. This legislation does not allow OSHA to consider important information, including the experience of California, which has a brand-new standard in place; the views of experts in the field; and the input of workers who have invaluable workplace experience. This data and evidence and the views of stakeholders may very well not align with the bill's requirements. Adopting H.R. 1309 discounts the complexity of the underlying issue and the importance of the knowledge and experience stakeholders can offer. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. I claim the time in opposition, Madam Chair.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, it is very disturbing to me as a citizen of this country, to hear the talk about increasing incidents of violence. We know that is occurring all over our country, everywhere. However, this bill is not going to respond to the underlying causes of that increased violence, and neither will this amendment. This amendment ignores the fundamental reason that employers maintain good recordkeeping. It allows employers to review their internal procedures and determine how to improve their safety culture. While it is very important for facilities to keep accurate records of incidents, responses to incidents, and annual data, providing this information annually to OSHA will not result in greater safety benefits. Requiring the Secretary of Labor to provide this data to Congress goes yet another ill-advised step further. Employers utilize these records to improve internal management processes in order to protect their workplace. However, if they must submit these reports to OSHA, which will, in turn, provide them to Congress, this will discourage the use of these records to make improvements, as the employer has no guarantee the records will not be released by OSHA either intentionally or unintentionally. Workplace violence records must be maintained and protected onsite as they contain personal employee information as well as patient-client information. An OSHA inspector would still have the right to review the records upon inspection of the facility. Again, this amendment's provisions and the underlying recordkeeping and reporting provisions in H.R. 1309 should be thoroughly vetted and discussed during a true rulemaking process and should not be mandated by Congress. We definitely should be looking at the underlying reasons that workplace violence is increasing, and neither this bill nor this amendment will have any impact on that. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, while the amendment is well- intentioned, there are Federal agencies other than OSHA that would be better equipped to handle this type of regulatory requirement for the education of healthcare workers who work with the individuals identified in the amendment. The question of whether employer education programs governed by OSHA are appropriate to address the objectives of the amendment should be thoroughly vetted and discussed during the rulemaking process before decisions impacting employers are made. Unfortunately, H.R. 1309 bypasses the opportunities for that conversation to take place, such as a small business panel and public hearings, and this amendment does nothing to change that. A question of additional education for specific employees is exactly the kind of issue that should be addressed by receiving feedback from affected stakeholders in the rulemaking process, but this opportunity is foreclosed by H.R. 1309. Amendments like the one we are debating don't change the fact that H.R. 1309 fails to allow for the development of a feasible and effective workplace violence prevention standard. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.