Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues from Georgia said, the Democrats want to make the American people think that they, as agents of the Federal Government, are giving them something by raising this minimum wage. That is not true. Small businesses, families, workers, and the economy at large will all suffer debilitating loss if this bill is passed. Forcing our Nation's job creators to raise the minimum wage arbitrarily around the country by 107 percent will hurt the very people this ill-advised legislation is alleged to help. The case studies from States and localities with large minimum wage hikes are clear and have shown that workers and employers are punished by these risky schemes. Apparently, House Democrats have missed the fact that wages are already on the rise. With unemployment near a 50-year low, the competition for employees is driving wages up. Instead of stifling our booming economy by forcing employers to implement a crippling, mandated wage hike, we should advance legislation that empowers communities, creates opportunities, and opens doors for workers. 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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on his sense of humor, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I do take offense at anyone who characterizes Republicans as not caring about children, not caring about women, not caring about people of color, and not caring about people in poverty. We care for all people, too, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make that very clear. We will disagree philosophically, but we care about people, and we love our fellow Americans. Democrats continue to point to figures of potential wage increases in our congressional districts, but not once have they acknowledged that CBO estimates that as many as three jobs could be lost for every one person pulled out of poverty. So will the Democrats who vote for this bill come to our congressional districts and answer for the jobs lost? Will they look at the women and young people and those without a high school degree who will face the brunt of the job losses from this bill in our congressional districts? The harm inflicted by this bill far outweighs the benefits. We should not inflict that pain on our constituents just to satisfy a far left, socialist political promise. The economy is growing, wages are rising, and opportunities are increasing. We should not dampen this progress with any kind of policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this costly, job-killing bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a hot economy is leading to higher wages. There are 7.3 million unfilled jobs which puts all workers in a good position to receive higher wages, and we have seen robust wage growth for nearly a year in all categories. Unfortunately, this amendment does nothing to prevent the negative impacts of H.R. 582. Calling this amendment a fig leaf is an insult to fig leaves. First, the amendment requires that GAO study only--only--the effects of the first two of the seven wage hikes in H.R. 582, rather than the actual effect of the bill which is increasing the minimum wage by 107 percent to $15 an hour and indexing the wage rate forever after that. As my colleagues well know, the first two wage hikes in the bill will not be as damaging as the increase to $15. So the results of the proposed GAO study are rigged to avoid use the damaging 107 percent hike as the appropriate benchmark. Second, this amendment has no teeth. It merely says that Congress can make recommendations after the first two wage hikes have gone into effect. Give me a break. But there is no requirement that Congress do anything in response to these recommendations, and there is no fast- track authority in this amendment. Third, we already have in our possession a recent detailed and highly credible study of the effects of a 107 percent wage hike to the current Federal minimum wage. With regard to GAO's studies, at the Education and Labor Committee markup of H.R. 582 in March, Chairman Scott already dismissed the effectiveness and conclusions of a potential GAO report that might show jobs lost. Explaining his opposition to a proposed GAO study, Mr. Scott said, This amendment suggests that there will be job loss. All of the studies show otherwise. I urge my colleagues to see this amendment for what it is: an attempt to provide political cover to Democrat Members who are justifiably concerned about the negative impact of a $15 Federal minimum wage in their districts. Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``no'' on H.R. 582. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee already has a low opinion of these types of studies, and his mind is made up about a $15 Federal minimum wage. This amendment sets up a rigged process in which House Democrat leaders who already support a 107 percent hike will decide whether to move forward with it. There is no doubt how they will decide. Congressman Grijalva agrees with Chairman Scott. He is quoted in a July 15 article in The Hill regarding the amendment's proposed study: ``It's almost perfunctory. Look what we did. So I don't think it's consequential. But I don't think it's needed, either.'' Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not necessary. Let the Democrats vote for the $15 wage hike and take the consequences of it. Democrats should stop trying to provide political cover for themselves with this amendment which does absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I am allowed to close, so I will reserve until the other side does so.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will say again to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is no group of people more than the Republicans on this side of the aisle who care about working families and who work every day for the philosophies that will support those working families and, again, all other groups. Let me say again, the amendment requires the GAO study only the effects of the first two of the seven wage hikes in H.R. 582 rather than the actual effect of this bill, which is increasing the minimum wage by 107 percent. As my colleagues well know, the first two wage hikes will not be as damaging as the increase to $15, so the results of the proposed GAO study are rigged to avoid using the damaging 107 percent hike as the appropriate benchmark. Second, this amendment has no teeth. It merely says that Congress can make recommendations after the first two wage hikes have gone into effect, but there is no requirement that Congress do anything in response, and there is no fast-track authority in this amendment. Again, I will say that this amendment is not necessary. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to see this amendment for what it is: an attempt to provide political cover to Democrat Members who are justifiably concerned about the negative impacts of a $15 Federal minimum wage in their district. Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``no'' on H.R. 582. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our country is seeing unprecedented numbers of illegal aliens attempting to circumvent U.S. immigration and asylum laws at our southern border. The Department of Homeland Security reported that 104,344 arrests occurred last month, making 4 straight months of arrests totaling over 100,000. That is the equivalent to the entire population of Watauga County in North Carolina's Fifth District being detained at our southern border every 2 weeks. Our Border Patrol officers, aid workers, and National Guard units have been overwhelmed performing the vital and often thankless work upholding the rule of law to keep our country safe. They deserve the support of this body, and so do those who have legitimate asylum petitions and humanitarian needs. As we know, many in this recent migrant influx include women with children who want the life of opportunity that this country and our freedoms afford. Caring for children and families at our southern border need not be a partisan issue. Last month, House Republicans delivered $4.6 billion to help manage the humanitarian crisis and strengthen border security. While this funding is necessary to address the border crisis, more needs to be done to modify the law and streamline asylum regulations. Rather than pivot to political pandering and policy extremes like open borders, we need to recognize the complex failures of our current system and address them head-on. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Fix the Immigration Loopholes Act. This bill updates immigration law to efficiently process real asylum claims and safely return children to their countries of origin. It is past time that we debate it on the House floor. I call on Speaker Pelosi to continue our progress addressing the border crisis by bringing up bipartisan legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. The immigration crisis our country is facing has strained our country's border security and customs enforcement protections to the breaking point. Letting this crisis continue is not an option.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time and including my amendment in the en bloc. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc package. I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for their assistance on my amendment and thank the Rules Committee for recognizing the importance of this issue. My amendment sends a clear signal to the European Union on the importance of the primacy of NATO over our shared defense interests. As some European capitals push for the formation of a European Union army, my amendment expresses the importance of NATO centrality over our defense policy architecture and the necessity of military system interoperability and burden-sharing efforts among NATO allies. We all know that increases in European military capability must be made by our European allies to comply with their NATO obligations. Investments underway in the form of the PESCO pact and the European Defense Fund can risk system interoperability and present divergent spending priorities within our alliance. EU defense investments should take place under the NATO umbrella to ensure accountability and the guarantee of U.S. influence. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues again for their support of this amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

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. Madam Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are relentless in their pursuit to eliminate an entire sector of postsecondary education--proprietary institutions, or taxpaying institutions. In their zealous effort to bury these types of institutions under additional red tape and redundant bureaucratic mandates, Democrats are wasting taxpayer dollars and valuable Pentagon time. I have said during our Education and Labor Committee hearings, and I will say it again and again, I support accountability for all postsecondary education institutions. Students should not be taken advantage of or harmed at any institution. That is why Congress and the armed services have tough standards in place that hold all institutions accountable for taxpayer dollars. These requirements include two agencies already overseeing schools participating in aid programs. The Pentagon is already required through the Tuition Assistance program to evaluate the educational institutions' overall effectiveness in administering its academic program, courses, and general customer satisfaction; and the Department of Education is tasked with--and has the expertise to--monitor the school's fiscal health according to standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. If institutions fail to meet either of these requirements, there are serious consequences. In addition to doubling bureaucracy, this amendment fails to help students and their families in any meaningful way. Instead of voting for this ineffective amendment, I invite Representative Shalala and others to join me in reforming the Higher Education Act to hold all institutions accountable to all students. I appreciate my colleague for saying that her colleagues on this side of the aisle support our veterans. I agree that all veterans deserve our thanks and all the freedom they have fought for, including the right to attend the school of their choice. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'', and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 15 seconds.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to reiterate again what I said before: we support veterans. We want them to get a great education, but we want them to have the choices that they have fought for. They have sacrificed for freedoms for our country, and they deserve to have all the freedoms that they possibly need. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the city of West Jefferson in North Carolina's Fifth District on yet another successful Christmas in July Festival. For the last 33 years, the festival has taken place on the first weekend of July to celebrate Ashe County's vibrant and nationally renowned Christmas tree industry. The dedicated volunteers of the festival committee and board of directors bring together this wonderfully patriotic community around America's independence and the best Christmas trees in the country. As a former Christmas tree grower myself, I can attest to the importance of recognizing this often overlooked, yet highly significant, farming industry, not just during the Christmas season, but all year round. It is not only an honor to represent these patriots and tree growers, it is an honor for me to share this tradition with them every year.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Wanda K. Brown on her inauguration as president of the American Library Association, the oldest and largest library association in the world. Ms. Brown has an exemplary record as the director of library services at Winston-Salem State University's C.G. O'Kelly Library in North Carolina's Fifth Congressional District. She also served as associate dean of the Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. During her tenure as president of the North Carolina Library Association, Ms. Brown received many national awards recognizing her leadership in numerous library organizations, including the Black Caucus of the American Library Association. Ms. Brown's presidency of the American Library Association is the culmination of an extraordinary career in librarianship. I wish Ms. Brown the best in her new endeavors to expand valuable library services in America and around the world, and I know that the ALA is in great hands.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3351. One of the many faults of this legislation is language designed to eliminate educational options for low-income families in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body wants all students to receive an excellent education. That is why Congress authorized the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004, which provided low-income students in the District of Columbia the chance to escape public schools that were not working for them and find a private school that would meet their educational needs. Congress has reauthorized this program twice, most recently in 2017. We know the program works. Just recently, a witness testifying before the Committee on Education and Labor described her son pursued private school options through the program in part because he was bullied in his public elementary school. He ultimately graduated from his private high school as salutatorian and is now attending the University of Maryland. This family's story is not uncommon. A Department of Education study on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program found that students receiving scholarships were 21 percent more likely to graduate high school than their public school peers. An Urban Institute study of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program released earlier this year found similar results. Students participating in that program were more likely to attend and graduate college than their public school peers. If we truly believe in improving educational outcomes for students, supporting educational freedom is something all of us should support. Unfortunately, the bill before us today seeks to strip these choices from low-income parents in D.C. under the guise of protecting students' civil rights. For example, the language would require private schools to follow most of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On the surface, that sounds like it makes sense, but families of students with disabilities are exercising their freedom to pursue private school options because the public school has failed their child. They believe the private school provides an educational program that will provide a better outcome for their student. They know that student better than the Federal Government does. Who are you to take that choice away? And to be clear, the system the majority wants to shackle these families with is failing. Since 2007, the Department of Education has evaluated States and the District of Columbia on their compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In every single year since then, the District's public school system has failed to meet the requirements of the law. To put this in plain language, the majority wants to return students who have found educational choices that work for them to a failing system. And they are couching this policy in civil rights terms. That is shameful. The majority will presumably pass this bill, but I urge the Senate to reject this attempt to hide a special interest giveaway behind civil rights language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.