Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the charge that this would allow a woman's boss to prevent her from obtaining an abortion is a true outrage. It is a disgusting red herring. This bill would allow employers to continue to have the freedom to decline to pay for abortions. No American should be forced to pay for the killing of an unborn child, whether they are a taxpayer or a private citizen. The other side should not stoop to such tactics. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is not true. Conservatives don't ask for bosses to purchase weapons that are protected under the Second Amendment. Why must my Progressive colleagues ask private citizens to pay for the death of a child? I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct. This debate is far from the facts, but it is not on our side of the aisle. When you say something wrong, repeating it doesn't make it correct. This bill has nothing to do with abortion access. That is a fact. It has to do with conscience rights, period. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate so much my colleague from Vermont being concerned about the time that mountain women have for looking at their beans. I want to tell you, we have been eating genetically modified food since the beginning of time, Mr. Speaker, all of us have. Anybody who raises a garden knows that you collect your good seeds, and you try to use them over and over and over again because you have a good product. People have been modifying food genetically, again, from the beginning of time. We try to breed good cattle with good cattle. We have been doing that since we have had any sense about what was good and what was bad in terms of our food. It has been going on a long time. Guess what? I just love my heirloom tomatoes, and I am looking forward to a whole bunch of them this summer. Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about S. 764, the GMO labeling requirements. The labeling requirement provides flexibility to food manufacturers by giving them a variety of options to meet disclosure requirements. My colleague talked about the Vermont Legislature being bipartisan. The Senate bill was very bipartisan. For instance, a product may have a label with text explaining its contents or it may have a QR code or an electronic link to identify bioengineered products. The food manufacturer chooses their preferred method of disclosure. To ensure ease of use, S. 764 requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct a study to identify potential roadblocks consumers may encounter when trying to access the disclosure information. The measure allows food manufacturers of all sizes adequate time to comply with the law's requirements and provides additional protections for small businesses. This bill represents a bipartisan compromise on this issue, and I commend this rule and the underlying bill to my colleagues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind my colleague--perhaps he has forgotten--that the House dealt with the Zika crisis and the Zika virus. We sent a bill over to the Senate, and it was the Democrat Members of the Senate that prevented that bill from being debated and voted on in the Senate. We have done our job in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis. We are doing our job in the House of Representatives. I believe we passed 24 bills in this House on Monday alone. So we are doing our job, Mr. Speaker. We have problems with our colleagues' counterparts on the other side of the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say again, the S. 304 does not stop a woman's choice. It is important, though, for us to understand what is at stake if we don't pass S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act. Not only will the State of California be allowed to continue to violate Federal law, but it is likely that other States will follow suit with similarly drafted rules and regulations, forcing more and more churches, religious charities, and employers to decide between honoring the tenets of their faith and helping their employees by providing health insurance. Further, S. 304 allows healthcare providers to file a civil right of action when they face discrimination by government or subsidiary agencies. Currently, the only recourse a healthcare provider has available is to appeal to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights. Recall that this was the same office that conveniently reinterpreted the Weldon Amendment, allowing the California Department of Managed Health Care to force churches to pay for elective abortions. Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights has been notoriously slow to adjudicate complaints. The groups who filed the appeal in the California case waited more than 2 years for a decision. And a nurse who was forced to participate in an abortion and then required to reassemble the parts of a dismembered baby waited 3 years for her complaint to be resolved. That is unconscionable. It has become clear that healthcare providers cannot rely on HHS and the Office of Civil Rights to defend healthcare providers from discrimination. S. 304 provides this protection and gives these entities recourse when they choose not to participate in or facilitate abortion. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for consideration of a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 764, GMO labeling requirements. This bill leverages Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce and will establish a uniform standard for labeling bioengineered foods that is easy for consumers to access and understand. This standard provides food manufacturers with regulatory certainty and a single, national standard with which they must comply, rather than a patchwork of dozens of State and local regulations that vary from a complex list of details to no labeling at all. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, though not surprising, to hear my colleagues criticize the Conscience Protection Act. Congress has a long history of providing freedom of conscience protections, and this bill ensures that healthcare providers are protected and can continue serving their patients, customers, and communities as they have been, without threat of government coercion or retaliation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, passage of the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act was an important step for the millions of Americans who are looking for work and for the employers who have job opportunities that remain unfilled due to the skills gap. In a nine-county region in North Carolina, the Centralina Council of Governments and Centralina Workforce Development Board are utilizing the new law to foster a modern workforce that local businesses can rely on to compete. WIOA funds have been used to develop an innovative online career search tool that matches the region's students and job seekers with in- demand careers, needed skills, and local education. They have also been used in the Centralina region to provide skills development for in- demand jobs, placement for dislocated workers and career advisers, and business services representatives through local NCWorks Career Centers. I applaud the work of the Centralina COG and the Workforce Development Board and am pleased they are making the most of the modern workforce development system provided by WIOA.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 200th anniversary of the American Bible Society, an organization that works to make the Bible available to every person in a language and format each can understand and afford so all people may experience its life- changing message. Our forefathers knew well the value of casting our burdens on God and prayer and that, above all, this Nation needed a moral and spiritual foundation in order to survive and thrive. It is why some of them were also the first leaders of the American Bible Society, including Elias Boudinot, the first president of the Continental Congress; and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. From its beginnings distributing Bibles to members of the military to publishing the first Bible in braille to recently launching a library of digital Bible translations, the American Bible Society has changed lives by sharing God's word. Congratulations on this important milestone.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the city of Statesville, North Carolina, which was recently named one of North Carolina's Great Places by the State's American Planning Association chapter. The Great Places in North Carolina program honors the best planning efforts in the State. The selected cities are celebrated for their active main streets and serve as models for vision, partnerships, and collaboration. Statesville is a dynamic town located in the foothills of North Carolina at the intersection of Interstates 77 and 40. Its vibrant main street is the intersection of Center and Broad Streets, which is known affectionately as ``The Square.'' The Square serves as the center of this charming community known for its beautiful buildings, historic homes, terrific quality of life, and incredibly friendly people. The 223-year-old city boasts a variety of retail, dining, and entertainment options, with art at every corner. It is an honor to represent Statesville in North Carolina's Fifth Congressional District.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 269, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 272, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 271, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 270, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I frequently hear from employers who are struggling to find employees with the right experience and technical skills to meet workforce needs. The passage of the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act was an important step for the millions of Americans who are looking for work and for the employers who have 5 million-plus job opportunities that remain unfilled due to the skills gap. However, great jobs are still going unfilled. Americans are still missing out on rewarding careers, and many businesses are still suffering. For example, in the AED Foundation's 2016 Workforce Survey Report, more than 50 percent of equipment distributors indicated that the skills gap hindered company growth and increased costs and inefficiencies while nearly 75 percent said the lack of skilled technicians made it difficult to meet customer demand. It is imperative that the Department of Labor finalizes regulations for WIOA and that Congress strengthens the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. I appreciate very much my friend from Georgia and my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding to me in order to discuss this important issue to so many of us.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, May is National Foster Care Month when we recognize the individuals who help America's children and youth who are in foster care find permanent homes and connections. In North Carolina, it is hard to match the dedication of Boone residents Sheri and Roger Church, who recently retired as foster parents after 20 years of providing a loving home to children in need. Since 1994, the Churches have fostered 91 children. They have been recognized on numerous occasions, locally and statewide, for outstanding service to children in foster care. In 2003, Sheri was given the State's Caring Spirit Award. In 2014, the couple was named Watauga County's Volunteers of the Year by the local Adult Services Coalition. The Churches have had a lasting impact on their community and on the children who were entrusted to their care. I wish them the very best in their retirement.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years, May 15 has been recognized as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the calendar week in which May 15 falls is National Police Week. During National Police Week, we honor those law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of others. In 2016, 252 fallen law enforcement heroes were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Their sacrifice is not forgotten, and their families remain in our prayers during this week of remembrance. The men and women who dedicate their lives to law enforcement not only keep our families safe, but they also help to preserve the way of life we hold so dear. They walk the neighborhood beats, patrol our streets, and willingly do the dangerous work that make our lives safer. They deserve our gratitude today and every day.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 68th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. The United States and Israel have long maintained a strong friendship, and our two countries share much more in common than many realize. We believe in freedom and equality and share many basic rights, such as free elections, a free press, and freedom of religion. We were both founded by people seeking relief from tyranny, and we both continue to serve today as symbols of liberty in a world plagued by oppression. Israel is a beacon of democracy in a sea of violence and hostility, and it deserves our support. A strong Israel is key to stability and security in the Middle East. I will continue to stand with our friend and ally.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot in this Chamber about the burdensome regulations that Federal agencies frequently place on the American public. Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a report that puts a price tag on the rules implemented by the Federal bureaucracy, saying that Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses nearly $2 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher prices in 2014. That is simply unacceptable. Many of these rules hinder innovation and job creation and are costly to businesses and consumers. As a former small-business owner, I know firsthand how the government can make it more difficult for a business to be successful. I recognize the true costs of overregulation, such as lost productivity, increased expenses, and new financial and legal liabilities, which many policymakers often forget about. Just last month, the House approved a disapproval resolution to stop the Obama administration from implementing its flawed fiduciary rule, which will significantly impact the ability of Americans to receive advice on how to save for retirement and make it more difficult for businesses--in particular, small businesses--to establish retirement plans. The rule, which contains more than 1,000 pages of new regulations, makes it cost prohibitive to offer advice or services to low- and middle-income Americans by increasing compliance costs and the risk of litigation. The Department of Education is constantly putting obstacles in the path of innovation, and these unnecessary regulations are stifling pioneering higher education institutions at a time when forward- thinking solutions are desperately needed. More redtape and hoops to jump through are not going to promote diverse choices for students. In fact, they often add administrative costs on schools--costs that are typically passed on to students in the form of higher fees and tuition. That is why I have introduced legislation to reduce Federal intrusion and limit the costly regulatory burden on colleges and universities. As my colleagues and constituents know, the issue of unfunded mandates has been a particular interest of mine for a long time. It is frequently overlooked in the debates about reforming our regulatory system and carrying out Federal policies. It is all too easy for Washington bureaucrats to write off concerns expressed by a handful of local governments or a small subset of private businesses. But these decisions have real costs and real effects on the individuals, families, and communities we each represent. My legislation, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, does not seek to prevent the Federal Government from regulating; rather, it seeks to ensure that its regulations are deliberative and economically defensible. Asking regulators to consider thoroughly and understand the cost of a rule in addition to its benefits should not be controversial. Republicans are often accused of opposing all regulations, but that is just not true. We are in favor of commonsense rules, and we believe it is possible to alleviate the regulatory burden on small businesses and other job creators while balancing public safety and consumer interests. Regulation by bureaucratic fiat is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our government. I applaud Speaker Ryan for creating the Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens and look forward to seeing its suggestions for a modern and transparent regulatory system that makes it easier to invest, produce, and build in America.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act is a program that makes students the priority. First authorized in 2004, this program has provided significant, life-changing benefits to students for over a decade. It is no secret that many students in the District of Columbia have not received the education they deserve. Fourth graders in the District scored below all 50 States in average math and reading scores in 2013, and eighth graders had the lowest average math and reading scores in the country. The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues a three-sector strategy to improve education in the District of Columbia. First, it provides additional resources to the public school system for its use in improving student achievement. An equal amount is provided to the innovative charter schools that are opening across the District, which provide a valuable alternative for students who seek a different experience. Finally, through the Opportunity Scholarship Program, students receive potentially life-changing scholarships to attend private schools that offer opportunities that are rarely seen by low-income students. We often speak of the States as laboratories of democracy. But, in this instance, it is the District of Columbia that is providing an instructive example of the value of trying different approaches, of studying them, and then of replicating the solutions that work, not the solutions that benefit entrenched interests. That is why I am so pleased to see that this legislation includes important reforms to the program to ensure it performs at the highest standards and is fully assessed for its effectiveness. It is my hope that these assessment standards will be applied to many other programs at the Department of Education and across the Federal Government. Parents have also expressed a higher satisfaction rate with their children's schools and have reported that they believe those schools are safer for their children. Both parents and the community support the Opportunity Scholarship Program, with 74 percent supporting a continuation of the program. It is not hard to understand why that program has that level of support when you consider that 90 percent of students who are participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of students in the schools they left behind. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Ninety percent of students who are participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of students in the schools they left behind. How could our colleagues possibly oppose this opportunity for students in the District of Columbia? And that 90 percent graduation rate is even better than the national rate of 82 percent. It is important to recognize that this legislation has support from across the aisle at the local level. In March 2016, a majority of the D.C. Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a letter that ``these funds are critical to the gains that the District's public education system has seen in recent years.'' I commend the SOAR Reauthorization Act to my colleagues for their support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 706 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is not the first time Congress and the public have debated a fiduciary rule conceived by the Department of Labor. The Department first proposed a rule in 2010, but was later forced to withdraw it due to significant bipartisan opposition. A wide array of stakeholders, both those saving for retirement and those providing assistance to savers, raised legitimate concerns that the Department would be limiting available advice and raising costs. Unfortunately, the Department chose to ignore the lessons of that debacle and embarked again in 2015 on a misguided effort to create a new fiduciary rule. Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful to explain exactly why the Department is promulgating rules governing retirement advice whatsoever. Under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA, Federal law establishes ground rules for defined contribution pension plans, which may be 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred savings vehicles. Anyone who exercises discretionary authority over those plans or provides investment advice for a fee to those plans is considered a fiduciary and triggers certain regulatory restrictions that govern their actions. Since 1975, the Department of Labor has used a five-part test to determine when a provider of investment advice is a fiduciary. As I mentioned earlier, the Obama administration first proposed in 2010 and then in 2015 to expand significantly the definition of fiduciary, which would subject a significant number of new individuals and firms to fiduciary status and have a chilling effect on the willingness of them to provide advice whatsoever to those saving for retirement. On April 6, the Department finalized its regulation, which will significantly impact the ability of Americans to receive advice on how to save for retirement and make it more difficult for businesses, in particular small businesses, to establish retirement plans. At a time when Americans want to save significantly more for retirement, the Department of Labor wants to make it cost prohibitive to offer advice or services to low- and middle-income Americans by increasing compliance costs and the risk of litigation. Many of the Department's compliance requirements will be counterproductive, as those saving for retirement will be forced to review and sign a number of government-mandated documents instead of focusing on identifying the best options for their retirement savings. There are also issues related to specific savings vehicles for retirement, such as variable and fixed-indexed annuities, which must comply with the new requirements. There are also potential class action lawsuits under state law that could prevent good actors in the industry from taking clients and impose an additional cost on savers. Beyond its impact on individuals saving for retirement and those assisting them, the fiduciary rule will have a negative impact on the businesses that attempt to offer pension plans that benefit their employees. The rule holds large and small businesses to different standards, with negative implications for those most in need of assistance, which are small businesses with less than $50 million in assets in their retirement plan. As with so many other provisions of the fiduciary rule, that will raise costs and reduce the choices available to small businesses. These concerns have been echoed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Even the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy submitted a comment letter stating that ``The proposed rule would increase the costs and burdens associated with serving smaller plans . . . and could limit financial advisers' ability to offer savings and investment advice to clients.'' In order to stop the Department of Labor's misguided efforts, Representatives Roe, Boustany, and Wagner introduced this Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the fiduciary regulation. The Congressional Review Act provides a special process for consideration of joint resolutions disapproving of a regulation. Should a resolution, such as the one we will consider today, be enacted into law, it will prevent the rule from taking effect or being reissued. Clearly, if the fiduciary rule comes into effect, millions of Americans and the businesses employing them will be provided with fewer investment opportunities and higher costs, limiting their return on investments and the amount they are one day able to retire with. That is why I cosponsored H.J. Res. 88 to disapprove of this harmful rule and enable Americans to continue working with the adviser of their choice and save for retirement in a prudent and cost-effective way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that the gross domestic product, an important measure of our Nation's economic health, grew by a negligible 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2016. It is the worst performance in 2 years and dismal news for the U.S. economy. During the last 3 months, consumer spending has slowed, business investment has plummeted, and exports have continued to decline. We need a stable and predictable Tax Code under which families and businesses are best able to plan for the future. It is also possible to relieve the regulatory burden on small businesses and other job creators while balancing environmental stewardship, public safety, and consumer interests. While our economy has been hampered by the progressive ideology of the current administration, my Republican colleagues and I will continue to pursue our agenda of economic growth so Americans can feel confident in their future.