Mental Health Matters Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend from California for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7780, the Mental Health Matters Act, is a package of bills our country would be better off without. For example, Title VI of the bill, the Strengthening Behavioral Health Benefits Act, contains dangerous policy which would threaten access to critical workplace benefits.
How would this legislation drive employers to drop benefits? H.R. 7780 allows the Department of Labor, DOL, to levy civil monetary penalties against plans and employers for ambiguous mental health parity violations.
Employers who offer mental health benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, do so voluntarily. They should not be penalized for violating standards that are unclear and vague. Republicans and Democrats alike support mental health parity, which is why Congress has passed multiple laws to ensure employers are able to meet mental health parity requirements.
Yet, despite receiving explicit direction from Congress outlining what DOL must provide to plans, the Department has yet to issue guidance. Employers and plans have been asking the Department for years to comply with the law and provide examples which illustrate compliance and noncompliance, recommendations to advance compliance, and clarifying information on how plans may demonstrate compliance.
However, instead of helping plans comply, DOL has blamed them for not being able to read the minds of Washington bureaucrats. Providing DOL with the authority to levy civil monetary penalties against plans and increase their risk of litigation will only force plans to drop mental health coverage.
This legislation would also increase DOL's budget for mental health parity enforcement by an additional $275 million over 10 years, a sure sign DOL wants to double down on its aggression toward employers. This money would be better spent on compliance assistance instead of targeting employers based on ambiguous standards.
Additionally, Title VII, the Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act, gets rid of arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and discretionary clauses in employee benefit plans. This opens the door to increased litigation against plan sponsors which could drastically increase the cost of administering these plans.
Democrats are treating ERISA arbitration like a treacherous backroom deal, but, in reality, arbitration settles disputes more quickly and more often in favor of claimants than litigation. The only people who benefit from months and years in litigation are trial lawyers.
This bill also contains provisions regarding the youth mental health crisis. There is bipartisan agreement that addressing the mental health of youth matters. However, we can't ignore the fact that Democrats exacerbated the youth mental health situation by prolonging school shutdowns.
At the behest of teachers unions, Democrat politicians from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to school district administrators kept classrooms shuttered, despite knowing that schools were not major vectors of spread and that children were suffering from this forced isolation. The results have been catastrophic.
In 2021, more than one-third of high school students reported they experienced poor mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one study, from February to March 2021, the number of ER visits by young girls for suspected suicide attempts was up by more than 50 percent compared to 2019.
School closures fail students, which is why we should be spending our time addressing the massive learning loss students suffered because of these shutdowns. This is a problem that cannot be neglected, especially if we want to see these young people have as bright a future as possible.
Lastly, H.R. 7780 includes the Respond, Innovate, Succeed, and Empower Act, or RISE Act, the intent of which Republicans support.
While I agree that students with disabilities shouldn't have to jump through hoops to obtain accommodations at school, this legislation will have unintended consequences as currently drafted.
For example, this legislation forces colleges and universities to accept outdated documentation from students who are claiming disability status but who do not, in fact, have a disability. This legislation should have been debated with stakeholders before being rushed to the House floor, but, as usual, Democrats took a shortcut.
I encourage my colleagues to work across the aisle and utilize the deliberative process to form more commonsense and targeted legislation if they actually want to address our country's mental health situation.
H.R. 7780 is a bill that tries to do too much and none of it well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, our colleagues keep saying the goal is compliance. Well, if the goal is compliance, then it is up to the Department to define the standard. Employers do not know what the standard is. Therefore, they do not know what is expected of them to comply.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I would like to correct the record regarding a comment Chairman Scott made at the Rules Committee Tuesday that employers must offer mental health benefits.
Most health plans governed by ERISA are not required to offer mental health benefits. Let me repeat myself: Most mental health benefits offered by employers with ERISA plans are offered voluntarily.
Offering comprehensive health coverage is a valuable tool used to recruit and retain employees. When employers choose to offer mental health benefits, those benefits must be at parity with other benefits. What parity means is a matter of debate, which is the root of the problem here.
The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 required mental health parity for plans that choose to provide mental health benefits. When these employer-sponsored plans cover mental health benefits, they must abide by mental health parity laws.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directed the Department of Labor to provide additional assistance to plans to comply with parity requirements. DOL has ignored Congress' mandate to provide additional assistance to plans and is instead expecting plans to read the minds of Washington bureaucrats or face litigation and fines.
The problem with this top-down approach is that employers do not have to subject themselves to DOL's whims. Employers are choosing to cover mental health benefits. They can just as easily choose not to offer mental health benefits if Washington is intent on making it too challenging or costly.
DOL should follow the law and issue additional guidance, specifically standards, to employers and plans.
Helping employers would undermine the Democrats' long-term goal of weakening employer-sponsored insurance and implementing government-run healthcare.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, passing H.R. 7780 would do a disservice to students, workers, and job creators. This legislation has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by Representative Porter and Representative Trone.
Much of this amendment is well-intentioned. The amendment authorizes the Department of Education to conduct a study to better understand the prevalence of mental health disabilities and substance use disorders on campus.
The amendment also authorizes the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, to issue guidance to institutions on how they can continue to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other legal obligations, when serving students with mental health disabilities and substance use disorders.
However, this amendment has some issues. This amendment includes broader language that could allow the Department of Education to deviate from issuing guidance on complying with these existing laws and open the door for the Department of Education to speculate on a variety of other institution policies.
For example, language in this amendment could permit the Department of Education to prohibit colleges and universities from enforcing their codes of conduct when students engage in drug use that violate campus policies, which would make campuses less safe and less able to support students with mental health disabilities or substance use disorders.
Unfortunately, this amendment did not go through the normal committee process, where it would be my hope that much of this language could have been discussed and revised.
I believe we all want to ensure students struggling with mental health disabilities are provided the appropriate legal accommodations by their institutions. However, this amendment fails to do that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, we are hearing a lot lately about how bills are imperfect, but we should go ahead and pass them.
Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity to improve legislation before we pass it, but there seems to be no appetite on the part of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to act in a bipartisan fashion to improve legislation.
Why in the world do we want to vote for things that are imperfect but could be improved when there is a will to do that on our side of the aisle?
It makes no sense.
This amendment needs work done to it before we could possibly support it, and I suggest that we set it aside--set the bill aside--and work on those things that need to be improved, demand that the Department of Education do its job. Clean this up. Then we could pass good legislation, maybe not perfect, but certainly better than what we are facing here today.
Mr. Chair, I agree, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. For heaven's sake, let's pass good legislation, not legislation that isn't as good as it could be.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Republicans are committed to addressing the Nation's mental health crisis, including in the workplace. Unfortunately, this amendment, while spending $30 million, puts the cart before the horse and does nothing to address the serious flaws in H.R. 7780.
If Democrats were serious about improving mental health resources and implementing best practices in the workplace, they would strike the provisions in the underlying bill that will make it more difficult for employers to offer mental health benefits.
Still, the amendment, as written, is not ready for prime time. First, I have concerns about the program's bloated $30 million price tag over 3 years. It is all too common for Congress to throw money at a problem without any oversight or accountability to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent in the most effective way possible.
The amendment also establishes inappropriate criteria for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to examine. This includes how changes in workplace protocols or traumatic grief from COVID-19 in the workplace contributes to adverse worker mental health.
These criteria are overly prescriptive. Congress should let NIOSH do its job in determining what kinds of workplace factors contribute to poor mental health.
Further, the amendment directs NIOSH to report to Congress within a year on whether the best practices have been developed and adopted by relevant stakeholders. However, the Department of Labor's vague and unclear guidance on mental health parity makes it challenging for employers to offer mental health benefits; and H.R. 7780 would only increase the risk for employers offering mental health benefits.
I am disappointed by the lack of effort to develop a workable bipartisan solution to study the mental health of our Nation's workers before this flawed legislation was rushed to the floor by Democrats. This is a partisan amendment to a partisan bill, and a missed opportunity to improve healthcare for workers.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I stated on the last amendment, this bill needs a lot of work. Republicans are more than willing to work with our colleagues across the aisle to make the bill better, to make this amendment better.
Again, Democrats' favorite ploy to solve a problem is to throw money at it, but not have clear standards, not hold agencies accountable, and not have a clear plan.
Republicans have plans for how to get things done better in this country, and we would be so much better off if we could work in a bipartisan manner to bring bills to the floor; have them go through regular order; and spend time debating them together.
We want legislation that helps our situations in the country; not throw money at it; not just say, well, let's try this imperfect approach and see what will happen. Throw something against the wall and see if it will stick. That is a rotten way to run this country, Mr. Chairman. We can do better.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source