Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2022.
Federal firefighters deserve our utmost respect and admiration for risking their lives every day. Republicans strongly support assisting Federal firefighters and ensuring they have access to medical benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, FECA, but we are against removing critical oversight measures.
H.R. 2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, creates a presumption that Federal firefighters diagnosed with certain types of heart disease, lung disease, or cancer contracted the disease at work. FECA has never included such a presumption. The Department of Labor has always determined Federal employees' compensation claims on a case-by- case basis.
This bill throws out crucial program integrity measures, weakening the federal workers' compensation program. Critical oversight measures are important to protect taxpayers against nonmeritorious claims and mismanagement.
Currently, all FECA claimants must attest that their disease or illness was the result of their employment and must provide supporting medical evidence to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, OWCP. Without a process to determine whether the disability or illness is work-related, there is nothing to prevent coverage of nonoccupational medical costs from being shifted from the private insurance market to the Federal Government and taxpayers.
H.R. 2499 also plays favorites among Federal workers by picking and choosing which workers automatically receive Federal workers' compensation. For example, if a Federal Border Patrol agent contracts skin cancer from sun exposure due to his or her duties, that agent would go through FECA's claims process. But if a Federal firefighter contracts lung cancer from smoking, he or she is automatically entitled to benefits under this legislation.
The Federal Government should not treat workers differently based on their occupation. We should continue to allow cases to be judged by supporting evidence, not a predetermined list of illnesses. Yet the Democrats' bill gives blanket authority to the Secretary to determine, without oversight, whether a disease poses a significant risk to firefighters. The list of diseases presumed to be caused by employment could expand indefinitely for Federal firefighters while all other Federal employee claims are processed on a case-by-case basis.
Further, OWCP recently announced changes to improve the claims process for Federal firefighters to ensure their needs are met through a special claims unit.
An amendment authored by Representative Fred Keller proposes making this streamlined claims process permanent. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic that Democrats will support this commonsense amendment.
Additionally, H.R. 2499 makes changes to FECA without the benefit of data from the National Firefighter Registry. Congress authorized the creation of the registry in 2018 to study and identify cancer risks for firefighters. The registry begins enrollment this year, and Congress should rely on this important data to ensure legislation is following the science and addressing firefighters' needs. Without this important data, H.R. 2499 will not reflect the best available science.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are being portrayed as not being sympathetic to firefighters. Republicans are extremely appreciative of what the firefighters have done. They have been put in an untenable position because of the poor management of the forests out West because of Democrats.
But let me say, contrary to my Republican colleagues' claims, the presumption of eligibility for benefits created by H.R. 2499 is much broader than the majority of State laws. Proponents of the bill claim that 49 States have laws with a presumption similar to H.R. 2499 for State and local firefighters. This is not true.
While some States may have a presumption for a certain disease, the majority do not have a presumption for numerous diseases such as those listed in this bill. Moreover, most States allow an employer to challenge that a condition or illness came from firefighting and not from other causes outside of work. For example, an employer may rebut the presumption of occupational illness if other factors such as smoking or genetic causes were the primary cause of the illness. It is also common for States to require that the firefighter had a healthy physical examination before the onset of the disease.
H.R. 2499 contains none of these commonsense safeguards. The Federal workers' compensation program is just that--workers' compensation. We should not expand the program to provide medical treatment for Federal employees regardless of whether their illness is related to their occupation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 2499 includes 16 diseases on its list presuming they were caused by employment. Many of these diseases can be caused by a wide range of reasons, including diet, environment, and genetics.
For example, skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the United States. One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, and 9,500 people are diagnosed with skin cancer every day. Factors that increase risks of skin cancer include Sun exposure, family history of melanoma, living in sunny or high-altitude climates, and a history of sunburns.
Lung cancer is the second-most-common cancer. Smoking is by far the leading risk factor for lung cancer, and 80 percent of lung cancer deaths are thought to result from smoking. Yet, unlike 21 State laws, H.R. 2499 does not include a tobacco-use provision, which would disqualify employees who use tobacco products.
Under current law, any employee who contracts skin or lung cancer is eligible for FECA benefits as long as they can demonstrate they contracted their illness through work.
By singling out Federal firefighters, this bill is not fair to postal workers with skin cancer or Federal nurses with lung cancer. This bill throws out integrity measures, weakening the Federal workers' compensation program.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, Federal firefighters deserve timely access to critical workers' compensation benefits when they contract an occupational illness. No one is questioning this.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2499 will remove important oversight mechanisms within FECA to create an unequal two-tiered system for Federal firefighters relative to all other Federal employees.
Further, H.R. 2499 is not grounded in science or, quite frankly, logic. It mandates coverage of certain conditions without sufficient research on their causes and proceeds without the benefit of data from the National Firefighter Registry. This bill also requires the Secretary of Labor to add new diseases to the list of conditions which are presumed to be work-related but are based upon public petitions with no oversight.
Finally, DOL has not indicated any need for a broad presumption of eligibility for Federal firefighters and has directed existing resources to address the needs of Federal firefighters filing occupational illness claims.
My colleagues should support Congressman Keller's amendment, which would permanently streamline the Department's claim process for Federal firefighters and ensure they receive timely access to medical benefits when they have an occupational illness.
This commonsense solution provides firefighters with the assistance they deserve while preserving the integrity of the Federal Employees' Compensation Program.
For these reasons, my colleagues should reject H.R. 2499 so that Democrats and Republicans can work across the aisle to pursue policies that will help Federal workers, including Federal firefighters, receive the benefits they deserve.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2499 takes away critical oversight of our Federal workers' compensation program, is overly broad, and plays favorites with Federal workers.
Unfortunately, the Democrat amendments take a bad bill and make it worse. These amendments build upon H.R. 2499's flawed policy by directing the Secretary of Labor to consider adding even more diseases to the bill's presumption. H.R. 2499 allows for the Secretary to add diseases unilaterally to the list of diseases presumed to be contracted by Federal firefighters at work. Under the bill, a Federal firefighter with a disease on the list automatically qualifies for FECA benefits, undermining program integrity.
Currently, all FECA claimants must attest that their disease or illness was the result of their employment and must provide supporting medical evidence to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. Without a process to determine whether the illness is work-related, there is nothing to prevent coverage of nonoccupational medical costs from being shifted from private insurance to the Federal Government.
H.R. 2499 is essentially handing over the keys to a nearly $3 billion program to the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary can add an indefinite number of diseases to the bill's new presumption. The last time Congress gave similar authority to a bureaucrat, the administrator unilaterally added over 60 new diseases without any oversight.
Once this bill is passed, Democrats will move on to creating presumptions for a different group of Federal workers. This bill is a slippery slope, which may result in FECA looking more like a Federal health benefit instead of a workers' compensation program. The studies ordered by the amendment could possibly yield useful information, but it is information we should have before we vote on H.R. 2499. Further, the amendment tacitly acknowledges that we need more information before we vote on this bill.
Congress has already agreed that we need more information on the occupational links between diseases like cancer and firefighting. In fact, in 2018, Congress passed the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018, which created the National Firefighter Registry. This registry is expected to begin enrollment later this year and will provide reports on its data and findings soon after.
Congress should not legislate on assumptions. We should wait for the CDC's report so we can follow the science and ensure we are addressing the health needs of our Federal workers.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Democrats' amendments which are a day late and a dollar short, and I oppose the underlying bill.
The underlying bill and this en bloc amendment seem suspiciously to me like run-on bills; that is, somebody has made a commitment to do something in order to enhance his or her reelection. That is what this underlying bill and this en bloc amendment seem like to me.
Let me talk a little more about the en bloc amendment. It combines six amendments offered by Democrats. Three of the amendments would create new studies, examining the prevalence of a certain disease or health impacts among firefighters, and direct the Secretary of Labor to determine if the disease should be added to the list of presumed illnesses under the bill.
As I have said earlier, if we are going to do studies, for heaven's sake, let's do those studies before we pass a bill like this. We shouldn't be passing studies that might directly affect what it is that is trying to be accomplished by this bill in the bill itself. You know, it is sort of like shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
Another amendment directs the Secretary to report on the demographics of employees with the diseases listed under the bill. One orders a duplicative study.
You know, my colleague from Arkansas made an excellent point when he came in and said, look, there are many other people who are in the area of these fires that are being fought that are not being included in this amendment. So, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are picking winners and losers among Federal employees.
That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is not our business. This bill is not ready for prime time. There are many things in it that need to be fixed before it is passed. So, I continue to urge my colleagues: Let's not pass this bill.
Republicans are happy to work with our colleagues across the aisle to come up with a good, bipartisan bill that covers the issues that are in this bill and others that are being brought up by our colleagues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. How much time do I have remaining on the debate?
I have outlined the problems with the amendment that is under consideration now, the amendments en bloc. My colleague from Arkansas came down to discuss the underlying bill, H.R. 2499. But I am going to make a few more comments about this.
H.R. 2499 creates an unfair, two-tiered system for Federal employees, as I have already pointed out. The bill entitles firefighters who contract certain illnesses to automatic benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.
Under the bill, if a Federal Border Patrol agent contracts skin cancer from sun exposure due to his or her duties, that agent would go through FECA's claim process, as all Federal employees have done since the program was created, but the agent would not be presumed to have contracted the illness at work. Meanwhile, a Federal firefighter with skin cancer would automatically receive benefits.
If a Federal nurse were to contract chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, from inhaling medical products, the nurse would go through FECA's claim process, while a Federal firefighter with COPD would automatically receive benefits.
On the other hand, if Federal firefighters contract lung cancer from smoking, they are automatically entitled to benefits under this legislation. Other Federal employees who contract lung cancer from smoking will likely not be eligible for benefits because their disease is not caused by their occupation. The Federal Government should not treat workers differently based on their occupation.
I encourage my colleagues to reject this unfair bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close? I believe I have the right to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Is the gentleman from Virginia prepared to close?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again as to how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will allow the gentleman to close and then I will close, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia and I get along often on legislation, we try very hard to be bipartisan. I have to respectfully disagree that this amendment improves the bill.
What we need to do is put this bill off and come up with a very good bipartisan bill. We want to protect firefighters as much as the other side does. We value them very much, but this is not the legislation we need to do that. There are many Federal employees that need to be valued and appreciated, and we could do much better than this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is eminently sensible and we should all be supporting it. It is a small thing to make a bad bill a little bit better.
As I said before, we should not be voting on this bill, we should put it off until we can have a good bipartisan effort. What he is doing here would make a bad bill better, and I support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source