Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the President announced that his administration plans to ignore ObamaCare's employer mandate for 1 year, exempting businesses from its harmful side effects. The White House scrambling is to be expected. ObamaCare is a bad law. But it's a bad law the President asked for; and it's a bad law he, as mastermind and chief enforcer, must obey, unless Congress authorizes a change. It's no secret to anyone that House Republicans see ObamaCare for the broken law it is. We don't want any American to suffer under its weight. We voted nearly 40 times to delay, dismantle, or repeal the law, and we'll vote again to delay the implementation of ObamaCare's onerous employer mandate today. But we aren't stopping there. If businesses are getting a break from the President's law, individual Americans should, too. Attempting to justify selective enforcement is beyond rationality. Delaying the individual mandate tax is a matter of basic fairness.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I want to compliment you on the job that you've done tonight and say as a freshman that I think you have picked up very quickly on the issues involved here. I commend you for taking the time to explain things so well tonight to the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, employers need more than a 1-year delay of ObamaCare's economic train wreck. The President's flawed legislation must be repealed in its entirety. ObamaCare is already increasing health care costs, depressing hiring, and destroying full-time work. Waiting a year to implement some of its confusing, wrongheaded policies will not stop the damage or provide job creators with the certainty they need to figure out whether they can afford to keep their employees. That will come only when ObamaCare is replaced by competitive, patient-centered health care reforms. The American people and the American economy deserve better than excuses for unworkable laws. They deserve health care policies that are transparent, responsive, and focused on them. This week, House Republicans will take action to protect every American--individuals, families, and those who manage or work with businesses--from the President's costly broken law. If the employer mandate is being delayed, so should the individual mandate. It's basic fairness. It's fairness for all.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it's time to get serious about American energy independence. Removing barriers to safe offshore energy production is a necessary component of a serious American energy strategy. Our country has been blessed with an abundance of resources; and if we utilize those resources responsibly rather than ignore them, we can reduce dependence on foreign oil by creating 1 million new jobs. During the same week an Obama global warming adviser stated that a ``war on coal is exactly what's needed,'' Republicans worked to lower energy prices, to move our country away from dependence on foreign oil, and to create jobs. This stands in stark contrast to President Obama's energy priorities. Under his Environmental Protection Agency, 17 North Carolina coal units are being shut down; gas prices remain high; and the shovel-ready Keystone XL pipeline remains stalled. Jobless Americans and working families deserve better. The President would do well to follow the all-of-the-above energy strategy we led with in the House.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have acted to stop Federal student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1. Our assignment is turned in, while the President and his Democrat Senate are registering an incomplete. Yesterday, I spoke with high school and college students about our Smarter Solutions for Students Act that removes the distraction of politics from the equation and permanently settles how interest rates are set. The President requested a solution much like ours, but his own party in the Senate refused to pass the legislation. July 1 is coming, and students know that means interest rates will double if the President doesn't lead and the Senate doesn't act. Political procrastination is what we are seeing from the President and Senate. It is a good thing they sell Red Bull in the cafeteria, because a Senate all-nighter on student loans might require some.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have a plan to create jobs, grow our economy, and secure our future for all Americans. And we're doing it by expanding opportunity, not expanding government. We're holding government accountable to the hardworking taxpayers of this country. We're reining in runaway Washington spending that's driving up our national debt. We're going to reform our Tax Code to make it fairer and simpler for all Americans. We are promoting an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy that will create jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen our national security. These are the commonsense solutions that the American people deserve, Mr. Speaker. It's not fair that Washington Democrats keep offering up only more spending and political games. Real solutions to real problems, that's the House Republican commitment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Allow me to quote from one of President Obama's climate change advisers, Dr. Daniel Schrag: The one thing the President really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants . . . A war on coal is exactly what's needed. My goodness. Where are the Obama administration's priorities? Not on jobs. Not on affordable energy. President Obama's war on coal is already a threat to thousands of American jobs, many in my home State of North Carolina, where 17 coal units are already being shut down, in part, because of EPA policies. Americans want energy independence, more affordable gas, and jobs. The Keystone pipeline, coal, and coal-fired plants have jobs to offer and can play a role in bringing our country closer to energy independence. The President and his regulators should be less invested in declaring a war on American coal and more involved in supporting American energy producers and the jobs they already provide.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, let me add my thanks to the chairman also for his good work. I know that he has worked very, very hard on getting a bill here to us to vote on, and I commend him and the staff for doing that. I was negligent in not saying that in the beginning of my remarks. So I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks and for reminding me that I should have done that. I want to say that this amendment does not limit in any way the ability of Congress to reauthorize an expired program. Congress is Congress and can pass any laws it wants, in accordance with the Constitution, of course. But this amendment would require Congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period. What we are trying to prevent is the covert continuance of programs that have not been authorized. We should hold ourselves to a high standard here, Mr. Chairman. We shouldn't be funding programs that aren't authorized. It's just saying we should abide by the laws we pass, and that's what this does. We need to ensure that Congress and the public will thoughtfully reexamine these programs and revive them where they need to be. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan once said: No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government's programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to argue with the Gipper. This amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management, FARRM, Act of 2013, will bring accountability to our work here in the House of Representatives. What it does is it sunsets discretionary programs in this bill upon the expiration of the 5-year authorization period. Now, some people might think that is the normal thing to happen in the Federal Government: you authorize a program; once the authorization goes away, the program either gets reauthorized or it goes away. But that isn't what happens, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this program is to force Congress to justify the continued existence of these programs through regular reauthorization efforts. Mr. Chairman, it forces us to do our jobs. If these programs and subsidies are left unchallenged, they will continue to consume taxpayer dollars forever without being approved explicitly by the Members of Congress. As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we can't afford to put all these programs on autopilot. This commonsense amendment would require Congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period and prevent the covert continuance of sometimes wasteful, ineffective, and duplicative programs. Ultimately, this amendment will prompt Congress-- and the public--to reexamine thoughtfully these programs when the farm bill's authorization expires. Finally, this amendment will send a strong message to stakeholders, lobbyists, and special interests that many of these Federal programs have an expiration date. Let me hasten to add, this commonsense amendment would not eliminate or undermine the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and would not apply to the FARRM Bill's mandatory spending provisions. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really disappointed in the chairman of the Agriculture Committee's response to this amendment. This is a really good amendment that will help us be able to predict in the future how much money is going to be spent. It will hold the CBO accountable. If the numbers presented to us are accurate, this will never hit. I believe the chairman did not dispute my comments that the last farm bill went over budget 51 percent. We are constantly hearing that the CBO predicted something and comes in with a totally different number. If by any chance the CBO is wrong here, then the chairman will do good work in getting us to understand why more money needs to be appropriated for these programs. I applaud the chairman for what he has done, identifying problems and appropriate solutions, but this is a good amendment. It deserves to be passed, it has bipartisan support, and it will take us in the right direction. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one I've taken to calling the ``Spending Safeguard'' amendment, because it will protect taxpayers in the event CBO predictions relating to the Farm Risk Management Election program are horribly wrong. This particular program is basically an expansion of overly generous crop insurance subsidies for producers, and it's predicted to cost about $23 billion over 10 years. But it could potentially cost more-- much more. That's because the program's costs are linked to high target price estimates that well exceed historical averages. If prices fall, taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference. As many of us are aware, the 2008 farm bill cost taxpayers 51 percent more than its drafters predicted. None of us, from Members of Congress to the budget wizards at CBO, can predict the future. That is why we must put a safeguard in place to prevent unappropriated spending from eating taxpayers alive. My amendment will cap spending on this program at 110 percent of CBO predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are dispersed--fiscal years 2016 through 2020. If CBO predictions are reasonably accurate, nothing will happen; but if the predictions are horribly wrong, this amendment ensures taxpayers won't be forced to pay for another costly Washington mistake. This is a simple amendment, but one that I hope will set an important precedent. If Congress creates new mandatory spending programs, it must put a mechanism in place to make sure costs don't spiral out of control. As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we simply can't afford to create new, open-ended, mandatory spending programs and set them on autopilot. When I talk to constituents about the Federal budget, nearly all are puzzled by the concept of mandatory spending. Virtually no one of any political stripe can understand the idea of creating a law one year that imposes an unlimited, unchecked, unaccountable lien on the Treasury for all time. Even with all the handwringing over the discretionary spending reductions called for in sequestration, we all know that, in the end, budgetary problems on the spending side of the ledger will never be resolved until we confront mandatory spending. My amendment quells all of the uncertainties created by mandatory spending with one beautifully simple proposal that, for the first time in the memory of everyone we've talked to, puts a finite number on an otherwise infinite liability. To be clear, this amendment applies only to one single provision--the Farm Risk Management Election program. It does not apply to SNAP and will not affect food stamp benefits or other mandatory spending programs in any way. My amendment will safeguard taxpayers if the Farm Risk Management Election program ends up costing significantly more than advertised, prevent automatic and unappropriated spending under this program from skyrocketing, and set a striking new precedent for fiscal responsibility. This amendment should pass with broad, bipartisan support, Mr. Chairman. Over the past few days, I've noticed that many of my Democratic colleagues share my concern about the uncertain budgetary impacts of this program. Republicans and Democrats alike should rally around this idea, which simultaneously protects taxpayers and ensures the fiscal viability of this program. The time has come to put an end to reckless, unchecked, mandatory spending programs in the farm bill. This amendment may make those unaccustomed to the way things are done uncomfortable, but the simple truth is that the way things are done just doesn't work anymore--in fact, it never has. Congresses of old had no problem creating obligations for future generations to fulfill. Today we have an opportunity to change course, to set things right, to take the first step toward reining in out-of- control mandatory spending. I urge my colleagues to take this step with me and support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, just this morning I met with student leaders from North Carolina who are visiting the Capitol as part of the 2013 Electric Cooperative Youth Tour. One student asked me a question about what the House of Representatives is doing to advance education and job creation. It was a perfect question given our House Republican plan for jobs and leadership to keep Federal student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1. Almost 12 million Americans are struggling to find work; 4.4 million have been out of work for more than 6 months. Young people and recent college graduates looking for jobs are disproportionately impacted in this economy. Washington shouldn't be adding additional stress to students' job hunts. But on July 1, if the President fails to lead and the Democrat Senate fails to act, student loan interest rates will double for student borrowers. The House agrees with students, #Don't Double My Rates, and we have acted to stop the increase. It's time for the Senate to do its job. Students are depending on them.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out that none of the Members on the other side of the aisle have even acknowledged the pain that unborn children feel or the fact that half of those babies that are being murdered are little girls. Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It's sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for. Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants--many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability--life is exactly what they've been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in America's history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life. Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. May we, in love, defend the unborn. May we, in humility, confront this national sin. And may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our Nation. Madam Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings, but even animals because we value life so much. However, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic for more than 1 million unborn babies every year. There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well and as our colleague from Connecticut has acknowledged, the House has passed a bill to take care of the issue of student loan rates doubling on July 1; however, the Senate has refused to act on the bill. What we passed was what the President asked for in his budget, and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue and doesn't support it anymore. The House has done its job. We're now waiting for the Senate and the President to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. We've not been frivolous about this. We are not ignoring the issue. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as advances in medical science result in improved treatments and personalized medicine, the development of unborn children is further understood. Doctors can perform lifesaving surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the pregnancy than ever before. When a baby is born prematurely, medical innovation is increasing the likelihood of that baby's survival. Babies born as early as 20 weeks post-fertilization are being cared for in neonatal units across the country. By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. The baby responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling from it. As Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, who is considered the leading expert in the field of fetal pain, stated in a report accepted by a Federal judge as expert testimony: It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and injections. Recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgeries. According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to a painful dismemberment abortion, which involves inserting a long steel tool into the woman and grabbing, usually an arm or a leg, tearing it from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. The procedure is repeated as the baby is torn, limb from limb, until his or her entire body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. The dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the second trimester. Another abortion procedure involves injecting digoxin and/or potassium chloride into the baby's heart, which induces cardiac arrest, and the baby's killed. Madam Speaker, it's important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' It is a heart-wrenching, painful procedure that tears a baby limb from limb before crushing his or her head, or it is a poisonous chemical injection. A March 2013 poll conducted by a polling company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger. Supporters included 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. Madam Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the womb is performed in our country. That is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn children from this excruciating pain. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the evidence of the unborn pain research. Madam Speaker, I now reserve the balance of my time. Fetal Pain: The Evidence [From www.doctorsonfetalpain.org, Mar. 14, 2011] The eleven points below summarize the substantial medical and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. 1: Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization and nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.

Ms. FOXX. Is the gentlewoman from New York ready to close? I thought that was the question she was asking.

Ms. FOXX. No, Madam Speaker. I'm not just yet ready to close, but if my colleague is ready to close--

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we will use the balance of our time.