Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. I want to thank our colleague from Missouri, Congresswoman Hartzler, for leading this important effort tonight to highlight the concern that Republican women have for the millions of seniors that we represent in Congress. And, yes, I do come from a little community in western North Carolina that's called Grandfather Community, because there is a mountain there called Grandfather Mountain that's one of the highest mountains east of the Rockies. It's the second highest mountain east of the Rockies. And I have to tell you, when people come and see the beautiful view I have and say, ``How can you leave this to go to Washington?'' I tell them it isn't easy. But I think that we're doing important work here, and it's important that we continue to do this work and represent, I think, the majority of the people in this country. I think highlighting this is very important. And it's interesting. My colleague from North Carolina who just spoke, Congresswoman Ellmers, and I did not exchange notes, but we both were on the same wavelength in terms of what we wanted to talk about. I read my own mail, I answer all my own letters, and I'm astounded at the number of letters I get from seniors who tell me they're very concerned about the health of the Medicare and Social Security programs. They are concerned, and they've been misled into thinking that Republicans want to do something negative to those programs. It is amazing the misinformation that's out there about Republicans and our attitude toward Medicare and Social Security. In fact, it's Republicans who have a plan to save Medicare and Social Security, and that's what I tell seniors. But they've heard that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that Medicare part A would be bankrupt in 10 years; and they know they've paid into these programs, and they're relying on them to provide critical medical care for them when they need it. In the past, Congresses have taken a pass on reforming these programs to keep them solvent for both today's seniors, as well as for future generations, who are currently paying into them, like we are. But the House Republican Path to Prosperity budget plan provides a way forward. It ensures that Medicare lives long past 2020, when it's now projected to be bankrupt. The Republican plan, as my colleague from North Carolina said, does nothing to impact Medicare benefits for anyone 55 or older, but it will improve the program so that those 54 and younger will have access to the same kind of health care program enjoyed by Federal employees and Members of Congress. We're often criticized for having a separate program, but this will allow the seniors to participate in the same kind of program that we participate in. It's far better than letting the program wither on the vine, which is what those who refuse to take action would allow to happen. And again, as my colleague pointed out, it's our friends on the other side of the aisle who voted to cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare. Not a single Republican voted to do that. Our effort has always been to save Medicare, to save Social Security. And we have the plan to do it, the Path to Prosperity budget and its plan to save Medicare. It's the only plan that preserves Medicare for today's seniors and for future generations. I think this Special Order will help us get the message out to our constituents and those who are constituents of other Members of Congress; and I want to thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler, for putting on this Special Order tonight.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are welcome to their own opinions but not welcome to create the facts. When the Democrats took over the Congress 4 years ago, almost 5 years ago now, the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. It went to over 9 percent since they were in control. The reason the President's so-called jobs bill has not been passed in this House is because the Democrats did not support it. It was introduced by request. What Republicans have done, though, is focus on the task of creating jobs since day one of this session. And I'm glad that President Obama's talking about it too. We will work with the President when he comes up with ideas that work. But so far his proposals have not worked. Notice the stimulus bill that he asked us to pass that would not raise unemployment above 8 percent. He wants to raise taxes on job creators, and all it will do is destroy private sector jobs.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the aisle could make the comments that they are making about the Protect Life Act. H.R. 358 takes away no protections from women in this country. It does not take away any rights from women. It is not extreme. In fact, 77 percent of the people in this country are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortions. H.R. 358 makes it absolutely certain that we are not going to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions, even under what has become known as ObamaCare. This bill is not outside the mainstream. As the poll I referenced indicates, it is well within the mainstream. It is our colleagues across the aisle who have fallen outside the mainstream. They represent 23 percent of the people in this country who want to see taxpayer funding for abortions. That is by definition outside the mainstream. And talk about dilatory--the whole point of order is dilatory. It is an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant. And in many cases, the points made are not true. Our friends across the aisle say we should be dealing with the jobs bill. Well, Madam Speaker, let me point out to our colleagues that not one of them who spoke, not one of them who gave 1-minute on the jobs bill, have cared to be cosponsors of the jobs bill. The jobs bill, which President Obama has been asking the Congress to pass, was defeated in the Senate. It was introduced in the House by one Member, and he even placed a caveat on the bill indicating that it was introduced ``by request.'' That means as a courtesy to the President. No other Member across the aisle chose to cosponsor that bill. If they were so eager to get that bill passed, Madam Speaker, you would think that they would become cosponsors of the bill. We are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. We are doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations: that will create jobs in this country. New spending by the Federal Government won't create jobs. We know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009. And for my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. However, 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker. It doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being spent on killing unborn children.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. When I heard my colleague from Massachusetts talk about the President's jobs bill, I couldn't resist responding to it. As my colleague from Massachusetts very well knows, the President's jobs bill was defeated in the Senate. It was introduced in the House by request. Only the person who introduced it has sponsored it, and there are no cosponsors. The Democrats are simply not serious about the President's jobs bill. They are using this as a political ploy. If the Democrats were really serious about it, they would all be signed on to the bill, but they are not. Republicans are offering real alternatives to the situation that the Democrats have presented to us. We're signing on to our bills. We're voting for our bills. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. They can't pass the President's jobs bill over there. It failed. It failed on a bipartisan vote. And let me point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that when the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. When Republicans gained control of the House again in January of this year, the unemployment rate had increased to 9 percent. What they want us to do is go back to the failed policies that existed in the 4 years that they were in control of the Congress and the 2 years that they controlled the Congress and the White House.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. I will not yield. I think it is very important that we get the facts out here again. Several of my colleagues have pointed those out. The gentlewoman has time on her side and she will be able to make her points. I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues across the aisle that they are entitled to form their own opinions, but they are not entitled to form their own facts which are in opposition to what is true. Our colleagues across the aisle know that the Hyde amendment applies only to discretionary spending, has to be introduced every year into the appropriations bill, and has never applied to mandatory spending. The Affordable Care Act is mandatory spending, and if the protection for life were in the Affordable Care Act, then why did President Obama issue his Executive order saying that he was clarifying the issue?

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am a little appalled at some of the comments that I have heard across the aisle, especially those that say talking about jobs is more important than talking about saving lives. I don't believe there are many Americans who would agree with our colleagues who say that we in this country pride ourselves on saving lives at every opportunity, both humans, animals, any form of life, and I believe this is a worthy debate for us to be having today. But, Madam Speaker, the Republican-led House has also been working hard to rein in out-of-control government spending and represent the majority of the American people who elected us, and we know that by reining in spending we could do something to help create jobs. So we are not a one-note party. We understand we can do both of those things. The bill before us today is a continuing effort to steward the taxpayer money wisely, represent the majority of Americans who believe taxpayer money should not be used to pay for elective abortions, and, thereby, protect innocent life. Last year, as others have said, the liberal Democrats rammed through their overall health care legislation and refused to include standard pro-life protections that have had broad bipartisan support in the past. The rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, which prohibits taxpayer funding for elective abortions under ObamaCare and also prohibits the Federal Government from forcing private insurance companies to offer plans that cover elective abortions. It does not take away any rights of women. In addition, the underlying bill ensures that taxpayer subsidies for purchasing health insurance plans on the ObamaCare exchanges are not used to pay for plans that cover elective abortions, and does not allow the Federal Government to administer health plans that cover elective abortions. This is consistent with the history in our country of not using taxpayer funding for elective abortions. Finally, the bill provides for conscience protections for pro-life health providers and entities to ensure they are not discriminated against for their pro-life beliefs and practices. This bill has gone through regular committee consideration and passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 15 with bipartisan support. The need for this legislation is critical, as the Institute of Medicine recommended in July that what has come to be called ObamaCare should cover emergency contraception with no copay or deductible. Many pro-life conservatives are concerned that their recommendation is a slippery slope to, again, what has been known as ObamaCare mandating and covering elective abortions, because the law does not contain specific longstanding pro-life protections. A Zogby poll last year found that 77 percent of Americans believe Federal taxpayer funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother, and it is unacceptable that the liberal Democrats ignored the will of the people last year in ramming through their government takeover of health care. As you can see, Madam Speaker, the vast majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars paying for or promoting abortion. This isn't part of a radical agenda, as some of our friends on the left like to say. This is part of a longstanding and growing social consensus. Americans do not want their tax dollars supporting the abortion industry or promoting this terrible practice. In May this House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This legislation would codify many longstanding pro-life provisions and ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to perform abortions. H.R. 3 is now awaiting consideration in the Senate. As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, I will not cease to fight to protect the lives of the unborn at every turn. Since 1973, approximately 52 million children's lives have been tragically aborted in the United States. Until we have a permanent prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and protection for health care providers who cherish life, I will continue to offer and support efforts to protect taxpayers' families and children from the scourge of abortion. The unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society, and their right to life must be protected. Yesterday in the Rules Committee our friends across the aisle who spoke against this rule and bill said we're bringing up ``hot-button social issues as diversions from the important topic of jobs.'' I have two responses to them on that comment. The issue of life is not a hot-button social issue; it's at the very core of our values as a country. 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 billion unborn babies every year. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule in favor of the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the aisle could make the comments that they are making today. H.R. 358 takes away no protections from women in this country. It takes away no rights of women. It is not extreme. Seventy-seven percent of the people in this country are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortions. What H.R. 358 does is to say we are going to make it absolutely certain that we are not going to use taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, even under what has become known as ObamaCare. This bill does not go beyond the pale, as our colleagues have said. It is not outside the mainstream. It is our colleagues across the aisle who are outside the mainstream. They represent 23 percent of the people in this country who do want to see taxpayer funding for abortions. They are outside the mainstream. And talk about dilatory, this whole point of order is dilatory. It is an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant. And in many cases, the points made are not true. They are the ones who are wasting time. They say we should be dealing with the jobs bill. Well, Madam Speaker, let me point out to our colleagues across the aisle that not one of them who spoke today, not one of them who gave 1- minutes on the jobs bill have cared to be cosponsors of the jobs bill. The jobs bill, which President Obama has been asking the Congress to pass, was defeated in the Senate. It was introduced in the House by one Member, and he put on the bill, ``by request.'' That means it was a courtesy to the President. No other Member across the aisle has chosen to cosponsor that bill. If they are so eager to get that bill passed, you would think that they would become cosponsors of the bill. We are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. We are doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations, and that will create jobs in this country. Additional spending by the Federal Government doesn't create jobs. We know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009. And for my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. But 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker. It doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being spent on killing unborn children. Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Then I will reserve my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that we have the right to close; is that correct?

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 430? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and would impose no cost on State, local, or tribal governments. Again, Madam Speaker, this waiver is prophylactic, and the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory. I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Ms. FOXX. Is it appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent?

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 430 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, if our Nation's debt crisis has taught us anything, it's that we need a permanent spending solution to keep America the permanent land of the free. There's only one way to bind Congress to such a commitment, and that is through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. House Republicans have already changed the debate from how much to spend to how much to cut, yet our extraordinary crisis still demands extraordinary action. Washington Democrats went on a record spending binge and left America in an economic hangover. New taxes, as the President proposes, would only punish the Nation and reward the spenders with more money to waste. We need to stop spending money we don't have and begin living within our means like every American family and business is expected to do. We need a permanent constitutional amendment. For the sake of tomorrow's generations, let's get it done today.