Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. You can speak on your time, Mr. McGovern. I will let you do that. My colleague on the other side of the aisle talks a lot about creating a nanny state, taking care of people from birth until death. That's not what the American people want. We see that over in Europe, and it has failed. What the Federal Government does and what school children should learn, if they learn the Preamble to the Constitution and if they read the Declaration of Independence, is that we are here to secure the blessings of liberty for the people. Creating a nanny state does not secure the blessings of liberty for the people. He talks about how we are not now talking about numbers, but we are talking about ideology. I am happy to debate ideology with my colleague from Massachusetts any day. The American people do not want taxpayer- funded abortions. That's part of what we are talking about. That's part of our ideology. No, we should not be taking money from hardworking Americans and using that money to fund the killing of unborn babies. That is our ideology. Again, the majority of the American people agree with us, and we are going to stand on that ideology every day. The American people have, Mr. Speaker, the right to a fact-based conversation on the budget. We demand an end to budget gimmicks and accounting tricks used every year to make budgets look responsible when in fact they add to the debt. That is part of our problem with what President Obama is recommending. He wants us to take mythical numbers that he projects instead of real numbers that we have been using. Passing a short-term measure is a step in the right direction to cut spending while keeping the government open, but it is far from being enough. Excessive government spending has economic consequences for all Americans: higher cost-of-living, higher interest rates, higher taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, we didn't get into this overnight and we will not get out of it overnight. Investors in small businesses need confidence that Congress will use commonsense American principles to cut spending and ensure a secure economic future. The Republican budget resolution can create 1 million private sector jobs over the next year. We are not going to create these high-paid government jobs that our colleagues have created. America's solution for job creation won't come by raising taxes to pay for even more wasteful Washington bureaucracy. Democrats tried that approach with the stimulus, and it failed. Republicans, on the other hand, estimate that with the Path to Prosperity budget resolution introduced this week and passed out of the Budget Committee, wages will go up by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years, yielding an average increase in income of $1,000 per year for each American family. Mr. Speaker, we need to do in this House what the American people expect us to do: be reasonable stewards, responsible stewards of their money and adhere to the ideology which has made this the greatest country in the world. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Massachusetts knows that every time he brags about what happened when Bill Clinton left office and we had a surplus, that he is going to get an answer to that because he knows full well that Republicans were in control of the Congress. Republicans came in control of the Congress in 1995, and they controlled the Congress the last 6 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, and it is Republicans who created the surplus, not Bill Clinton. We have to remind them every time that they are trying to rewrite history. And then they blame George Bush. It is so convenient to do that. In January of 2007, the month Democrats took control of the Congress again, the CBO projected the Federal Government would run a surplus of $800 billion over 10 years, covering the period 2008-2017. But they took the Congress that January and, guess what, the most recent CBO projections available project the Federal Government to run a deficit of $7.4 trillion over the same period. This is an $8.2 trillion deterioration of the budget outlook during Democrat control of Congress.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he is ready to close.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chair of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Speaker Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. The gentleman from Washington has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time. Madam Speaker, our colleagues on our side of the aisle have made it abundantly clear that this bill does not affect the Clean Air Act. What it does is help us rein in unelected bureaucrats who are arrogant and who believe that they have all the answers to what needs to be done in this country. After listening to the debate over this issue, it's clear to me that nary a liberal here has read a book entitled ``Heaven and Earth'' by Ian Plimer, a renowned Australian geologist who takes a science-based approach to disproving so many of the myths underlying the manmade global warming theories. It is a unique, gripping, and powerful book that would undoubtedly leave a deep impression on any independent thinker. And I also want to mention, Madam Speaker, another book, the Heartland Institute book review of a book called ``The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism'' by Christopher Horner, which highlights some of the motivations for liberals to persist with the manmade global warming theory. Horner tells us, ``Global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist's dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish global governance.'' And he goes on, ``We are daily told of an alleged 'consensus' on the issue--a concept actually foreign to science--and global warming alarmists want to put disbelievers on trial. They want to control our lifestyles without anyone being allowed to question their cause.'' And he says, ``Nowhere is Horner more brilliant than in convincing the reader of the odious concept of consensus taking root regarding climate science, where alarmists and the rest of the global warming industry assail scientists and other experts with ad hominem campaigns to discredit them. History is `full of efforts to stifle innovation by reference to unchallengeable authority of consensus.' Galileo and Copernicus come quickly to mind.'' Madam Speaker, this shows the arrogance of our colleagues across the aisle and the arrogance of the bureaucrats. They think that we human beings have more impact on the climate and the world than God does. And we don't.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Irene Parsons, of Wilkes County, North Carolina, who passed away last week. Parsons was a woman who knew a thing or two about shattering glass ceilings. After she graduated from the Women's College of the University of North Carolina in 1941, she then went on to graduate with the first class of the Women's Reserve of the Coast Guard, known as SPARS. She then served at the Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington. After the war Parsons worked at the Veterans Administration. She was eventually appointed by President Johnson as director of personnel at the Veterans Administration. At the time, the VA was the second largest government agency with over 200,000 employees and Parsons was the only female director of personnel for a major government agency. Later, in 1972, Parsons was honored with a Career Service Award from President Nixon for her many years of service to our nation. She was also the first woman to receive the VA's coveted Silver Helmet award. Parson's also received the Federal Women's Award during her service in the federal government. After retirement from government service she returned to her home in Wilkes County where she remained very active in the community. Irene Parsons made many strides for women during a time in which men still filled most leadership roles in government and business. Her life is an inspiring example for today's generation of young female leaders. She will be greatly missed and my thoughts and prayers are with her family and loved ones who mourn this great loss.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 10th Anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish Americans of which I am proud to serve as Co-Chair with Congressmen Ed Whitfield, Steve Cohen and Gerry Connolly. The Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish Americans, otherwise known as the Turkish Caucus, was established nearly a decade ago by Representatives Whitfield, Kay Granger, and Robert Wexler to provide a platform for members of Congress to foster dialogue with our staunch ally, the Republic of Turkey, and in recognition of the valuable contributions made by Americans of Turkish descent to our society. The Turkish Caucus and the Turkish Coalition of America, an educational organization serving to advance understanding on U.S.- Turkish issues, will be celebrating this important milestone today with a ``Turkish Caucus Day.'' The Turkish Caucus, established by two dozen members a decade ago, has grown into a formidable bipartisan caucus. In the last Congress, over a quarter of the total membership of the House had joined the Turkish Caucus. Today, in the 112th Congress, it has 106 members. The important friendship between the United States and Turkey has proven enormously important since the beginning of the Cold War and has only grown in importance since its end. Time and time again, the Republic of Turkey has stood firmly with the United States as we have pursued our shared goals in a region where we have few steady allies. Turkey, a fellow NATO country, is a vital partner and an example of a vibrant democracy in a region burdened with inequality. The country's importance has further increased over the past few months as the region is undergoing revolutionary changes. The Turkish Caucus has become an effective platform to foster increased contacts and activities between different groups of Americans and Turkish citizens. These include meetings with our counterparts in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, which established a corresponding Turkish-U.S. Friendship Group as well as substantially increased meetings of both public and private representatives of Turkey with their American counterparts as well as with Turkish Americans. Members of the Turkish Caucus have played a leadership role in adding the voice of Congress to crucial matters related to U.S.-Turkey relations and our vital interests in the region. Turkish Americans deserve a special thank-you for their role in expanding the membership as well as the vibrancy of the Turkish Caucus over the years. The recognition of the Caucus as a symbol of Congress' appreciation of our alliance and partnership with the Turkish nation by Turkish Americans has contributed to the rapid growth of the Caucus. On the occasion of Turkish Caucus Day, I salute Turkish Americans across the nation and thank them for their outstanding contributions to America and to strengthening the U.S.-Turkey partnership. Our world is facing formerly unseen, monumental challenges. There is no doubt that now, more than ever, we need a strong U.S.-Turkey relationship that embodies democratic values, pluralism, secularism and respect for human rights. This kind of transnational relationship carries peace and prosperity dividends not only for the American and Turkish people, but also for the entire world. With these thoughts, I invite my fellow members to join the Turkish Caucus on the occasion of ``Turkish Caucus Day'' and join us in this celebration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to call attention to a significant conflict of interest within the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC)--a conflict that can and should cast doubt on its recent report to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the effect of menthol cigarettes on the public health. Last year, I submitted a statement for the Record referencing a Boston Globe article entitled ``FDA Lax on Conflicts of Interest,'' and I'm saddened to see that this problem continues to this day at the FDA. Since the FDA announced the nine voting members of TPSAC, questions have surfaced regarding financial and ethical conflicts of interest among several of the members. Rather than investigate the alleged conflicts and eliminate the shadow of doubt looming over the committee, the FDA has stood idly by as these conflicts have festered and threatened to undermine the very purpose TPSAC was formed to serve. Several members appointed to TPSAC have substantial financial interests at stake in the decisions rendered by the Committee. One member is an active consultant to drug companies that manufacture smoking cessation products. Another member stands to make money on a patented new smoking cessation drug. Both of these members have also testified against tobacco companies in several legal proceedings. The conflicts could not be clearer. Now, we find that TPSAC has, as many of the original skeptics predicted, released a recommendation that, short of an outright ban, nevertheless notes that ``removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit the public health.'' Rather than accept TPSAC's report as an unbiased call to action, we are faced with the same controversy that should have been corrected more than a year ago. The people deserve a government free from the appearance of impropriety. They have entrusted the members of this Chamber, as well as officials appointed within the Administration, to enforce the law even-handedly and to engage in policy decisions unencumbered by conflicts of interest, personal biases, or unethical predispositions. The only solution is for FDA to reject the recommendation of TPSAC and appoint new, unbiased members to the committee in order to carry out the purpose of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The FDA owes the people a fair and untarnished recommendation on this important issue and I call on the FDA to take appropriate measures to remedy TPSAC's inane report and conclusions.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. That's correct. I'm sorry I couldn't be on the floor for your entire presentation. I was in the Rules Committee and could not leave to come down. But as I came in, I heard you talking about the fact that pro-life women can be feminists, and I think that's very important for us to point out. I do quote from Alice Paul, who worked very hard for equality for women, who said, ``Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' And I think that as we work hard to see that women are treated equally in our society under the law that we make sure that they are not exploited by abortion. And there is another quote from Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I don't know if you have used it. But she said, ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'' That was in a letter to Julia Ward Howe in October 1873 and was recorded in Howe's diary. I think, again, that it's so important that women be here during Women's History Month to speak in favor of rights for women and that we point out that we are opposed to abortion, which is the ultimate exploitation of women.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague, for organizing this time to speak about the importance of protecting unborn children in this country. March is national Women's History Month, and each year other Members and I of the Pro-Life Women's Caucus make a point of coming to the House floor to celebrate the achievements of women and talk about the detrimental impact of abortions on women. Last year, it was brought to my attention that the University of North Carolina's system, which I attended, three of the universities in the system required its students to purchase health care through the university if they did not have acceptable coverage through their parents or on their own. These plans automatically enrolled students in abortion coverage, regardless of gender or their feelings regarding abortion. Pro-life groups in North Carolina, as well as the Students for Life of America, wrote to the UNC system, as well as North Carolina Governor Bev Purdue, requesting that they not force students to purchase abortion coverage as part of their student health plan. The UNC system responded by allowing students to opt-out of abortion coverage. However, a student still pays the same amount for health care coverage regardless of whether or not abortions are included on his or her plan. This situation was brought to my attention because the UNC system, along with at least 37 other university systems across the country, requires their students to purchase health care coverage that includes abortion. These universities are including the cost of this health care plan in the total cost of attendance, which means there may be Federal money covering these health insurance plans and thereby covering abortion. My concerns about unborn children not only in North Carolina but across the United States prompted me to send a letter to the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, requesting that he look into the UNC situation and determine if, in fact, taxpayer money was being used to purchase these health insurance plans. Secretary Duncan responded last month and said the Department of Education was not able to determine if students were able to use Federal, also known as taxpayer, student aid money to purchase these health insurance plans, which can include abortion coverage. This is unacceptable. There should be no question whatsoever that taxpayer money should not be used to purchase abortion coverage, regardless of whether it is through a student health plan at a university or at an abortion clinic. I will continue to work with the Department and the UNC system to ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to pay for abortions. As a Christian, I am adamantly opposed to the practice of abortion, and I'm especially opposed to American taxpayers being forced to pay for it. This is why last month I voted with 239 of my colleagues to stop subsidizing Planned Parenthood's radical abortion agenda with taxpayer money. In 2009 alone, Planned Parenthood reported that the organization performed over 332,000 abortions nationwide, and in the next 2 years will require each and every one of its 87 affiliates to have at least one abortion clinic. The vast majority of my constituents do not want their hard-earned money paying for abortions, and as their elected Representative, I will continue fighting to protect unborn children and taxpayers from the scourge of abortion. Congresswoman Schmidt, I have here a chart that I'd like to make sure people watching can see. This is from a Quinnipiac poll in December 2009. It is a little hard to read Quinnipiac down here, but it was a poll that asked women: Do you support or oppose allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill? Only 25 percent of the women polled said they support it, 70 percent opposed, and 5 percent didn't know or didn't care. That is an astounding number to have.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, due to a voting error that I was unaware of at the time, my vote on the Flake amendment, No. 370 to H.R. 1 (to reduce funding by $18,750,000 for unneeded boards and commissions) was recorded incorrectly. Please let the Record show that I support this amendment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, with gas prices going through the roof, it is time to ask the question: Is this administration's energy policy working? After all, gas price haves soared by 30 percent over the past year. We can help protect ourselves from these sky-high prices and create jobs by actively producing American-made energy. That's why I support an all-of-the-above energy policy that includes more American-produced energy, like oil and nuclear, along with alternatives like wind and solar. This will lower prices and create good American jobs while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the Obama administration doesn't seem to get this. Its de facto drilling moratorium in the gulf has already cost 12,000 jobs and 300,000 barrels a day of energy production. Mr. Speaker, we need to increase production, not decrease it, or American families are going to be stuck with ridiculous gas prices that line the pockets of unsavory regimes in the Middle East.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to halt the federal government's defense of a congressionally enacted law, the Defense of Marriage Act, is a great disappointment. When the Attorney General and President of the United States take it upon themselves to determine which laws are worth defending and which are not, they are undermining the law-making role of Congress and the law-reviewing role of the courts. There is a reason it's called judicial review, not executive review. The President should not be picking and choosing which laws to enforce. If Congress passes a law and the courts have not deemed it unconstitutional, it is the executive branch's responsibility to defend and uphold that law, whether or not the chief executive agrees with the premise of that law. To do otherwise sets a very bad precedent. Plus, this raises questions about the President's insistence on moving forward with last year's health care overhaul law. After all, unlike DOMA, this law has already been deemed unconstitutional by more than one federal judge.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, there are few policies passed in the past several decades that could do more harm to our country than last year's passage of the health care overhaul. That is why I fully support the Rehberg amendment to defund Obamacare and the McMorris Rodgers amendment to bar the IRS from spending any taxpayer money on implementing the law. Not only will these amendments save billions and billions in taxpayer dollars, they will also halt the government takeover of health care dead in its tracks. Mr. Chair, we cannot afford this misguided legislation that empowers bureaucrats and insurance companies rather than patients and their care providers. It creates constitutionally questionable mandates, raises hundreds of billions in new taxes, and penalizes job creators, families and businesses who do not comply with its draconian requirements. In the middle of a nascent economic recovery, how can we allow this job-destroying bill to take root? We can't. This body has a responsibility to listen to the American people who are demanding that we uproot this legislation. These two amendments help us do just that and I am proud to support their inclusion in the continuing resolution.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chair. I came tonight to support the Pence amendment. I just came from my office where I was reading and answering my mail. My tax-paying constituents emphatically do not want their hard-earned money being used to kill innocent life. Planned Parenthood currently has 87 regional affiliates with 817 health clinics in the U.S., with 173 performing surgical abortions, and many others--at least 131 and as many as 300--offering chemical abortions. Planned Parenthood itself has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every Planned Parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next 2 years. Planned Parenthood reports that it's a not-for-profit organization and receives over $336 million in combined Federal, State, and local grants and contracts and had an excess of revenue over expenses of almost $112 million in 2006, $85 million in 2007, and $106 million in 2008. Planned Parenthood in California has privately admitted to overcharging the State and Federal Governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills, despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. My colleague from Indiana gave also a lot of statistics about what the problems are with Planned Parenthood. Despite it being a billion- dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million reported in its 2008-2009 annual report, 33 percent of that income from government grants and contracts, that is, from taxpayer dollars. Of that, $53 million is from title X. So from these other government sources they're getting $310 million. We are not going to be stopping Planned Parenthood from giving true health care to women and children. We know that the vast majority of Americans oppose abortion. Over 60 percent oppose any money coming from taxpayer receipts for abortions. My colleague from New York talked about this being a bill of attainder and said that this is a punishment. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm less concerned about the potential that this is a punishment for Planned Parenthood, but I am very concerned about the punishment inflicted on millions of innocent lives when they are violently deprived of their lives through abortion in Planned Parenthood clinics. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72, which directs certain House committees to review the effect of Federal regulations on job creation and economic growth. Last year, the Department of Education published a proposed regulation that sets a Federal definition of ``gainful employment'' and requires certain institutions of higher education to seek the Department's approval before creating new educational programs. This regulation will likely eliminate hundreds of course offerings and degree-granting programs at proprietary and nonprofit institutions of higher education, preventing students from having access to these programs and, often, to careers that will ensure that the United States remains competitive. Access and affordability remain important pieces of the higher education discussion. As voters resoundingly underscored in November, the Federal Government should be focused on accountability for taxpayer money, but that responsibility should not come at the expense of educational opportunities for students. Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent speech on the ``State of American Business,'' listed the gainful employment regulation as a prime example of Federal overreach. He pointed out that, if permitted to become final, the regulation would deny students access to colleges and universities across the country. Fewer students receiving the education and gaining the skills necessary to get a high-skilled, high-paying job means fewer people entering the workforce. While the proprietary school sector is a diverse group of institutions, many of these colleges and universities serve individuals who are looking for short-term education or seeking certifications that can be obtained in a year or less. These are exactly the types of educational programs that provide individuals with new skills that can immediately be put to use in today's dynamic workplace. One of the many benefits of the proprietary school sector is its ability to create quickly new programs to train students to help the local population meet the labor shortages of a particular area. Many of these institutions have advisory boards composed of key business leaders in the program areas offered by the institution. The proposed gainful employment regulation will take away that flexibility by requiring the Federal Government's approval for every new program created at a proprietary institution. While we can all agree that we do not want bad programs to exist, this regulation paints an entire sector of higher education with the same brush and does nothing to give incentives to institutions to improve their student outcomes. This regulation could also have a disproportionate impact on programs that serve low-income students who may need to borrow more funding under Federal student loan programs to pay for their education. In either case, colleges and universities will have difficulty enrolling students into educational courses that prepare them for careers. The gainful employment regulation is the exact opposite of what the Federal Government needs to be pushing during an economic downturn.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and steadfast advocate of government accountability, it is a pleasure to speak today recognizing the important work that must be done to reduce the economic, job-crushing harm imposed by Federal overregulation. As the economy struggles to recover and so many Americans remain jobless, it is critical that Congress takes immediate action to reduce waste and free up capital to unleash the job creating potential of small businesses and other private sector employers. The need to improve government transparency and accountability motivated me to author bipartisan legislation, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which would expand cost estimate reporting requirements and close loopholes that have been used to leave the public unaware of the full impact of Federal mandates. It is important to understand the real-world impact of overly burdensome Federal regulations that are acting as a boot to the throat of so many would-be job creators. One example comes to me from a budding entrepreneur who has recently started his own remodeling business specialized in installing energy efficient doors and windows. This man, who is too scared of the long arm of the Environmental Protection Agency to be identified, represents the universe of private employers who are uniquely positioned to quickly create the new jobs Americans so desperately need. In his own words, this beleaguered entrepreneur explains that: ``Since the new lead laws were initiated on April 1, 2010 then moved to July 1, 2010 because the EPA was ill-prepared for all of the contractors to be registered and monitored, the complete law and process we must follow has been nothing short of a confusing, unnecessary mess. ``Although the law started with an `Opt out option' allowing homeowners to opt out of `Lead safe renovations' if they met the criteria of no children under age six and no one pregnant in the household, that exception was eliminated because we were told that it is `unconstitutional' to ask if someone is pregnant. Now we are required by law to follow a laundry list of `Lead Safe Renovations' guidelines, with fines for each violation amounting to $36,000 per occurrence. The contractor continues: ``The EPA states the health risks but I am unaware of any data to support this outrageous new law. There are so many contradictions in this law such as we are to test for lead on any house built on or before 1978 and if there is lead we must be certified as a `lead safe renovator' which requires spending $200 to attend a class, $300 on the EPA's registration fee and $60 to register in Iowa. At that point, we must initiate lead `abatement' procedures. This multi-step process involves: ``1) Testing for lead with lead test swabs costing $4.50 each. ``2) Properly recording all data for six years or risk a significant fine and audit by the EPA. ``3) Plastic off inside rooms by taping plastic on doors, vents, windows, floor and all other indoor surfaces.'' ``4) Plastic off the outside area, 10 feet away from structure and 20 foot wide posting with warning sign and caution tape, which imposes approximate costs of $100 for each section of the structure for plastic and tape. ``5) Optional donning of a non-reusable lead suit, respirator and shoe covers, which cost $40 to $60 each time used. ``6) Start abatement process of removing wood with lead on it and wrapping this wood in more plastic, duct tape shut and throw in landfill. Although I am uncertain how safe the heavy duty plastic is for the landfill, I'm sure the EPA will find out 15 years from now and make the public pay for it. ``7) Use a certified HEPA vacuum cleaner to clean the room before using baby wipes to wipe down the inside of the room from ceiling to floor. When complete, test sections of each room must be wiped with clean baby wipes and photograph comparisons of the test wipes with official EPA chart. HEPA vacuums cost anywhere from $250 to $3000 and baby wipes a few dollars for each job and every photograph and all information must be recorded or risk large fines. ``Originally the EPA said this would only add approx 5% onto the cost of a job. In my experience it has added no less than 25% and sometimes as much as 40% per job, depending on difficulty. ``Furthermore, these rules are inconsistent as they do not apply to nursing homes and homeowners can still work on their own homes without following the regulations. ``The lead laws contradict OSHA requirements as putting a ladder on plastic or scaffold creates an obvious safety hazard, meaning we could be fined by OSHA for following EPA lead laws. ``The EPA is relentless in accusing businesses of not following all the rules, even though the businesses are following the rules they were taught in the class. ``We in the industry understand parts of the law, but things continue to change fast without proper notice. Something must change before this continues to suffocate the remodeling industry in this free democratic society. Unfortunately we feel these new laws are nothing less than a government power grab in the name of `keeping people safe from lead poisoning'.'' Mr. Speaker, this is just one of a million examples of the long arm of the Federal Government reaching down to grab the throat of innocent, hard-working job creators of this great country. If we are serious about creating jobs, we should stop the talk. Stop the government spending. And act to unleash the job growing potential of the private sector. I urge your support for this resolution which is a first step towards these ends.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to hear my colleagues start talking about the need for jobs. For the last 4 years, since they have been in control of the Congress, Republicans have been talking about that and how their job-killing policies have worked against the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about an outstanding industry in the Fifth District of North Carolina that has gone about creating jobs. Businesses that create jobs and invest in their communities are our ticket to economic growth and recovery in today's economy. That's why it's impressive that Ingersoll-Rand's manufacturing facility in Mocksville, North Carolina, recently received the Davie County Chamber of Commerce's Business of the Year award. The hardworking people at Ingersoll have brought about 200 jobs to Davie County in recent years, which, during these difficult economic times, is a tangible boost to the community. These are good jobs that are strengthening the local economy. Ingersoll's major investment in Davie County is a tribute to the fact that the area's skilled workforce is composed of men and women who are dedicated to producing the best products in the world. The hundreds of workers at Ingersoll in Mocksville are the driving force behind this award, and I tip my hat to everyone at Ingersoll-Rand in Mocksville for this important recognition for their hard work and investment in Davie County, North Carolina.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't often talk about sports on the floor of the House, but sometimes a player, team or coach's actions are so exemplary that they must be recognized. Such is the case with Wake Forest University baseball coach Tom Walter. This week Coach Walter, in an act of profound personal sacrifice, donated one of his kidneys to Kevin Jordan, a freshman player on his team. Kevin Jordan suffered with failing kidneys and a donation was his only hope for a normal life. And before he even had a chance to swing his bat for Wake Forest, his coach stepped up and changed his life by offering one of his own kidneys. This is not your everyday ``take one for the team'' story. Rather, this is a story of a man of great character and generosity taking initiative to improve the life of a promising young man like Kevin Jordan. I want to wish both Kevin and Coach Walter a speedy recovery from their transplant surgeries and hope to see them one day soon on the ball diamond, winning games for Wake Forest. Coach Walter's example is more than inspirational--it is the very image of a life lived well, of putting others first. His family, his players, his friends and his community could not ask for a better man to call their own.