Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this recession has been tough on my State of North Carolina. With high unemployment haunting our State, it is easy to lose sight of the inspiring stories of many who continue to work hard at doing good. One of those who committed to doing just that is Doc Hendley, the founder of a North Carolina nonprofit called Wine to Water based in Boone in the heart of the High Country. Doc's vision for this organization is nothing short of inspiring. As a person who grew up carrying water, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. Doc started Wine to Water after doing some water sanitation work in Darfur, Sudan, with Samaritan's Purse, another exceptional relief organization located in Boone, North Carolina. Wine to Water was founded on the premise of giving the more fortunate members of our society an opportunity to bring life-giving water to people without access to clean drinking water around the world. Wine to Water, which takes its name from the first miracle performed by Jesus during his Earthly ministry, took an otherwise everyday event like a wine tasting and turned it on its head. By using wine events to raise money and awareness about the lack of clean drinking water in the developing world, Doc Hendley has harnessed a powerful social force and multiplied the generosity of many, including a corps of dedicated ASU students who volunteer with Wine to Water. Doc is, in essence, turning wine to water for some of the neediest people on the planet. The work of Wine to Water in places like Sudan and Cambodia has already brought clean water to more than 25,000 people. Today, Doc's entrepreneurial spirit and dedication are helping to tap sustainable sources of clean water for communities beyond the reach of many traditional aid organizations. Doc Hendley is setting a compelling example of the value of hard work and a vision to help others. He's taken a commonplace object and used it to mobilize communities in America to help suffering communities around the world. He is truly an exceptional North Carolinian, and I want to praise him for his dedication to serving needy and suffering people. He has taken personal risks to do the hard work of providing water and clean water education in far-flung locations around the globe. Thank you, Doc and all those who work with Wine to Water, for your inspiring example during these difficult times.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, and in the many days before, we heard our colleagues talk over and over and over again about how we have so many people in this country who do not have access to health care. That's not accurate. They have access to health care. What they're talking about is people who are uninsured. But let me talk about the numbers that make up what they're talking about as 45.7 million Americans who are uninsured. That's not true either; 9.5 million of those are noncitizens; 12 million of them are eligible for public programs such as Medicaid and Medicare; 7.3 million have incomes over $84,000 and choose not to purchase health insurance; and 9.1 million are only temporarily uninsured. That brings us down to 7.8 million American citizens, lower income, long-term uninsured, a much different figure from the 45 million they tout all the time. And a preliminary report by CBO says that they want to spend $1 trillion on this.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the health care debate has begun in Washington and across the country. Unfortunately, the plan Democrats have in store for the American people will do little to improve our health care situation. In fact, it will make the problem worse. When Democrats talk about health care reform, what they really mean is a government takeover of health care. With few details available, some reports suggest the plan for this government takeover will cost upwards of $1.2 trillion. As Robert Samuelson noted in today's Washington Post, all of this new Federal spending still will not fix the ``crux of our health care dilemma.'' The American people deserve a plan that makes health care more affordable and accessible to all and that allows those who like their current health care coverage to keep it. While Democrats support raising taxes and rationing care, Republicans support health care reform that controls spending and that ensures patients and doctors make health care decisions, not a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a couple of issues. It seems to me that, if a head of lettuce has more rules than tobacco, then I think we should reduce the regulations on lettuce. I think we're going in the wrong direction in terms of this issue. The other thing I would like to point out is something that my colleague from Indiana pointed out. This bill focuses totally on the issue of abstinence. It's interesting to me that I've been in so many debates where the majority party completely puts aside abstinence education when it comes to sex education in the schools. They say abstinence education has absolutely no benefit, and we know the research shows the opposite. Yet, on this issue, they'd like to go totally for abstinence education. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that Mr. Buyer has brought up again the issue that the Republicans have alternatives that are proven more effective. But those alternatives are not being properly considered by the majority party. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Levin has noted that this legislation could be also viewed by foreign countries as a hostile trade action. Many of the cloves and other flavored cigarettes that are banned under this bill are manufactured in foreign countries. However, this bill expressly permits production of menthol cigarettes. This could lead Indonesia or other foreign governments to file complaints at the World Trade Organization claiming discrimination against their products. Ultimately, retaliatory measures could be taken against American-made products which could lead to unnecessary trade disputes with a negative effect on economic growth. As Mr. Buyer again pointed out earlier, most of us do not want to encourage smoking. But we oppose this bill on the basis that it is establishing a new Federal authority for the regulation of the tobacco industry in putting the FDA in charge of this. The tobacco industry should continue to be regulated at the State level. We should not expand the Federal Government to add another layer of bureaucracy to the already overburdened Food and Drug Administration and another layer of regulation to American consumers and lives. This is not the direction we need to go, but it is the direction, again, that the administration and the majority party want to go, that is, more and more control of the lives of Americans. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding time. This bill is being brought to the floor by the majority in a manner that is closed again, adding to the record number of closed rules in this and the last Congress. Concurring in the Senate amendment blocks the minority from offering a motion to recommit. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority from having any input into the legislative process and is simply not the way we should be operating in this country. I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the dean of the North Carolina delegation.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, in many cases, the titles of bills here since the Democrats have been in control have been backwards from what they do, but this bill I think does have a partially appropriate title. It is called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I think it is emblematic of the concern and the attempt by the majority party to control every aspect of our lives. Everything that we do in this country, they are trying to control. They think they have the answers to everything and that what they want us to do is what should be done. So the emphasis should be on control, because that is what they are trying to do, is control our lives. We know that this legislation will have little impact on overall tobacco use. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if this bill is enacted, smoking by adults would decline by only 2 percent after 10 years. This marginal reduction does not warrant this legislation's significant intrusion on free speech rights and expansion of government-run regulatory bureaucracy. I strongly oppose this bill and this rule and urge my colleagues to vote against both of them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield briefly to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who has a very important point to make on this issue.

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when a crazed and racist gunman takes the life of an innocent museum guard there are no words to fully convey both our shock and sorrow. But disgust with this act of violence and great sympathy for the loved ones of Stephen Johns are nonetheless our nation's response to yesterday's senseless and ugly act of violence. While we cannot undo the despicable crime of a racist murderer, I want to express my deep condolences to the family and friends of Stephen Johns, the 39-year-old guard who gave his life in the line of duty at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum this past Wednesday. The shots of an anti-Semitic gunman have tragically ended the life of Mr. Johns, but no gunman can silence the truth of history enshrined in the Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington, D.C. When Stephen Johns lost his life to the bullet of an anti-Semite on Wednesday he was joining the hallowed ranks of those before him who stood in the way of hatred and violence against Jews. This nation will never tolerate the violence and hatred of anti- Semitism and we will preserve the memory of people like Stephen Johns who refused to give an inch to the forces of hatred. We must never allow the sort of racist misinformation and twisted, violent lies that apparently led a gunman down a violent path to gain credence here in America. I pray that this criminal is swiftly brought to justice for this senseless act. Mr. Johns' fellow museum guards who prevented this tragedy from turning into an even deadlier event also deserve great praise. Their skill, bravery and professionalism no doubt saved lives during yesterday's shooting. My hope is that thanks to their bravery and the dedicated work of the many employees and volunteers at the Holocaust Museum that many millions of Americans will continue to be exposed to the story of the Holocaust. One gunman cannot stop the educational mission of this museum to ensure that acts of genocide like the Holocaust do not happen again.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this bill includes more than $5 billion in new tax increases on tobacco companies and gives sweeping control of the tobacco market to the FDA. Chairman Dingell, discussing the salmonella outbreak last summer, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal as saying that ``there's a total inability of the FDA to carry out its mission.'' This isn't the first Democrat to raise questions about the effectiveness of the FDA. It is therefore highly hypocritical of them to extend the agency's regulatory authority to a multi-billion dollar industry of which the FDA has no expertise. This bill undermines the established purpose of the FDA. As FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in October 2007, the FDA is an agency intended to promote and protect the public health. In the Commissioner's opinion, requiring the FDA to ``approve'' tobacco products as a result of this bill would dramatically change the agency's focus. Mr. von Eschenbach stated that ``Associating any agency whose mission is to promote public health with the approval of inherently dangerous products would undermine its mission and likely have perverse incentive effects.'' While establishing FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, this bill would also retain the FTC's federal authority to regulate tobacco advertising and circulation. It would provide only limited pre-emption of state laws, allowing more rigid state restrictions on tobacco advertising. This bill imposes undue bureaucratic and logistical hardships on tobacco manufacturers by burying them under multiple layers of regulation. It is important to remember that the sale of tobacco is legal in the United States and is credited with hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. We cannot afford to lose more American jobs especially when we are facing such economic challenges. FDA regulation will have a devastating economic impact on small tobacco companies, their employees, associated businesses, and the largely rural communities which they support. Under this legislation they will not be able to comply with and afford what is sure to be a costly and complex regulatory regime. There are some 350 small tobacco manufacturing companies throughout the United States. Together with their suppliers, vendors, distributors and tobacco growers, these companies employ thousands of people. Tobacco growing in particular has long been an important part of rural communities. As most of these companies are located in rural, economically depressed areas, the jobs, employee health and pension benefits and revenue they provide is critical to our local economies. While large tobacco companies can absorb the cost of FDA regulation, many of these smaller companies cannot. This legislation will force them to close their doors, leaving their employees jobless.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' climate change ``compromise'' bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee is still a job killer that will hit every American with a national energy tax. This plan will have a devastating impact on the price at the pump and utility bills across the country. One estimate for a similar proposal found that families would pay more than $3,100 a year in extra energy costs. Representative John Dingell said it best: ``Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a great big one.'' Even the President admitted that his energy plan would cause energy prices to ``necessarily skyrocket'' and that the costs will be passed on to consumers. Various estimates suggest anywhere between 1.8 and 7 million American jobs could be lost. Manufacturing jobs will relocate to countries with less stringent environmental regulations like China and India, inflicting greater harm on American families and small businesses while doing even greater damage to the environment. The American people know we can do better. Republicans also support a clean environment and have a comprehensive energy solution that lessens our dependence on foreign oil and leads us to a stronger economy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I wonder if the gentlewoman would yield. I appreciate very much what you and our other colleagues have pointed out tonight in terms of the inconsistencies in the President's position. I also want to thank you for having pointed out the joy of having children. And I want to bring up one more example of what I think is an inconsistency on the part of the President. He has nominated Dawn Johnsen to head up the Office of Legal Council, and she is among the most controversial of his nominees. She formerly worked for NARAL and the ACLU's Reproduction Freedom Product. She has compared pregnancy to involuntary servitude, describing pregnant women as ``losers in the contraceptive lottery,'' and she even criticized then-Senator Clinton for claiming a need to keep abortions, traumatic experiences, rare. She, as I said, has said that she believes that being pregnant or banning abortion undermines the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery. And she says ``that there is no `father' and no `child'--just a fetus.'' Any move by the courts to force a woman to have a child amounted to ``involuntary servitude.'' She goes on and on and on to talk about how horrible it is to bear a child. And I think it is a very sad, sad situation that the President has nominated a woman who has these kinds of beliefs to head up an extremely important position in the administration, the Office of Legal Council. And I wanted to point that out as another inconsistency in the positions that he's taken. And I yield back.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for being the leader of this Special Order tonight. And I want to thank the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for her pro-life statement and for sharing her experience with us. We are all blessed by her statement, we are all blessed by her being here. She and I and the gentlelady from Ohio are regular attendees at our weekly prayer breakfast, and I can say that it is a blessing to have that opportunity. And it just would make us all so much happier if more people in her caucus felt the way that she does on this issue. You know, over the past several months, the Obama administration has begun to erode the pro-life protections in place to keep taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions. We know and have known for a long time that the majority of the American people do not want to see taxpayer money used for abortions, but we even know now that the majority of the American people are opposed to abortions. I think the Obama administration is going in absolutely the wrong direction on this issue, as it is on many other issues. But they began with the repeal of the Mexico City Policy, which restricted taxpayer money from funding groups providing abortions overseas. This is something that had been in effect for many, many years. Now, what they want to do is bring taxpayer-funded abortions back to Washington, D.C., by changing the so-called Dornan amendment, which restricts publicly funded abortions in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has one of the most troubling track records in the Nation when it comes to its abortion policies. Not only is the District of Columbia part of a notorious group that allows minors to receive abortions, only the District of Columbia and three States have such laws, but it also has one of the highest abortion rates in the country. It is no secret that the District of Columbia's lax abortion policies draw women to D.C. abortion clinics from other States. Repealing the Dornan amendment would mean allowing D.C. to use tax dollars to foot the bill for abortions for minors and potentially for minors from other States. It is a real travesty when most of our children cannot get any kind of treatment from a physician. They can't get a shot. They can't get a preventative shot. They can't get any treatment. They couldn't be sewn up in a hospital if they are hurt or at school without permission from their parents. However, the District of Columbia allows these minors to get an abortion, to kill a human life. And, again, polls have shown that a majority of Americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion. We must preserve the Dornan amendment and keep hardworking Americans' tax dollars from paying for abortions, a practice that violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans. We also know that taxpayer-funded abortions increase the number of abortions done because the research has been done on that. But I, again, applaud my colleague from Ohio for leading this Special Order tonight. And I want to say that I share Congresswoman Dahlkemper's philosophy, that I support life from conception to natural death, and I think that a society that devalues the unborn will soon devalue those who are born, and I do not want to see our country going down that slippery slope because it would not be good for us.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Indiana made some very, very eloquent and compelling remarks about the status of our economy, and my colleague from West Virginia gave valuable information on energy and called attention to some important issues. My distinguished colleague from Florida, whom I like and admire very much, says the energy bill will create jobs, but he's wrong. It will kill jobs. He never answered his own question: Why don't we produce those mirrors in the United States? Because our taxes are high and regulations drive jobs overseas. America, if the Democrats pass this cap-and-tax bill, get ready to pay more for electricity, a lot more. This cap-and-tax scheme, better known as a national energy tax, if it becomes law, will cost $846 billion. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimate. The CBO is a nonpartisan organization. Who's going to bear the brunt of this new national energy tax? Anyone who turns the lights on, but it's also going to be especially harmful for many of my constituents and all others who work in manufacturing. As companies adjust to this new energy tax, many will be forced to ship jobs and the accompanying greenhouse emissions overseas where energy costs will be much lower. Many employers will face the tough choice of outsourcing or going out of business altogether. This destructive energy policy will kill millions of American jobs and permanently send them overseas, and I and many others cannot support this. I want to quote from a report that came out from the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp, who has based his comments on this CBO report that's come out. He says that, ``The facts are plain and clear: Democrats in Congress are breaking the President's pledge not to raise taxes on working families. The President has repeatedly stated married couples earning less than $250,000 a year would not face higher taxes, but this legislation imposes an energy tax on every American and provides no help to families making more than $42,000 or individuals making as little as $23,000. Increasing Americans' fuel and utility bills in this recession is not only bad policy, but it completely ignores the hardships millions of Americans are already facing. This is dangerous legislation in desperate need of closer review.'' Republicans want energy independence for Americans, and we can have it but not under this cap-and-tax bill. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out one other issue that is before the Congress recently, and that is money for the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, in the supplemental bill. What the Democrats want to do is cut $5 billion from our troops in order to fund the IMF. And because any IMF member country may apply for these loans, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Burma are all eligible. Therefore, state sponsors of terrorism can receive American taxpayer money under the Democrats' proposal. The New York Times reported on May 27 that Hezbollah is in talks with the IMF about continuing loans to Lebanon should they win the election. Therefore, a terrorist organization could receive American taxpayer dollars under the Democrats' proposal. To loan the IMF $108 billion, the U.S. will have to borrow the money from other countries, like China. A loan of this size to the IMF will put America further into debt, a cost that will be paid by our grandchildren and children, a point so well-pointed out by my colleague from Indiana. Also, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, American taxpayers will actually lose money by loaning it to the IMF. While countries like China, Russia, Brazil, and India have announced they will not participate in loans, the Democrats are asking Americans to support this. Finally, the American taxpayers are sick of bailouts in their own country. How can Democrats rationalize a global bailout?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, before leaving for the Memorial Day recess, Democrats in Congress continued to advance national energy tax legislation that will devastate American families and small businesses. For weeks, nervous Democrats pleaded with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Representative Ed Markey, two lead sponsors of this national energy tax, for changes to their climate change bill. The changes were intended to soften the blow families in their home States would suffer as a result of this new national energy tax. Unfortunately, the bill passed the Energy and Commerce Committee, is moving its way through Congress, and is still just a great big energy tax. The American people deserve better. Republicans have held energy summits across the country to talk directly to the American people about the Democrats' costly energy plan and to develop real energy solutions that ensure American energy independence. Congress must reject the Democrats' national energy tax and deliver energy solutions that create a stronger economy and a cleaner environment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, despite rising gas prices across the country, Democrats in Washington continue to push for a national energy tax that will make the pain at the pump even worse. Just 1 year ago, gas prices made their steady rise to over $4 a gallon. A return to record gas prices would be especially harmful during the current economic recession. But that is not deterring Democrats from moving forward with their national energy tax plan. Representative John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, said it best when he said, ``nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and a great big one.'' Republicans in Congress realized this startling reality, and the American people are beginning to as well. Over the past week, Republicans held energy summits in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and San Luis Obispo in California. These summits provide an important opportunity to explain to the American people the devastating consequences of the Democrats' national energy tax plan and to craft better energy solutions. The American people don't want the Democrats' national energy tax. They want and deserve energy independence.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, under the Democrats' national energy tax plan, American households will pay on average $3,100 a year in extra energy costs, and between 1.8 and 7 million American jobs will be lost. The President admitted under his energy plan, energy prices would ``necessarily skyrocket'' and that the cost would be passed on to American consumers. Manufacturing jobs will be relocated to other parts of the world, like India and China, which have less stringent environmental restrictions, hurting American workers and our environment. Forcing through Congress an energy plan that raises energy prices and that leads to further job loss during a time of economic crisis is irresponsible and the wrong direction to take our country. The American people know that we can do better. Republicans want a clean environment and will create comprehensive energy solutions that lessen our dependence on foreign oil and that lead us to a stronger economy. The American people deserve American energy independence created by American workers.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Mr. McHugh, for introducing this legislation to honor Frederic Remington. I'm sure it is a very well-deserved honor, and I'm glad that we have the opportunity to do it here today. However, there is a really critical issue facing our country these days, and it is the cap-and-tax plan that the Democrats are doing their best to get passed in the House of Representatives. We know that the Commerce and Energy Committee voted it out the night we left for our district work period for Memorial Day. But we also know that it is not good legislation for this country. The truth behind the Democrats' cap-and-tax plan is that it is a national energy tax which will kill jobs, raise taxes, and lead to more government intrusion in our lives. This is an irresponsible proposal that will do more harm than good. The President's energy plan is a $646 billion national energy tax that will hit every American family, small business and family farm. Family energy costs will rise on average by more than $3,100 a year. Those hardest hit by this massive tax will be the poor, who experts agree spend a greater proportion of their income on energy consumption. So much for the President's promise to cut taxes for everybody who makes less than $200,000 a year. A devastating consequence will be fewer jobs for hardworking Americans. Various studies suggest anywhere from 1.8 million to 7 million jobs could be lost. Republicans believe there are better solutions than more taxes, fewer jobs, and more government intrusion. House Republicans want to increase American energy production made by American workers, encourage greater efficiency and conservation, and promote the use of clean alternative fuels. House Republicans offer a plan that is more environmentally friendly than the Democratic plan. The Democrat cap-and-tax plan will relocate manufacturing plants overseas in countries with far less stringent environmental regulations. Furthermore, the GOP plan will include nuclear energy which does not emit carbon. We find it very interesting that we know very well that the French, who have gotten 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power, have no problem with their nuclear waste because they recycle everything and wind up with very, very small amounts of waste and yet the Democrats deny this opportunity to create electricity from nuclear power. We think the American public needs to be made aware of this issue, and we're going to do everything we can to educate the public on the disastrous way that the Democrats are taking this country in terms of cap-and-tax.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Utah for the recognition. I want to make it clear, as my colleague from Arizona made it clear, we mean no disrespect, no denigration to the people for whom these post offices are being named. In fact, we're all very proud of Mr. McHugh, the nominee for the Secretary of the Army, whose bill preceded this bill. I want to commend my colleague from Maine for introducing this legislation to honor Carl B. Smith with a post office named in his honor. However, we know the way that things are handled around here. It's been all too clear a pattern. When it comes time to debate the legislation that is of major significance to everyone in this country, we wind up with closed rules and we wind up with debate cut off. And so it is up to us to inform the American people at every opportunity that we have what the impact of proposed legislation by the majority is going to be. We hear over and over again when earmarks are requested by people on the other side that it's important that they bring home the bacon to their districts. Well, it's important to our constituents that they be told how much this cap-and-tax bill is going to cost them, because many Americans do not know it. And I would say that the things that I have heard in Special Orders and even in the 1-minutes where folks on the other side are talking about cap-and-tax, it's as though we're talking about two different bills. So we're not really having a debate on the merits of a piece of legislation. We're hearing a lot of propaganda about that legislation, but we're not having a real true debate on it. So it's up to us to inform the American people of the facts of the legislation. As my colleagues have said before, the cap-and-tax bill that was passed out of the Congress in the Energy Committee a couple of weeks ago is a government planning scheme. It is more of taking all the choices in people's lives in this country up to the Federal Government level. It will stifle private sector innovation. We are the most innovative country in the world because of the freedom that we have, and yet all the legislation coming through this Congress is aimed at stifling that freedom. It is going to result in higher consumer energy prices. We know that. The President has admitted it. One of our colleagues from Michigan has admitted it's a huge tax. The President has said the prices are going to skyrocket. So how can they deny it when their own leadership has said it? We know it's going to result in job losses, lower wages, and stock devaluation. It's not likely to reduce emissions, and there is no guarantee that reducing U.S. emissions is going to stop what is being called global warming. We don't even know that human beings are causing the global warming. So we're using--I'm not even sure you can call it bad science. I think using the term ``science'' in conjunction with what is the underlying rationale for this bill is too strong a word. But Republicans do have an alternative. Contrary to what our colleagues are saying over and over, we are not the Party of No. We are the Party of Do, and do right by the American people. The American Energy Innovation Act, which is the Republican alternative to this, encourages innovation within the energy market to create the renewable fuel options and energy careers of tomorrow. It promotes greater conservation and efficiency by providing incentives for easing energy demand and creating a cleaner, more sustainable environment. It increases the production of American energy by responsibly utilizing all available resources and technologies and streamlining burdensome regulations. We have an alternative. It is a viable alternative. But that bill will never be debated. You talk about wanting debate. You talk about wanting discussions. Why not bring that bill up and let it be debated? Why not put it up for a vote just like the cap-and-tax bill will be put up for a vote? No, that's not the way of this majority. The way of this majority is to stifle every idea that is good for this country and say, We won. We're going to do what we want to do. That's the attitude of the majority party. That is not true debate. We would love to have true debate. We'd love to see the people on this floor have choices. They are not being given choices. They're not being allowed to debate. So, Madam Speaker, we don't mean in any way to take away from the honors being given to these people for whom post offices are being named. As was pointed out earlier, one of them was by one of our Republican colleagues that we respect. But we think it's important to inform the American people of what they will be facing if some of the legislation being proposed by the Democrat majority is passed.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in solemn remembrance of the life of a fallen hero, 1st Lieutenant Leevi Khole Barnard, of the North Carolina National Guard. Lieutenant Barnard was killed while serving his country in Iraq on May 21 when an improvised explosive device targeted his unit in Baghdad. Lieutenant Barnard joined the North Carolina National Guard in 2004 after graduating as a Distinguished Military Graduate from the Advanced Individual Training Class at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. His unit, the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, was recently deployed to Iraq this April. Lieutenant Barnard graduated from UNC Charlotte, where he participated in the university's ROTC program. This selfless American patriot, who paid the heaviest price for his country, will be remembered forever as a young man whose life was overflowing with potential and whose personality filled other people's lives with joy. His tragic death in the line of duty is an irreplaceable loss for his family and friends, his community and his country. Today we mourn with those who mourn. And we pay tribute to and honor this soldier and his inspiring life that was cut short while he was serving his country. His country owes him an immeasurable debt of gratitude for his 5 years of service and his great sacrifice on the battlefield. May God's peace be with Lieutenant Barnard's family, friends and all those who continue to mourn his death and remember his life.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much the comments by my colleague, but I want to say again, going back to my comments that my colleague from Illinois made about the title of this bill, Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, if what we really are about here is job creation, then we would be embracing Mr. Roskam's amendment because we know, from a study done by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith, these numbers: Repealing the Federal estate tax would increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion. We would increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent. We would increase payrolls by 2.6 percent. We would expand investments by 3 percent. We would create 1.5 million additional small business jobs. We would slash the current jobless rate by almost 1 percent--0.9 percent. So, again, there is a different world view here. The world view of the majority is the government is going to do this. The world view of our side is allow the people to keep more of their money. They will create the jobs. It will be a minuscule number of people who would ever use the resources that are going to be created with this bill. Again, the intent is good. Nobody is discounting the good intentions of the authors of this bill. However, we could do a lot more by not creating more bureaucracy, by not taking more money from the people of this country and then having the government deciding how to spend it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume, again, to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time, and I will yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill very, very carefully. It's a bipartisan bill supported by some of my colleagues on this side. I think that the intent of the bill is very positive. I know the folks who are interested in this bill and know that they have the best intentions. But I want to say that I think that, as a former small business person, and someone who has administered programs such as these through my work as a former community college president, a university administrator, and having been on a school board and dealt with agencies that operate these kinds of programs, I want to say that I have some concerns about this bill and about the rule. I am concerned that because this was a bipartisan bill, that we have a closed rule on this. I think that it would have been a great opportunity for the majority to have given an opportunity for us to offer a lot of amendments to the bill, have a great deal of discussion on it. And I'm very concerned about the process, again, because we haven't gone through a process that I think would have been fair to our side of the aisle. However, I also want to say that I think that, while this bill has a great title, and the intent is a good intent, that what small businesses, the engine of our economy, need are things that are different from this bill. We're going to have many different programs in here. As I said, I went through the bill very, very carefully. I looked for ways that it's really going to create jobs, and I can't see the kind of accountability that I was hoping to see in the bill and as we talked about yesterday in the Rules Committee. We're going to be creating, I think, a lot of jobs for bureaucrats; but it's very difficult, again, to see how we're going to create jobs in the small business arena. And I think that we come from two different world views in terms of how we approach this kind of an issue. We know that people are hurting in this country. We know that many jobs have been lost, and we'd like to see those jobs recovered. And we know that at least half of the jobs in this country are in small businesses. And I talk to those people every day, and they tell me they're struggling, they're spending down their savings, the individuals are spending down their savings. They're doing everything they can to stay in business. I talked to a gentleman this morning who had geared up in anticipation of receiving stimulus money to repair roads and bridges in North Carolina, and he doesn't understand why none of that money is coming down the pike. So, again, people in small business are struggling, and they want to do something to keep their people employed. I just don't believe that this bill is going to do it. I also don't understand, again, why this bill has been scheduled in a getaway week, when, again, with a process that is not as open as it could have been, in a noncontroversial bill, where we could have discussed it and perhaps amended it and come up with a way to really help small businesses. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my side of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the rule, and we'll discuss more reasons why as we go along during this debate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for correcting my misstatement about the rule. And I'm curious about the number of new jobs that the Small Business Administration is said to have created in the past. I'm very curious to know how much each of those 73,000 new jobs cost us, because we know that in much of the legislation that has been passed this year, there has been a great cost to the jobs. And, yesterday, in the debate in the Rules Committee, everybody agreed that there has been very little accountability and evaluation on the part of the Small Business Administration in terms of the effect of the Small Business Administration in terms of pinning down numbers. We know, by the Small Business Administration, that small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Of 116.3 million nonfarm private sectors in 2005, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 58.6 million, and large firms employed 57.7 million. Firms with fewer than 20 employees employed 21.3 million. And what we know, from talking to these people, is that what concerns them is not so much that we have the government out there saying, we're from Washington and we're here to help you, but there are very specific things that small businesses tell us that they would like. Let me talk a minute about the death tax, for example. We all know that the voice of small business on Capitol Hill is NFIB, and NFIB has been talking for a long time about the permanent death tax repeal. They did a member ballot recently, and 89 percent of small business owners said they want full repeal of the death tax. Opponents of permanently repealing the death tax claim eliminating this tax will do nothing to stimulate economic growth. But we know that the studies that have been done tell a very, very different story. Yet, our colleagues across the aisle are adamantly opposed to eliminating the death tax. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, my colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about this, and he was corrected by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, saying, no, this is not an important issue to small businesses; that it's not one of their top issues. But we know that it is. And there's a lot of research to show that. I will talk some more again about the facts that we have about what small businesses would like to see us do. Before I do that, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.