Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Insanity, excuse me. The definition of insanity.

Ms. FOXX. I've noticed in the newscast how many people are losing their jobs in private industry. I haven't heard one word about any people on the Federal payroll who are losing their jobs. I agree with you: We have no business expanding the Federal Government at any level. We should be cutting back just like our constituents are cutting back, and we should balance the budget. We cannot continue to operate that way.

Ms. FOXX. Now, you've been a physician, but you've also been a businessman, and I think that's important. With 350 employees, that's a pretty good-sized small business. You understand that what was done today with this cramdown bill is going to affect taxpayers, and you understand how it's going to affect the people who play by the rules. I'll bet you had some of that in your practice, too, didn't you?

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. Many of us are passionate about this issue, and that's why I never let an opportunity go by to bring it up myself. We're going to have to get our Constitution caucus going and do a Special Order one night soon. It looks like we're going to have a lot of folks who represent the medical community here tonight. The second person whom I want to recognize tonight is a new Member of Congress this year. He is a physician and a former mayor of a town in eastern Tennessee. He is my neighbor in Tennessee. Our districts join each other. I'm in North Carolina. He's in Tennessee. He's going to bring us some wisdom from the heartland of this country from his experiences in being out, talking to folks, and some of his reflections on what has been happening. I would like to recognize Congressman Roe from the great State of Tennessee.

Ms. FOXX. I will.

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. What he has done is put to rest the comments made by so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say that Republicans are the party of ``no'' and that we don't have a plan. Republicans, throughout this entire congressional session, beginning in January, have offered great alternatives to the abysmal proposals that have been given by the Democrats to deal with this economic situation. We understand that the American people are hurting. We want to help the American people in ways that we know are proven ways to make things better. What the Democrats have proposed are the things that will make the situation worse. The American people know we cannot tax and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. They know that raising taxes during a recession, on almost every American, is a prescription for economic decline. They know that raising taxes on small businesses, where a majority of Americans go to work every day, will not put American families back to work. They know that cutting deductions for charitable giving will harm higher education, scientific research and religious organizations struggling to stay afloat. The American people know now more than ever before that Democrats are on the side of more government and more taxes. And we hope, through explaining our plans, that the American people are going to understand in a very tangible way that House Republicans are on their side, and we will continue to be on their side.

Ms. FOXX. When we were debating this bill last week, one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that this is not going to cost the taxpayers a single penny. I responded: Well, the last time I looked, the banks are owned by shareholders, and those shareholders pay taxes if they have any kind of profit. It seems to me that shareholders and taxpayers are the same people. Those banks that you're talking about in your community, those community banks, are they owned by shareholders who pay taxes?

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to lead this special order on behalf of the Republican leader and am pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues now on the floor and others who will be coming. I want to say that we are going to talk about the economy tonight. We are going to talk about the cramdown bill that was passed here today. But I do want to say in response to the Progressive group, I think they call themselves, that was just speaking, is that any time I hear people talking about the need to do less in defense for this Nation, I want to say that I wake up every single morning and the first thing I do is say thank you, Lord, for letting me live in this country, and the last thing I do before I go to sleep at night is say thank you, Lord, for letting me live in this country, because I believe we live in the greatest country ever, and I know in large measure that is because of the great national defense that is provided to us by the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us a free people. Do I think that we should write a blank check for defense? No, I don't believe that. But I do know from reading the Constitution, and all of us are sworn to uphold the Constitution, that national defense is the number one role of the Federal Government. It has to be mentioned over and over again because, unfortunately, too many people talk about all these things we could be doing for the people of this country if we just didn't spend all this money on national defense. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that States can't provide national defense, the counties can't provide national defense, the municipalities can't provide national defense. And we individuals can't provide for our national defense, except as part of a larger body. So it is our Number 1 responsibility as a Federal Government. And if we have money left over, then, fine. We may be able to do other things. But if we have money left over, the first thing we should do is give it back to the people from whom we take it forcibly and allow them to vote how to decide to spend it. I want to say that I don't say to people who criticize the defense budget that they're not patriots. But I think they should be very explicit about where they think money is being wasted. And again, if there's money left over, let's just give it back to the American citizens. Let's not spend it in Federal bureaucracies. So, as I said, we came here tonight to talk about the economy. That's the thing that's probably on most people's minds. Thank goodness we have a military that is allowing us to be safe, allowing us to be here on this floor at night, allowing us, every citizen in this country, to go about his or her job on a regular basis, all their activities, whatever they're doing and feel safe. But what's on the minds, again, of most of the people is the state of our economy and the inaction and incompetence of the Democratically- controlled Congress and this administration in terms of how they have responded to the problems in our economy. So I want to recognize some of my colleagues who are here tonight and allow them to share some of their concerns. I'm going to be here for the entire hour. I'm going to let them speak, and then I will come back and, if there are things that still need to be said, then I will take up some time and share some information with those of you who are listening to us tonight. The first person that I would like to recognize is our distinguished colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who have come today to speak on this rule. They have been extremely eloquent in explaining why we are opposed to this rule and the underlying bill. We are in a terrible situation in this country in terms of our economic situation. And what this bill is going to do is it's going to have the effect of making the current situation even worse, and let me explain a little bit why that is the case. This bill is going to require that banks have increased capital reserves, which is going to mean we are going to have decreased lending of all types. Every day I hear from people across the country, particularly developers, who say they cannot get loans, there is no capital out there, and it is hurting our economy. Some of us wonder if our colleagues understand this and understand that the effect of this bill is to make the economy worse and wonder if that is an intention for this bill. I think that we have to say that we had hoped that the bill that was pulled last week was going to come back as a better bill, and yet it has not. It's made this underlying bill either worse or it's simply window dressing. The new rule that has come in is basically not doing anything to help our situation and it's not helping the underlying bill. There was a promise that this was going to be better. We knew there were moderates on the other side who were having problems voting for this rule and voting for this bill. They have now, I think, been fooled into thinking that this is a better bill. It is not. As my colleagues have so eloquently said, there is a reward for irresponsibility and punishment for responsibility. We have heard the President say over and over and over, we need a new era of responsibility and accountability. This does just the opposite. This rule and this bill deserve the emperor's new clothes award because it doesn't do anything that they pretend it is going to do. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill when it comes up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Ms. FOXX. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have several remaining speakers.

Ms. FOXX. I do thank you again for including my suggestions in the bill. As I said last week on the floor, and as I have indicated to you personally, I thank you very much. I wish we could have made the bill even better, but thank you.

Ms. FOXX. If I could engage in a very short colloquy with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith from Texas.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Royce).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would yield for a question.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put the microphones close to their mouths because there are times we can't understand the words over here because the volume is not coming through. I would like to say that I understand my colleague is very concerned about the issue of fairness, but I think that we need to think about those people who played by the rules and not those who tried to go around the rules. We're not being fair to those people. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for sharing this time with me and for taking the lead on this special order on stem cell research. I want to also say that I want to associate myself with the remarks from our colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) in saying that this is an extremely important issue for us to be dealing with. If we don't deal with the issue of life, if we don't deal with what are the ethical principles that drive us, then the other things really don't matter. We have a lot of things that are weighing on people's minds in terms of the economy, and we know that's important, and we are very concerned about folks who have lost their jobs and who are struggling with the economy. But what's most important is that we deal with the essential elements of what makes us human beings, and I think it's important that we are doing this Special Order tonight. One of the most gratifying experiences that I have had since I have been in Congress was one night about 3\1/2\ years ago when we were supposed to be doing a Special Order on stem cell research. We were scheduled to do that. I wasn't going to lead it, but all of my colleagues suddenly had conflicts and asked me if I would lead the Special Order. I was standing right here and I spoke for about 40 minutes about the issue. And when I got back to my office, which took me about 5 minutes, it was at 9:30 at night, and one of my staffers was still there waiting for me, and she told me that she'd had a call, as soon as I finished my speaking on the floor, from a gentleman from Maryland. He said he had never watched C-SPAN in his life. He was surfing through the channels, saw this little gray-haired woman standing on the floor of the House, wondered how an average citizen was able to stand on the floor of the House and speak because he thought it was only Members of Congress that could do that. So he stopped to listen. And he heard my description of stem cell research. And he just called to thank me for doing it and to tell me that he didn't understand the issue and now he did and he was very gratified by that. So I am very, very pleased that our speaking to people about this issue does make a difference, and I hope that by having this Special Order today, we will have many people who understand the issue better and will have their minds changed if they were going in the wrong direction or have their minds made up if they didn't have an opinion. What I did that night was describe basically what stem cell research is and what are the differences in the way people talk about it, and I think that continues to be an important issue. I am a very strong pro-life person. All people who are pro-life are in favor of stem cell research. I support stem cell research. Many people believe that pro-life people do not support stem cell research. However, we don't support research that requires the killing of human life. That's what's important to us. We know that we can do stem cell research without destroying human life. We also know that a lot of taxpayer money is being spent on embryonic stem cell research. And I think, frankly, we're paying more than our fair share for research that many people find to be morally repugnant. For 2008 NIH estimated it would spend $37 million on embryonic stem cell research. That $37 million is not nothing; it is a lot of money. However, from that money we have achieved no positive results. That is, we have nothing to show for all the money that has gone into embryonic stem cell research. That point needs to be made over and over again because we have gained treatment for 70 diseases through the use of adult stem cell research, and what separates those of us who are pro- life from those who are pro-abortion is that we support research into adult stem cells. One of the reasons I am also very excited about the research that is going on in adult stem cells is because Dr. Anthony Atala and his team at Wake Forest in the Institute of Regenerative Medicine are getting great results as a result of their research into adult stem cells and they are not destroying human life. Dr. Atala, who came to Wake Forest from Harvard and brought a large team with him, is a tissue engineering specialist, and he has found that amniotic fluid stem cells have those pluripotent properties that have been pointed out earlier that grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. He's received tremendously positive response, particularly in growing bladders. In addition, stem cells coming from the umbilical cord and from the placenta and amniotic fluid have shown tremendous results, as my colleague Mr. Smith has talked about. So it's important that we always distinguish between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. We must continue to educate the American public on this issue, and we need to explain to people the ethical questions that we are dealing with. We should never in this country sanction research that would harm other human beings. Many of us know that there was research done in the 1930s with prisoners that was very wrong. We have condemned that research over and over again. But since that time, we have had very, very strong and ethical programs to protect adults from diseases that would cause them harm and that would cause them death, and yet people don't see the same problem when we are dealing with embryos, and we must point that out to people. We are crossing an ethical Rubicon when we sanction using embryos for research or creating embryos for this research. That is going over the line, and we must explain that to the American public. We must explain the long-term implications for our society and for the human race. Not being careful to take care of human life at the beginning of life has implications for whether we will take care of human life all throughout life and particularly at the end of life. We also have to point out that we have gotten much better results, again, from the use of adult stem cells and umbilical cords and other ways to get cells other than destroying life. I hope today that there's at least one other person like the gentleman in Maryland who saw me do this 4 years ago and who's understanding this issue for the first time and understands particularly the distinction that we are making between doing ethical research on adult stem cells and what most of us consider is unethical research on embryos which will destroy them. Then we can continue to support programs like that of Dr. Atala at Wake Forest University and other places where they're seeing excellent results. That's the kind of research this country should be doing. We know we can get good results from that. And I want to support again my colleagues who are here tonight speaking on this issue and helping the American public and others understand it. We are an ethical people, and we want to continue to be an ethical people and do research that will produce good results. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back to the leader for tonight, Mr. Smith.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. It absolutely is. Really, the root of our problem is that the government is spending more money than it has. When I talk in speeches or when I'm on the radio, doing radio shows or when I'm on TV, what I keep reminding people is that the government has only two sources of money--that which it takes from us forcefully, from the citizens who pay taxes--and the government does take it forcefully. Now, we know Americans have been good about paying their taxes, and they're actually willing to pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes--we know that from surveys that have been done--but it only has two ways of doing it: taking it from us forcefully or by borrowing it. Those are the only two ways because government doesn't create wealth. Government can destroy wealth, and it can destroy wealth in a hurry. What's happening with the stock market and with other savings plans is a good example of that, and I think my colleague from Missouri knows that.