Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. It is clear that ObamaCare's medical device tax has directly and negatively impacted the people who live in North Carolina's Fifth District, as well as people around the country and around the world. Mr. Speaker, this tax must be repealed, and its harmful effects undone.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee, who handles our rules and legislation so effectively on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bills. When the Democrat-controlled Congress rammed the so-called Affordable Care Act through this Chamber, I joined my Republican colleagues in expressing our grave concerns over the effects of the law's tax increases. Specifically, we warned that the excise tax on medical devices would hinder innovation as well as restrict growth and job creation in an industry that has improved the quality of life for millions around the world. And just as we cautioned, this tax on devices that restore mobility, keep hearts in rhythm, and help doctors diagnose life-threatening diseases earlier than ever before has cost us local jobs and reduced research capabilities. Cook Medical is a privately owned company, with facilities around the world. It employs about 500 people in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where the company focuses on endoscopic and urological medicine. Since the medical device tax was levied in 2013, Cook Medical has paid roughly $13 million annually. As a result, the company has pulled back on capital improvements as well as research and development investments. They have also considered moving manufacturing capacity outside the United States. Scott Sewell, vice president of technology acquisition and development for the company's Winston-Salem office, recently told the Triad Business Journal that if the medical tax device is repealed, they would look at expanding operations in North Carolina with a new plant in Winston-Salem. I would like to submit for the Record this May 1 article from the Triad Business Journal. [From Triad Business Journal, May 1, 2015] Device Tax Thwarts Expansion in Winston-Salem (By Owen Covington) The push to repeal an Affordable Care Act tax on the sale of medical devices appears to be gaining steam with a prominent device manufacturer with a strong Triad presence recently lobbying Congress for action. In written testimony to a Senate committee this month, Cook Medical Board Chairman Stephen Ferguson said the company has had to pull back on capital improvements and R&D investments because of the tax. Cook is also considering moving manufacturing capacity outside the country. ``Make no mistake about it: We want to develop and manufacture our devices in the U.S., but this tax is preventing this growth in this country,'' Ferguson wrote. I caught up with Scott Sewell, vice president of technology acquisition and development at Cook Medical's Winston-Salem operation, where the focus is on endoscopy and urological medicine. Just for further explanation, the tax is a 2.3 percent levy on the sale of many medical devices that's expected to generate $29 billion during its first 10 years. Proponents have argued that increased health insurance coverage will mean more sales for these companies, which also have the option of passing that increase along to consumers rather than absorbing it themselves. Sewell said that since the tax was levied in 2013, Cook Medical has paid roughly $13 million annually. That accounts for only a portion of Cook's overall sales, since it isn't paid on the roughly 60 percent of Cook's products that are sold abroad. Both Sewell and Ferguson said that uptick in sales hasn't occurred, and the company has generally been unable to pass along the cost of the tax to consumers, which are typically very cost-conscious hospitals. That's meant pulling back on plans to expand in Winston-Salem and elsewhere, Sewell said. ``I think if the device tax were repealed, in the next couple of years, we would probably be looking at a new plant in Winston-Salem,'' he said. Cook's arguments are grabbing the attention of more in Congress. That said, advocates of the tax say claims like those of Cook are overblown. ``A manufacturer can't avoid the tax by shifting production abroad, doesn't pay the tax for devices it produces here but sells abroad, and suffers no competitive disadvantage from foreign producers, who also have to pay the tax for devices that they sell here,'' wrote Chad Stone, chief economist of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in U.S. News & World Report.

Ms. FOXX

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

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House approved part of a legislative package on trade promotion authority, or TPA. There have been many mischaracterizations of what TPA is. Every day I hear from constituents who want me to hold President Obama accountable. Well, TPA does just that by providing accountability to the President's trade negotiation efforts through enhanced congressional oversight and additional transparency. The allegations that TPA is something for President Obama is false. It is important to recognize that more than 95 percent of the world's customers live beyond U.S. borders, and 1.2 million jobs in North Carolina rely on trade with them. Trade-related employment in North Carolina grew 3.8 times faster than total State employment from 2004 to 2013. While I heard many different perspectives on TPA from my constituents, the argument from North Carolina families, farmers, and employers that negotiating these trade agreements is in the economic best interest of our State was a deciding factor for my vote in favor of TPA.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks, many families have proudly watched their sons and daughters receive their high school diplomas at ceremonies across North Carolina. On Saturday, I cheered as my grandson Kenan walked across that stage and graduated from Watauga High School. These new graduates have been blessed with some wonderful teachers. They have learned a great deal--lessons in math, science, history, and literature--but they have also learned lessons in self-discipline, compassion, patience, and understanding. This learning didn't all take place in the classroom. Much of it was learned at home with their families, out with their friends, on the football field, during summer jobs, and even in brief interactions with unexpected people. The choices ahead of them are many, and the road to success will have its detours, but they can be anything they want to be by meeting every challenge with integrity and determination. The class of 2015, set your goals and find your dreams. Congratulations.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 15, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, a document that revolutionized the world and is the foundation for the freedoms that so many take for granted today. It is impossible to overstate the significance of that day at Runnymede in 1215 when King John of England declared that everyone, including the King, was subject to the rule of law; and as a result, constitutional government was born. Magna Carta is Latin for ``great charter,'' and it was so named because of the document's protracted length. Only later, did the world realize how visionary the name truly is. Most of the 63 clauses granted by King John dealt with specific grievances of a group of barons relating to his rule, but that framework for the relationship between the King and his subjects initiated the concept of freedom under law. Clause 1 states: First, that we have granted to God, and by his present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections--a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it--and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs. Clause 12 reads: No scutage or aid will be levied in our kingdom without its general consent. Clause 13 says: The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs. Clause 38 reads: In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. Finally, clause 39 states: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. Let me repeat those last few words, Mr. Speaker, ``the law of the land.'' In those words, we see the idea that the law does not come from any individual person or government. To quote Daniel Hannan, who wrote a wonderful essay on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta for The Wall Street Journal last month: ``It is immanent in the land itself, the common inheritance of the people living there.'' Mr. Speaker, the language may sound a little stilted, and folks may think, goodness, that doesn't sound like something we would say today, but it is so important for us to understand the direct link between Magna Carta and the Revolution that occurred in this country in 1776. Although Magna Carta failed to resolve the conflict between King John and his barons, it was reissued several times after his death. Again, Magna Carta's legacy is particularly evident in the documents that form the basis of our government, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At the National Archives, visitors to Washington have the opportunity to view one of four surviving originals of the 1297 Magna Carta alongside the remarkable documents it inspired. When visitors come here to the House, I often point out to them on the walls the profiles of the ancient lawgivers. Pope Innocent III is one of those ancient lawgivers shown here in the House. Again, we can see directly, in many cases, how our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are derived from Magna Carta and also from the Bible, that we can see those direct connections. Today, I would like to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to those rebel barons with grievances against their King, and I am reminded that we must always be attentive to the freedom we have inherited. Ronald Reagan said famously: Freedom is not in our genes. It is only a generation away from being lost. It is something we have to cherish. Also, Mr. Speaker, with freedom comes opportunity and responsibility, and I want to say how grateful I am for the opportunity I have had to serve in the House of Representatives along with my colleagues. I often tell, particularly schoolchildren, when I talk to them about this country and the radical idea that it represents, that I am a person who grew up in a house with no electricity and no running water, extraordinarily poor, and with parents with no privilege, no exalted status in our country. As I said, with the freedom that we have comes opportunity. We on our side of the aisle--and I know many of my colleagues, or most of my colleagues, on the other side of the aisle--want to see that opportunity that has been made available to those of us who currently serve, many of whom come from no privilege, to be able to hold onto that opportunity. To do that, Mr. Speaker, we have to hold on to freedom. We are the freest country in the world, and that, the rule of law, and our capitalistic system are those things that make us such a great country. I want to express again my appreciation to those rebel barons and to all the people who came after them who kept the idea of Magna Carta alive to the time when we could develop our Constitution and Bill of Rights and to the present time when we fight so hard to maintain those principles. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, much of the economic turmoil that has gripped this Nation is the result of the Federal Government's spending beyond its means. However, Democrats continue to insist on ignoring the consequences of our crushing debt burden. Last week, Democrats in the Senate announced they would block any appropriations bill, including legislation providing funds for the defense of this Nation, until Republicans meet their demands for increased government spending. At a time of grave threats to our Nation, we must be vigilant, determined, and united in the full support of our military personnel. Providing for the common defense of the United States of America is the Federal Government's primary duty. Holding hostage the funding for our troops, their families, and the Nation's veterans in order to extract more taxpayer dollars for Washington bureaucracy is the worst kind of political gamesmanship. It is time to make protecting this Nation a priority.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 2014, Congress passed legislation with broad bipartisan support to improve access to and the quality of care for veterans in response to the nationwide scandal over manipulated wait times at the VA. The Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act created a 3-year program to allow veterans to seek care from private providers if they live too far from a VA facility or cannot otherwise get an appointment within 14 days. It also gave the VA Secretary the authority to fire senior executives for poor performance and required a top-to-bottom study of the entire Department to be completed within 1 year of enactment. When government failure is exposed and legislation aimed at restoring accountability is enacted, it makes sense that action would be swift and immediate, people would be fired, and wrongs would begin to be made right. Unfortunately, that has not been the case at the Department of Veterans Affairs. While there are as many as 1,000 employees that could potentially face disciplinary actions, the VA has punished a total of eight for involvement in the scandal. We continue to hear about unacceptable patient wait times, unanswered benefit inquiries, patient safety concerns, medical malpractice, flagrant mismanagement, infighting, corruption, and years of construction delays that total millions of dollars. Frustration, anger, outrage, Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the words that describe how I and other Americans felt when we read these latest stories about problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The continued ineptitude at the highest levels of the Department of Veterans Affairs is simply unacceptable. It is past time to put an end to this agencywide pattern of mismanagement. Last month, the House continued its efforts to fulfill the commitment we have made to those who have served by approving several pieces of legislation to further improve accountability at the VA. We also passed legislation to increase access to education programs for veterans and to encourage small businesses to hire them. While it will never be enough, this legislation is a positive step forward in meeting our responsibility to America's veterans. However, Congress cannot transform the VA alone. It is the President's responsibility to ensure changes are made within the agency and that employees are held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, that is not happening. Every day, we hear only more stories about further misdeeds. President Obama must commit to reforming the VA with more than just lip service. America's veterans deserve a meaningful, decisive plan to right the many wrongs. As a country, we are uniquely blessed. We live in a nation where each of us has the possibility of nearly limitless fulfillment and prosperity in the world's finest democracy. That unparalleled freedom and opportunity has been made available to us because of the profound sacrifices of those who have fought for and defended our Nation. America's veterans deserve better than the inexcusable misconduct and neglect that we have seen over the last few years at the VA. It is critically important that we provide high-quality, timely care for those who have sacrificed so much to our country. Republicans are committed to that principle and to the veterans of this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a rule that would significantly broaden the Federal Government's power to regulate waters and adjacent lands under the Clean Water Act. The Waters of the United States rule would give the Federal Government jurisdiction over puddles, roadside ditches, irrigation ditches, and storm and wastewater systems. Federal agencies frequently place burdensome regulations on the American public, and this rule is no exception. Fortunately, last week, the House passed H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, which would require the agencies to start over and develop a new rule in consultation with State and local governments and other stakeholders. This commonsense legislation prevents an out-of-touch administration from threatening the livelihood of North Carolina's farmers and saddling local governments with exorbitant compliance costs.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, each year, more than 600,000 students across all 50 States play the SIFMA Foundation's celebrated Stock Market Game, an online simulation of the global capital markets. The program introduces students to economics, investing, and personal finance in order to prepare them for financially independent futures. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting West Iredell High School in Statesville, North Carolina, where students in Ms. Brooke Campbell's personal finance class were wrapping up participation in the 12th annual Capitol Hill Challenge. The Capitol Hill Challenge matches Members of Congress with students, teachers, and schools competing in the Stock Market Game. The 10 teams with the highest-ranked portfolios at the end of the competition win a trip to Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, for 14 weeks, nine teams from West Iredell managed a hypothetical $100,000 online portfolio and invested in real stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Unfortunately, no one from the school finished in the top 10, but when the final results were tabulated at the end of the competition, five of the teams increased the value of their online portfolio. For high school students with little to no experience investing, that is a significant accomplishment. Four of the teams at West Iredell finished with less money than when they started. However, they lost less than $3,400 combined. As I said to the students, even great investors like Warren Buffett aren't bulletproof when it comes to the stock market. They may call him the Oracle of Omaha, but even Warren Buffett gets it wrong sometimes. These students made an admirable effort and learned important lessons about the volatility of investing. During the visit, Mr. Speaker, I also participated in a simulation with students about the realities of money. Everyone was assigned a job and a salary with which to develop a budget and make purchases. This former educator was a teacher making $60,000 a year, a scenario that definitely hit close to home. As part of the simulation, students had to purchase a new door for their house. If they paid cash for the door, they discovered it would cost only $300. However, if they bought the door on credit with the terms and conditions offered, they would pay nearly $800 for the same door. Students learned important lessons about how interest is a double-edged sword. When you invest your money, it gains interest. When you buy on credit, you pay interest. West Iredell High School and Ms. Campbell are doing these students a great service by teaching them the importance of financial literacy and ensuring they have a strong financial education. It is my belief the lessons they are learning in the classroom will lead to careful and thoughtful decisionmaking in the real world.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 255 provides for general debate for H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016; provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; and provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2048, the USA FREEDOM Act. The rule before us today provides for general debate for H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, also known as the NDAA. The NDAA, which has passed Congress and has been enacted for over 50 years in a row, is a vital exercise each year in providing for the common defense, one of our most profound constitutional responsibilities. The NDAA includes over $600 billion in important national security funding, providing resources to each of our four military branches, our nuclear deterrent, and related agencies. The legislation fully funds the President's request for funding for our warfighters overseas and includes important steps to advance Department of Defense acquisition policies to ensure we are saving taxpayer dollars and stretching our precious defense dollars as far as possible. H.R. 1735 also includes provisions improving military readiness, strengthening our cyber warfare defenses, and holding the line on keeping terrorists in cells at Guantanamo Bay, not in our States or back on the battlefield. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2048, the USA FREEDOM Act which addresses critical national security investigation concerns while making much-needed changes to protect the privacy of Americans. H.R. 2048 prohibits explicitly the bulk collection of all records under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA pen register authority, and National Security Letter statutes. This provision prevents government overreach by ending the indiscriminate collection of records that violates the privacy of all Americans. Madam Speaker, this bill also improves transparency, making significant FISA interpretations available to the public and requiring the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to disclose how they use these national security authorities. Finally, the USA FREEDOM Act ensures that national security is strengthened by closing loopholes that prevented tracking of foreign terrorists, narrowly defining which records the Federal Government may obtain, and enhancing investigations of international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Madam Speaker, I share the concern that our colleagues across the aisle have about the return of the young women taken by Boko Haram and salute their wearing red today and your wearing red today. However, Madam Speaker, I chose to wear pink today because we are dealing with a very sensitive issue about unborn children. Today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is important legislation for the House to consider, particularly this week, 2 years after the conviction of Philadelphia-based late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of first degree murder in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic. He killed these children using a procedure he called ``snipping,'' which involved Gosnell inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord, a procedure that was reportedly routine. A neonatologist testified to the grand jury that one of the babies, known as Baby Boy A, spent his few moments of life in excruciating pain. Late-term abortions are agonizingly painful, and they are happening all too often in our Nation. Americans have been asking how different those abortions are from Gosnell's ``snipping.'' Thankfully, they know the answer to those questions and support protecting these nearly fully developed lives. A March 2013 poll conducted by The Polling Company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn baby can feel pain. Supporters included 63 percent of women and 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro- choice. That finding was not an outlier; it is representative of the public's true beliefs. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans support prohibiting second trimester abortions, and 80 percent support prohibiting third trimester abortions. Even The Huffington Post found in 2013 that 59 percent of Americans support limiting abortions after 20 weeks; and Cosmopolitan magazine, not known for its traditional values, had an article recently all about the impact of smoking by pregnant women on their ``unborn babies.'' They weren't blobs of tissue or even fetuses, but ``unborn children.'' Those unborn children can feel pain, which is why they are provided anesthesia when surgery is performed on them in the womb. They can even survive outside the womb, with The New York Times reporting just last week on a study that The New England Journal of Medicine published that found that 25 percent of children born prematurely at the stage of pregnancy covered by this legislation survive. There are countless stories--no longer so uncommon we would call them miracles--of children surviving and thriving, such as Micah Pickering, who was born right at the stage when this legislation would protect other children in the womb and is now a ``spunky almost 3-year-old,'' according to his mother. The legislation we consider today, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is carefully written to advance the consensus of a majority of Americans that these late-term abortions should cease. In order to maintain that consensus, the bill includes provisions allowing abortions in cases of rape or where the life of the mother is in danger. It also provides strong protections for minors who have been sexually assaulted, stopping abortionists from ignoring child abuse that enters their facility. Most importantly, it protects the lives of well-developed, pain- capable children who could well survive outside the womb. America is one of only seven nations that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks, which includes such well-known human rights leaders as North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would finally put an end to that. Madam Speaker, I commend this rule and the underlying bills to my colleagues for their support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 255 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Probably throughout the day, we will be setting the record straight on things my colleague has said. Victims of rape can get counseling from a hospital that performs abortion; but most egregiously, Madam Speaker, the arguments raised across the aisle about incest are astounding. Let me be clear. If a woman is sexually assaulted and that leads to a pregnancy, there is a rape exception in this legislation that applies, regardless of the family status of her aggressor or the age of the victim. As the legislation includes an exception for all women who are sexually assaulted, those across the aisle who raise incest appear to believe we should provide special exemptions under Federal law to individuals in consensual incestuous relationships. That boggles the mind. This objection is a shameful distraction from the important debate we are having about protecting well-developed, unborn children from being ripped apart in the womb. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the claim that minors have to report to law enforcement is false. They do not need to report anything to law enforcement. The law provides that the abortionist must report to social services or to law enforcement to ensure that they do not let child abuse that comes to their attention continue unchecked. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).