Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, people want to be able to trust their President. When he said: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, many Americans believed him. But keeping the insurance you liked was never a real possibility under ObamaCare. By design, the law requires every single new health plan and any existing plan that has been altered over the past 3 years to satisfy the one-size-fits-all requirements of Washington's central planners. That means millions of Americans are losing their current coverage, even though many liked their plans--plans that were tailored to work for them--that meet their specific needs and fit into their family budgets. Unsurprisingly, though, when placating bureaucrats is the rule, patients certainly can't be the focus. The President did say: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, but he simultaneously championed a law that replaced custom care with cookie-cutter care. Millions are being booted from their health plans as a result.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, promises matter. Time and again, President Obama said: If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. My constituent Michael knows better. His family plan is being canceled. Next year, he and his expectant wife could see their monthly insurance payments rise from $324 to $895. Michael told me: It is now impossible for our family to afford private health insurance. On January 1, as many as 16 million Americans will have the coverage they are familiar with yanked out from under them. Too many will be caught between a rock and a hard place--struggling to afford pricier plans without the guarantee of subsidies but with the threat of tax. Yes, today, we all know better. If you like your insurance, you won't necessarily get to keep it because President Obama and 279 congressional Democrats chose to pass a flawed law that, for many, strips the choice away.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, President Obama made some big promises with regard to ObamaCare: if you like your doctor, you can keep them; same if you are happy with your insurance. Somehow, even with new taxes and thousands of pages of regulations, government would be able to mandate universal coverage and simultaneously save everyone money. That is not panning out in America. North Carolinians tell me their policies are being canceled and their prices are set to double. Experts are even advising some Americans to find a way to lower their incomes to help pay for ObamaCare. For one family in California, if they don't find a way to earn $2,000 less, they will pay $15,000 for health care. If they make less money, they pay just over $1,000. It is easy to blame technical glitches for ObamaCare's problems. It is harder to own up to the costly consequences of forcing a one-size- fits-all health care prescription onto one-sixth of the American economy. As President Obama presses forward with ObamaCare, a broken Web site is certainly the least of his problems.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the President has some very serious questions to answer. Will he tax the American people if they cannot or choose not to buy health insurance from a Web site that doesn't work? Will he insist upon penalizing them for withholding their personal information from a government database already rife with privacy concerns? Will he continue to demand patience, blame technical glitches, and dismiss legitimate concerns from the American public while ObamaCare's broken launch dominates headlines? Will he give lenience to those in his administration who are responsible for these failures? It is true that ObamaCare's individual marketplace launched just 3 weeks ago; but 3 weeks or not, the American people would like some assurance. If government can't get its act together administering health insurance, will Americans get taxed for opting out? The fair answer is certainly ``no.'' I hope President Obama agrees.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the time for solutions is now. The American people expect their elected leaders to come to the table, work together, and put people above politics. Today is the 15th day the Federal Government has been shut down, the 15th day national parks and memorials have been closed to the American people, the 15th day the NIH, WIC, and Head Start have not had the funding they were counting on. Today is also 2 days shy of the deadline when America might reach its $16.7 trillion debt limit. House Republicans, as we have for weeks, will continue to offer bipartisan common ground to reopen government and protect America's credit rating. More than 70 Senators are on record as opposing ObamaCare's medical device tax. Let's put that tax on hold and reopen government. It is not very fair that Members of Congress receive special help to pay for ObamaCare that isn't available to others. Let's remove the special treatment and reopen government. It is not right that the American people are on the hook to provide health care subsidies to individuals whose incomes might not even qualify. Let's demand accountability for taxpayer dollars and reopen government. Since the shutdown began, bipartisan majorities in the House of Representatives have voted to reopen government services and spare North Carolinians from Washington's dysfunction. We voted to open our parks and memorials because their closures are punitive, and they should never be disrespected by a theater of barricades. We agree National Institutes of Health clinical trials should continue, so we voted to fund NIH. Similarly, we voted to ensure pay for all veterans and to restore FEMA, the FDA, Head Start, and the WIC program, among others; but most of our proposals to get government functioning again face Senate inaction and White House veto threats. The our-way-or-the-highway mind-set must stop. The challenges we face as a Nation require bipartisan solutions. Both parties need to work together to reopen government and manage our debt. House Republicans remain committed to responsible, bipartisan solutions to end the shutdown and defend our credit rating. We hope our counterparts in the Senate are as well.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, then-Senator Joe Biden had to make a choice about whether to support a Federal debt limit increase. He said: I must express my protest against continually increasing the debt without taking positive steps to slow its growth. Senator Biden voted not to raise the debt ceiling. Today, my philosophy on raising the debt ceiling is very similar to Vice President Biden's--we can't keep upping our credit limit without taking steps to get our future debt under control. Fourteen days into this Federal Government shutdown and mere days away from exhausting government's $16.7 trillion credit limit, the time for bipartisan solutions is now. The United States should always pay its bills, but the President and Members of Congress are responsible to take steps to reduce those bills for the future. Both parties need to be committed to this responsible reality.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is time for solutions to end the government shutdown and resolve the uncertainty of America's rapidly approaching credit limit. Every day House Republicans are working to shape a bipartisan agreement to reopen the Federal Government and restore services for the American people. While the Senate has refused to talk, House Republicans have worked to find bipartisan common ground and pass legislation to restore services that should be open and running for North Carolinians and for all Americans. Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives passed 15 separate measures to pay our military, restore the WIC program, open national parks, and end delays to veteran benefit applications, among other important things. Like my constituents, I think the gridlock in Washington needs to stop. To have any hope of solving the challenges before us, be it this shutdown or our debt crisis, Democrats can't simply refuse to negotiate. They have to be willing to work together. Divided government demands bipartisan solutions.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to see the government reopen also. We have sent many pieces of legislation over to the Senate, but the Senate has refused to act on them. We hope very much to get the government open again. We are not opposed to helping the truly needy in this country. We want to help those people. We believe by reforming the legislation related to food stamps that we will be able to save the program for the truly needy. Mr. Speaker, negotiations are an absolute necessity in a divided government, and conference committees provide an avenue for the House and Senate to meet and resolve policy differences. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, to provide a motion to go to conference on the farm bill so we can move the reauthorization process forward.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining, and whether the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close?

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of whether we recognize poor people or not. Some of us probably grew up poorer than anybody on the other side of the aisle. I am one of those people. I have great empathy for people who are poor, but I am so pleased that we live in the greatest country in the world in which we have the opportunities to overcome poverty because of the great opportunities that are given to us in the country. With that, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of comity and goodness, I yield the 3 minutes that is requested of me to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule and this legislation underlying it is not designed to abuse or demonize poor people. What we are trying to do is to save these programs for the truly needy. Mr. Speaker, we are not simply doing oversight on the farm bill and on agriculture issues. The House has been doing its job of oversight throughout the Federal Government. We have been doing that throughout this entire session. We are looking to find fraud, abuse, and waste in every program. It just happens that today we are talking about this program. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, almost every day we bring forth legislation that will help us identify waste, fraud, and abuse and do everything we can to protect hardworking taxpayers in this country who are providing the funds to take care of the truly needy in this country and to allow us to help those people, and that is what this legislation does. Mr. Speaker, the work of making these improvements and reforms to longstanding Federal policy is not easy. I commend Chairman Lucas and the members of the Agriculture Committee for their thoughtful work. I was pleased to work with them and to have three commonsense amendments included in H.R. 2642 when it passed the House. The spending safeguard amendment will cap spending on the Farm Risk Management Election program at 110 percent of CBO-predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are disbursed. And, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this amendment passed with bipartisan support, as did most of the amendments to that legislation. In the event government's cost projections prove completely wrong, the amendment will ensure taxpayers are not forced to automatically pay the difference between Washington's mistake and reality. My second amendment, the Sunset Discretionary Programs amendment, will automatically end discretionary programs in the 2013 farm bill upon expiration of the bill's 5-year authorization period. Many programs authorized by the farm bill are authorized indefinitely. This amendment will require Congress to justify a program's continued existence and funding through regular reauthorization efforts. As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, Mr. Speaker, Congress simply cannot afford to add to the number of costly Federal programs that are on autopilot. This was really an excellent amendment, Mr. Speaker. Finally, Congressman Keith Ellison, my Democrat colleague, and I offered the crop insurance transparency amendment, which will require the government to disclose the names of key persons or entities receiving Federal crop insurance subsidies. Specifically, disclosure would be required for Members of Congress and their immediate families, Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate families, and entities in which any of the preceding parties are majority stockholders. This information is already recorded, but members of the public have to petition the government under the Freedom of Information Act to acquire the data. It shouldn't take a 4-year request for the American people to figure out whether their leaders are receiving government farm subsidies. This bipartisan amendment makes this information available to the public without a FOIA request. Mr. Speaker, we want transparency, and my amendment takes us much closer to that. I appreciate Chairman Lucas' willingness to work with me on these amendments, and I look forward to seeing them maintained during the conference committee. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague from Massachusetts, and it is obvious that every time we have anything on this floor or in the Rules Committee where we are dealing with the subject of hunger that he is extraordinarily passionate about the issue. Mr. Speaker, Republicans care about Americans who are hungry. We care about hunger issues. He makes it sound as though we are heartless people. We are not. What we are doing here is our best to preserve the program for the truly needy and those who are hungry in this country. My colleague says it is the most efficiently and effectively-run program in the country, with low error rates. That is not what the research shows. It isn't even what TV programs find out on their own with very little research. They go out and they find the terrible abuse with the program, the SNAP program, which used to be called the food stamp program, but it was given this Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program name some time ago to get away from the term ``food stamps.'' But that is what it is. It is a food stamp program. Almost everybody in this country knows of people who have abused the program. Now, we don't want to deny help to truly needy people. If we can make these reforms in this program, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to preserve the entire program for those who truly need it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, as I said, is designed to preserve the integrity of the SNAP program, or food stamps for families, and especially for children who rely on food stamps. Its cost-saving reforms are a step in the right direction and are long overdue out of respect for needy Americans and taxpayers. This bill makes the first reforms to the program since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and these reforms were strengthened during a rigorous amendment process on the House floor. Despite media reports to the contrary, House Republicans are not cutting SNAP for individuals who currently meet the program's eligibility requirements. Instead, our reforms focus on eliminating fraud and abuse that exist within the program and remove from the programs individuals who do not qualify for the benefits. Mr. Speaker, I think that bears repeating. What we are doing is eliminating fraud and abuse and removing from the program individuals who do not qualify for benefits. That is what the American people expect us to do in our oversight processes here. Because of several well-documented and legally questionable efforts by President Obama's Department of Agriculture and by the individual States that administer the program, SNAP benefits have been extended to a number of recipients who would not otherwise qualify. The growth in SNAP spending caused by such expansion efforts will strain the safety net until it breaks, necessitating much higher taxes and indiscriminate cuts that would hit the poorest Americans the hardest. From a moral perspective, such an outcome would harm the very people programs like SNAP are intended to help, and that is unacceptable. That is why I voted for H.R. 3102 when it passed the House on September 19. The bill ensures benefits are reserved for legal recipients and aren't directed to illegal immigrants. The bill closes the ``heat-and-eat'' loophole related to electricity bill assistance, gives States the authority to require drug testing for recipients, and prohibits felons from receiving SNAP benefits. H.R. 3102 reinstates work requirements for all able-bodied adults, without dependents, receiving SNAP benefits. An overextended, unchecked SNAP program won't be capable of serving the citizens it is purposed to help. It is the job of this Congress to ensure the program is held accountable as a steward of taxpayer dollars and to provide a safety net for the needy. For the first time, the House separated farm policy from the food stamp program, which is only appropriate, as 80 percent of the so- called ``farm bill'' in the past was spent on providing nutrition assistance to needy families. The farm-only portion of the farm bill authorizes farm programs through fiscal year 2018; however, H.R. 3102 authorizes appropriations for SNAP only through fiscal year 2016. If enacted and if the two bills were addressed on 5-and 3-year intervals, respectively, this would decouple SNAP from the authorization of farm programs until 2031. Considering agriculture and nutrition programs independently, going forward, will help take politics out of the equation and allow for reforms that will sustain both categories of programs in years to come. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2642 makes commonsense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy, which is why it is time to begin conversations with our Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets these important reforms enacted into law. This bill isn't perfect, but it puts us on a path to provide certainty to America's farmers and ranchers by adopting a 5-year farm bill that will actually become law. This measure is the result of more than 3 years of debate and discussion, including 46 hearings and a 2-year audit of every farm program. The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, including direct payments. It eliminates and streamlines duplicative and overlapping conservation programs and trims traditional farm policy by almost $23 billion. The bill eliminates direct payments and ensures no payments are made to those who do not actually farm. The bill also provides regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers. It eliminates a duplicative permitting requirement for pesticides and prohibits the EPA from implementing the unjustified and unscientific biological opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service until there is an unbiased, scientific peer review of those opinions. The bill requires regulatory agencies across the government to use scientifically sound information in moving forward with their regulatory initiatives. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture to advocate on behalf of the farmers and ranchers as other agencies move forward with regulations affecting food and fiber. The bill also eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for seed importers. Finally, H.R. 2642 repeals the underlying 1949 permanent law and replaces it with the 2013 farm bill. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because without reauthorization farm policy will revert to permanent statutes established in the 1938 and 1949 laws which are drastically different from current programs. The permanent statutes exclude many commodities such as rice, soybeans, and peanuts; set support prices much higher than current levels; and prevent new enrollment in various conservation programs. Permanent agriculture law established by the Agriculture Adjustments Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 does not reflect current farming and marketing practices, trade agreements or market circumstances. Farmers, as well as taxpayers, will benefit from a modernized bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.