Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 380 provides for a motion to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule authorizes House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas to make a motion to go to conference with the Senate on the farm bill and provides for consideration of two resolutions expressing the sense of the House regarding specific provisions in the farm bill. Conference committees are a crucial step in resolving policy differences between the House and Senate, and I am encouraged that the House is taking this step to provide certainty for farmers across this country by reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy. The House proposal is not perfect, but it moves Federal agriculture policy in the right direction; and my hope is that during a conference committee with the Senate, we can find common ground. Additionally, the rule makes in order the consideration of two resolutions that express the sense of the House on crop insurance and the U.S. sugar program. The first resolution expresses the sense of the House that conferees should agree to limit crop insurance based on average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000. This commonsense proposal ensures that crop insurance is appropriately targeted to those who need it most. The second resolution instructs conferees to advance provisions to repeal the administration of tariff rate quotas and, thus, restore the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to manage supplies of sugar throughout the year to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices. I strongly support this resolution, as it restores free-market principles to the U.S. sugar program. This rule provides for the business of legislating and resolving differences between our two Chambers to find common ground and move forward in reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, the motion to go to conference, and the motions to instruct provided by this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is time for solutions. We're 11 days into a Federal Government shutdown and days away from exhausting government's $16.7 trillion credit limit. Both parties need to be committed to opening government and getting our debt under control. House Republicans want to reopen the government, pay our bills, and defend America's credit rating. So let's keep talking and work to build common ground. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Each side can see the mathematical writing on the wall. In 10 years, discretionary spending will grow 17 percent. Meanwhile, mandatory spending on our debt drivers will grow 79 percent. Let's agree to start there. Let's reopen government, and let's reform what's driving our debt. Let's talk about making our Tax Code fairer and more competitive. Let's do the responsible thing to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation year after year.

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, Americans are a good and generous people and don't begrudge helping needy families, and especially children, when times are tough. Sometimes our friends, neighbors, and their kids need a little help to get by after a layoff or personal hardship. But we do demand that our tax dollars be spent honestly and in direct support of those who need the aid. Today, that's not always the case. The United States Department of Agriculture is spending tax dollars to advertise the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on TV, radio, billboards, and through agreements with foreign governments. Through loopholes and questionable recruitment activities, people whose incomes exceeds the SNAP threshold, illegal immigrants, and even the deceased are counted among those receiving taxpayer benefits. Able-bodied adults, too, are receiving food stamp assistance at record levels. In a down economy, heightened demand makes sense, but with the President's 2009 waiver of work requirements for SNAP recipients, the percentage of able-bodied Americans receiving aid has increased 163%. By comparison, total participants in the SNAP program, including the able-bodied population, increased 70.3%. This week in the House of Representatives, we voted to make America's food stamp program stronger and more accountable to the American people. The Nutrition Reform & Work Opportunity Act is designed to preserve the integrity of the SNAP program for families, and especially children, who rely on food stamps. Reforms in this legislation put stronger protections in place to ensure that SNAP money is reserved only for those who qualify for food stamps and isn't wasted on government public relations campaigns, medical marijuana purchases, or lottery winners. Questionable loopholes and recruitment activities which extend assistance to those who make too much money are also ended. Further, consistent with the bipartisan belief that the solution to poverty is found through work, not just aid, the Nutrition Reform & Work Opportunity Act reinstates Clinton-era SNAP work requirements. These rules stipulate that able-bodied adults, with no dependents, must be looking for work, developing job skills, volunteering for community service, or obtain employment to draw food stamp benefits. Not only will this provision ensure that the truly needy continue to receive aid, it will help beneficiaries compete and prepare for jobs. An unchecked SNAP program that wastes its limited resources on publicity campaigns or subsidizing those who do not qualify is unable to provide the best service to the people it is designed to help. It is the job of this Congress to ensure the program is held accountable as a steward of taxpayer dollars and as a safety net of last resort for the needy. Nothing in this legislation adds to SNAP's eligibility requirements, so not one law-abiding beneficiary who today meets SNAP's income and asset tests, and who is willing to comply with applicable, bi-partisan work requirements, will lose their benefits. Yet this legislation has its critics on the right and on the left. Many on the left are crying foul because enforcing eligibility rules, requiring work or job search from the able-bodied and eliminating loopholes will lead to some current SNAP beneficiaries being dropped. Although that is true, it is because there are people today drawing benefits who should not be. One of America's greatest strengths is that we are a nation of laws. Regardless of the example set by this White House, the government cannot operate outside of the law. We cannot pick and choose which to obey. If our laws set forth a standard for eligibility, recipients must meet the standard. On the right, some are asking whether the savings and reforms in this legislation go far enough. I echo those concerns, and agree that even $40 billion in SNAP savings seems a small sum compared to Washington's vast mandatory overspending machine. Do we need to find more savings? Absolutely. But the Nutrition Reform & Work Opportunity Act improves the existing SNAP system and gives our country a unique chance to reform a mandatory spending program and rid it of inexcusable waste, fraud, and abuse. The Nutrition Reform & Work Opportunity Act is a step in the right direction toward ensuring the integrity of the SNAP program and that benefits are reserved for those who qualify and for those working to get back on their feet. Supporting this legislation is the responsible and conservative choice.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama decried a proposed debt ceiling increase as a ``sign of leadership failure'' and then voted against raising the debt limit. Two years later, Candidate Obama referred to the $4 trillion debt accrued by his predecessor as ``irresponsible'' and ``unpatriotic.'' $6.1 trillion and 4\1/2\ years later, he is demanding that Congress raise the debt ceiling without so much as a conversation as to what we can do to get control of spending and leave less debt to our kids and grandkids. This seems less than responsible to me. To have any hope of solving the challenges before us, leaders have to be willing to work together. So let's defend our credit rating by getting control over our bills and strengthening our fiscal foundation. Whether the challenge is ending the shutdown or confronting our debt, divided government demands bipartisan solutions, and finding bipartisan agreement starts by sitting down to talk.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I received an email from Scott, a constituent of the 5th District who lives in Boone, North Carolina. Here is what he had to say: With all of the talk to this point about the effects of the Affordable Care Act, it has just turned into brutal reality for me and my family. I received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield this week regarding my coverage. All of the promises of if you like your current health coverage, you will be able to keep it is absolutely untrue. Blue Cross has dropped my current plan that I was relatively happy with and was expecting to continue using. Blue Cross will be moving me into a new plan where the cost is devastating for my family. My monthly premium is increasing 55 percent, $3,816 more per year, and my out-of-pocket expenses will cost my family an additional $3,650 per year. So, all in all, I will be paying an additional $7,466 next year for health insurance and copayments on top of my already high premiums. I do not qualify for any of the subsidies either, so this one is all on the back of this middle class family of four. I have a 4- year-old daughter and a 2-year-old daughter. I have no choice but to keep them covered any way I can as any father would. But the new outlays of $7,466 will be a huge burden. We will all have to make some big changes in our family to be able to afford this. I knew the Affordable Care Act would be tough on someone like myself, but I had no idea how hard it would hit me and my family. Mr. Speaker, Scott is not alone. Families across this country are baffled by ObamaCare sticker shock. Accepting the devastating truth that costs will be much higher for them next year, some families are trying to find a way to make it work, but they can't even get to the Web site. But what do they hear from Washington? ObamaCare apologists say, Be patient with us. We will get these glitches sorted out. It will take a few years, and you will all be used to it. Mr. Speaker, if only those voices in Washington would be willing to give the American people the same time and patience they are demanding. A bipartisan House majority has asked for families to have 1 penalty- free year to figure out what ObamaCare will mean for their families and for their budgets, 1 penalty-free year, not unlike the penalty-free year the President gave to Big Business all on his own. Fairness: that is what we have asked for. Fairness: that is what Senate Democrats are refusing to discuss. Fairness: that is what the President describes as ransom.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when the hallmark of ``Presidential leadership'' becomes the refusal to have a conversation, we all should be concerned. Our country is facing some very real challenges right now. To name a few: Government is shut down because the Democrat Senate won't fund operations unless the House allows ObamaCare to be implemented unfairly; Families in my district will be forced to spend thousands more next year on health insurance because of the President's partisan health care overhaul; The country is days away from exhausting its $16.7 trillion debt limit. These challenges are bigger than any one party, and our solutions must be, too. Not negotiating when such pivotal matters are at stake is wrong. It betrays years of precedent, and it contradicts the bipartisan reality of divided government. House Republicans want to reopen government as soon as possible, but we can't shape a fair bipartisan solution when we're the only ones willing to sit down, talk to the other side, and negotiate.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, members of the Republican Women's Policy Committee sent an earnest letter to Senator Harry Reid, asking him to please put aside the partisanship for a second and to take the opportunity to enact commonsense legislation to help our kids; take up bipartisan House legislation to restore WIC; to open NIH; and to fund Head Start. Senator Reid has done nothing, though, and President Obama said that it's their way or the highway, to give them everything they want or get lost. In North Carolina, our WIC program doesn't have sufficient funds to issue new vouchers until the Senate acts. It's the Senate's choice. They should do the right thing. At this point, however, the Senate is rejecting common ground. Senate Democrats are refusing to make government work for the American people because they won't even agree to having a conversation about whether all Americans should be treated equally under ObamaCare. Health care is a matter of security to many Americans; and health care, as we all know, is changing drastically next year. For many in North Carolina, it is becoming more expensive; and for others, their plans are being canceled. When asked why American families are being denied a 1-year delay of the individual mandate so they can figure out ObamaCare without having the threat of government penalties, the Secretary of Health and Human Services suggested that the way to ``opt out'' of the mandate was to simply allow government to levy a fine against you. That sounds like a fair choice, doesn't it? Individual Americans do what we want or pay an unprecedented tax on your behavior. Mr. Speaker, the refusal even to acknowledge the specter of unfairness in ObamaCare's implementation is shocking. Consider the great lengths Senate Democrats are going in order to prove a point about not negotiating: Senate Democrats won't call a vote on legislation to fund the National Institutes of Health, to ensure pay for Guardsmen and Reservists, to stop veteran benefit application delays, to fully fund WIC, to restore Head Start, to restore FEMA or FDA funding. Senate Democrats won't call a vote to reopen the national parks. Throwing all of this common ground by the wayside--common ground that will help people--is inexcusable. The President and the Senate need to start explaining why their way or the highway is more important than doing their jobs and finding a compromise to end this shutdown.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying legislation. We've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle they only need us to take up one bill. Well, what about all those bills we've sent over to the Senate, including four appropriations bills that the Senate won't take up to vote on? It seems to me that they ought to be doing that if they want to show some good faith effort. Today, as we have every day since October 1, the House of Representatives is taking yet another bipartisan step forward to resolve our differences with the United States Senate and reopen the Federal Government for the American people. Even prior to October 1, House Republicans took numerous reasonable steps toward compromise. We voted four times on separate proposals to fund the entire government. With each vote, we sought to lay the groundwork for bipartisan compromise. Our final two full-funding proposals simply addressed the fundamental unfairness in ObamaCare, the fact that American families won't get the same year to prepare for ObamaCare that the President decided to give to businesses and the fact that Members of Congress will get a subsidy to pay ObamaCare premiums that the rest of America will not. Every vote from the House of Representatives has had at least some Democrat support. Not one Senate vote has been bipartisan. While we've moved to the middle, Senate Democrats still refuse to budge. They won't even send any Senators to sit down and talk with House Republicans about a bipartisan solution to reopen government. One noteworthy area, though, where there seems to be great opportunity for us to move forward with our Democrat colleagues is on the matter of Federal employee pay. One of this rule's underlying bills will ensure timely pay for Federal employees who have continued to work through this shutdown. Those who are defending our borders, our food supply, and our Capitol, should be paid on time. It's my hope that both sides will come together and support this rule and the underlying Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act. Mr. Speaker, we don't expect to agree on everything with our Democrat colleagues. The House appointed a team on September 30 to meet with the Senate and find common ground to fund the government. When our team gathered on the morning of October 1, no one from the Senate showed up. Every day since, the Senate has refused to be part of any discussions with the House on how to move forward. That refusal is inexcusable. That's why the House will be considering another bill today, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act, to bring Senate Democrats to the table. Once the Senators have come to the table, we can start building on areas where we should have common ground and reach a solution that benefits all of the American people. But it starts with a talk. Both the rule and the underlying bills have my support, and I urge the same from my colleagues.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, just because the President and Senate refuse to talk to the House of Representatives doesn't mean we're going to stop doing the people's work. We will continue to make the case that there is no rational or acceptable reason for the President and Senate to deny working families fair treatment under ObamaCare. Just as the President decided to give big businesses 1 year to ready themselves for all of the ObamaCare's drastic changes, the American people should have that same year. It is basic fairness. And while the Senate refuses to work with us to work through our policy differences to reopen government fully, the House of Representatives will continue building common ground with House Democrats to restore as many services as we possibly can. The Senate should consider these proposals--opening parks, funding the NIH, ending veteran benefits application delays, funding FEMA and the FDA, and restoring WIC. They are things we can agree on. Let's not squander these opportunities for common ground. Let's pass policies we can agree on and work through our differences together. Regardless of the Senate's non-negotiation policies, North Carolinians still deserve to have their voices heard at their Capitol. My constituent Jeremiah from Rural Hall just received a letter from his insurance provider. He tells me: It appears that due to the health care reform, my insurance premium will double for the upcoming year. It also appears that there's nothing I can change with my current insurance provider to make it more affordable. I have been attempting to log onto the President's Web site, healthcare.gov, without success. I understand that I may be able to get a tax credit if I'm eligible. To my understanding, this will not help me in making my month-to-month bills. If this change goes through next year, I'll not be able to afford to feed my children, much less purchase health insurance. This needs to stop now. Angie from Clemmons contacted me to say: ObamaCare is already adversely affecting my family in several ways. My son and daughter-in-law's family health policies are rising dramatically. They both are already working full-time jobs, and each one has part-time work also. Robert from Lewisville wrote: My 27-year-old son, David, buys health care insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina. His current cost is $111 per month. He received a letter from Blue Cross saying his current policy is being canceled due to the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare. David's new cost is going to be $288 per month. He works hard and does not take handouts from government. How is ObamaCare helping people like him? Jeffrey from Boonville told me his story, too: I went onto the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Web site this morning. If I buy health insurance today, the cost would be $256 a month, but come the first of the year, the same plan will be $556 a month. How is that affordable? This new law was supposed to make it more affordable. I've not checked yet to see if I can get a subsidy. Even if I was eligible for one, it's not the responsibility of other Americans to subsidize my family's health insurance. Susan from Mocksville wrote to me to say: I had affordable health care. I paid Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina $181 per month. Now they sent a letter saying that if I keep this insurance, it will now be $464 per month. This is insane. ObamaCare is affordable for who? Please, who can I contact to have some kind of influence? Mr. Speaker, we share Susan's concerns in the House of Representatives. We want Susan to be treated fairly and to have the same 1-year break from ObamaCare that President Obama chose to give to Big Business. And on Susan's behalf, House Republicans are trying to contact a body with some influence, the United States Senate, to find a way to reopen government and ensure ObamaCare is implemented fairly. But the Senate isn't willing to budge. They won't sit down to talk. They are not interested in making sure the President's unworkable law is at least applied fairly.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad truth that our jaw-dropping $16.7 trillion national debt pales in comparison to the totality of future spending obligations the Congressional Budget Office forecasts. A change in spending habits and a reform to mandatory spending obligations isn't just advisable in this moment; it is absolutely essential for America's long-term financial health. But meaningful reform is impossible without leadership from the White House. Is President Obama willing to lead and enact reforms to make our country stronger? It appears not. The President has made it no secret that he is loathe to engage in bipartisan negotiations regardless of what is at stake--whether it be reopening the Federal Government for the American people, or containing our debt crisis so our children and grandchildren aren't left to pay for previous generations' irresponsibility. Refusing to negotiate on the debt ceiling is code for refusing to make any changes to reduce future debt. Mr. Speaker, as this body knows, it is foolish to take aim at the symptom without also treating the disease.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, consider the common ground the House has offered Senate Democrats, common ground Senator Harry Reid is squandering by refusing to talk. We want to reopen government. We want to restore vital services. The Senate won't budge. They won't even negotiate. Why? Because ensuring fair treatment for Americans under ObamaCare is evidently too radical for some in the Senate. The President provided big businesses a 1-year break to ready themselves for ObamaCare. Shouldn't he provide American families the same? The House thinks so. So does Democrat Senator Joe Manchin: Give them at least a year, he said. You gave the corporate sector a year, don't you think it'd be fair? Yes, because it is. But Senator Reid won't talk. He won't end the shutdown because he's insistent the double standard remains intact. Senator Reid, let's not waste the common ground we have. Let's talk. Let's treat Americans fairly. Let's open their government.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, our House Republicans remain committed to a bipartisan solution to reopen the Federal Government for the American people. And we continue to act in good faith to find an agreement with Senate Democrats to do just that. But to build a bipartisan compromise, the Senate needs to come to the table so we can work through our policy differences. My colleague from Maryland gave a quote from one of our colleagues. But he neglected to mention that Senator Harry Reid said, ``Why would we pass bills to keep the NIH operating and help children with cancer?'' We've offered such a bill. And guess what? One hundred seventy-one Democrats voted against pediatric cancer research. One hundred seventy-two Democrats voted against funding the national parks. One hundred sixty-four Democrats voted against funding veterans benefits. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sound like people who want to get the government back open. Harry Reid said, ``Why would we want to do a piecemeal approach?'' Well, we all know, and the American people know, that the way we pass appropriations bills here, and the way we have the government running, is by passing individual bills. We have 12 different bills that we normally pass. The House has passed five and sent them to the Senate, and the Senate has acted on none of them. So now we are doing it the way it's supposed to be done, under regular order. We are bringing the bills to the floor and passing them. And yet the Senate will not act on them. What about the barriers at the memorials, Mr. Chairman? Isn't it a shame that barriers have been put up at our outdoor memorials that have never had barriers put up before? They are always open 24-7, 365 days a year. Why deny World War II veterans the opportunity to get into their own memorial? How petty is that, Mr. Chairman? Make no mistake, House Republicans want to reopen government and stop shutdown policies before they cause any more pain. But if the Senate will not meet with us to build a bipartisan solution to end the government shutdown, we'll continue to take the lead to fix problems for the American people. We want a fair government. And on those two things, an open government and a fair government, Democrats and Republicans should agree. But there are a few hang-ups. Shouldn't principles of fairness apply to ObamaCare? My colleagues in the House and I say yes. Big Business and other well-connected groups are getting a 1-year delay from ObamaCare, courtesy of the President, to prepare for its drastic changes, brace for its higher costs, and study up on its mountains of regulation. American families and small businesses who apparently don't have the same pull with the White House aren't going to get the same treatment. And further, many are losing the health care they like and would prefer to keep, or are having to find insurance through ObamaCare exchanges without any help from their employers. That isn't right. At the very minimum, these Americans deserve to have the same delay big businesses have to prepare for ObamaCare's drastic changes, brace for its higher costs, and study up on its mountain of regulations. Mr. Chairman, we remain committed to a bipartisan solution to reopen the Federal Government. And that's where we need to go. But rather than building off of common ground and fixing those problems for the American people, the President and the Senate are reflexively saying no. Preserving problems as leverage is wrong. Help us do the right thing for the American people. Help us end the shutdown and ensure fairness under ObamaCare. It's time for the Senate to join us at the negotiating table and achieve fairness for all.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the United States Capitol Police deserve our thanks every day, but this day especially for all they do to keep visitors in this Capitol safe. Mr. Speaker, Americans don't want a government shutdown. They also don't want to get an unfair deal under ObamaCare. The House wants to reopen government fairly, but we need the Senators to be part of the conversation. In the meantime, their refusal to talk has consequences. To name a few: NIH is unable to research and innovate; veteran benefit applications are delayed; military reservists aren't being paid; national parks are closed, including open-air memorials that should never be disrespected by the theater of barricades. Republicans and Democrats in the House found common ground and passed legislation to solve these problems. We urge the Senate Democrats to do their part. These proposals offer common ground. Let's build on it. And with regard to the closure of the World War II Memorial, may I offer a reminder that the beaches of Normandy were closed, too.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 515, I was unexpectedly detained and missed the rollcall vote No. 515 on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we all remember hearing the promise ``if you like your health care, you can keep it.'' We also remember hearing that ObamaCare would reduce insurance costs for families by about $2,500 a year. That is not what we are hearing now. Ronald, one of my constituents from Advance, North Carolina, just received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing him because of ObamaCare his month monthly premiums are tripling from $400 per month to $1,200 per month. His deductible also skyrocketed to $11,000. William in Rural Hall, North Carolina, tells me the same story. His premiums are also tripling from $400 to more than $1,200. Dianne, one of my constituents from Clemmons, tells me that her health care premiums are slated to rise from $193 per month to $553 per month beginning on January 1, 2014, again due to ObamaCare. William from Winston-Salem recently informed me that his son's 2014 renewal rate came in. His premiums are rising from $314 to $821.96. Mr. Speaker, until now we have been forced to debate ObamaCare in the abstract, using economic predictions and common sense to explain why this ill-conceived law is going to be, as one of its key proponents in the Senate predicted, a train wreck. But now the verdict is in. Families from across my district are receiving letters from insurers explaining that the so-called Affordable Care Act is driving their premiums sky high. My constituents don't want to be forced to change their health care plans or risk losing access to doctors they trust. Again, they were promised that if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor and if they liked their health care plan, they could keep it. Those promises were broken. These aren't abstractions or predictions; these are real people whose health and livelihoods are being threatened by this law. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this disastrous scheme keep reminding us that it is ``the law of the land.'' They implore us to simply give up and move on. We will not give up on our constituents. We will not move on when they need us to seek fairness on their behalf. The other side acts as if this bill which they hastily cobbled together and passed on a party-line vote against massive popular opposition is so firmly entrenched in American law that it can never be amended or repealed. This is nonsense and they know it. ObamaCare is the law. But what do we do in Congress every day? We work to change bad laws, and we certainly work to make sure laws treat all Americans fairly. And as Rich Lowry recently pointed out: If this were consistent principle rather than opportunistic advice, Democrats would have been content to leave a number of policies they vigorously fought in place out of deference to duly constituted policy and law. Mr. Speaker, this is about basic fairness. The President has given special treatment to Big Business, Congress and his well-connected political allies; but he refuses to offer the same relief to working families. That is wrong. That is not fair. Ordinary Americans deserve the same exemption that the President has given businesses. Let's reopen this government. Let's reopen it fairly.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the upcoming National Day of the Republic of China, which commemorates the October 10, 1911, uprising that led to the establishment of the Republic of China on January 1, 1912. The Republic of China, also known as Taiwan, is a friend to the United States and also a substantial trading partner. Taiwan is the largest per capita importer of U.S. farm products, and in 2011 the country imported more than $267 million in goods from my home state of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this anniversary presents an opportunity to recognize Taiwan and her people for their commitment to democracy and economic freedom. In that same vein, it is my hope that ongoing trade talks between the U.S. and Taiwan, as part of the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, will strengthen our friendship and economic partnership. The close relationship our countries have should continue to grow through increased cultural and economic exchanges and I look forward to the mutual benefits enjoyed through a strengthened diplomatic bond.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night I voted to stop shutdown policies that are delaying veteran benefit applications and shuttering national parks and memorials. But those measures failed to pass because the President threatened a veto and more than 160 Democrats voted to stop them. That dumbfounds me. Days ago, the President signed similar legislation to protect pay for Active Duty military members throughout any shutdown, why not now? Surprise. Republicans and Democrats have policy differences, but we shouldn't differ here. Correcting problems for veterans, military families, the National Institutes of Health, and visitors to national parks--including the World War II Memorial and North Carolina's Blue Ridge Parkway--is common sense and provides common ground for Democrats and Republicans to make some progress toward solving this shutdown. The President's and Senate's refusal to work with us to reopen the government has consequences well beyond Washington. If they won't contribute to a bipartisan solution to stop the pain, we'll continue to take the lead to fix problems for the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I know that the American people are watching what is happening in Washington these days with a little more than a passing interest. I am sure they wonder sometimes about where is the truth because they hear folks on one side of the aisle saying one thing and folks on the other side of the aisle saying another thing. When I talk to people at home, I do my best to explain the situation in Washington right now. I try to point out the fact that we have deep philosophical differences in this body and in the Senate. We do have two parts of our legislative branch of government--the House and the Senate. The philosophical differences are pretty strong in both bodies. They really stem from the beginning of the country. Our Founders felt very strongly--the majority of them, though--that the Federal Government should be weak. We, obviously, had just come off of getting our independence from Britain and we wanted to not have a king and we wanted not to have a strong central Government. I think the Founders were right. The Founders in the Constitution outlined the duties of our respective branches of government. They enumerated them. People will talk about enumerated powers. They made those powers very few for the Federal Government. They emphasized that with the 10th Amendment. It said: If we didn't tell the Federal Government to do this in the Constitution, then we don't want the Federal Government to do it. We leave those responsibilities to the States and to the individuals. We have gotten along very well, we did get along very well, following the Constitution for a long time in this country. Then we came about in the 1930s with an era of great involvement by the Federal Government--in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues--overstepping its bounds by getting involved in things that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Bring us forward to the 1960s, a period of great activism in this country when many more programs were begun, but in the opinion of many of us, again, had absolutely no place in the Federal Government. We should not be doing things like running the education of this country out of the Federal Government or running health care out of the Federal Government. So what we have here is the result of these deep philosophical differences, and I want to say that that's what is playing out here. Those of us who are opposed to the Federal Government's running health care in this country do so not out of pettiness, not out of meanness, not out of a lack of concern for our fellow citizens, but because we want to diminish the role of the Federal Government in our lives. We believe that, once you turn health care over to the Federal Government, you've basically turned the lives of citizens over to the Federal Government, and that is not a good place to be. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also act as though no act of Congress has ever been repealed. My goodness, we spend a good part of our days here repealing bad legislation that somehow or another got passed before. So what we are doing and what we have been doing for the last few days is making every effort we can to repeal or to delay what is called the Affordable Health Care Act, which we are finding out is absolutely not affordable. That's what we have been doing, but we have been unsuccessful. So we are trying to keep the government open. We have passed bill after bill after bill out of the House to keep the Federal Government open. We have failed in doing that in a large way, so we are working at doing it in minor ways, by passing individual bills. That's what we are here to do today. I just came out of the Rules Committee. We had these bills on the floor yesterday--three of the five that we are going to vote on today. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against paying our National Guard even though the President sort of quietly, Saturday night, signed a bill to continue to pay our troops. That was a bill the President said he'd never sign and that he wouldn't compromise, that he wouldn't negotiate. Yet, he did that. Now we want to keep our national parks open; we want to pay our National Guard and Reserve people; we want to provide local funding for the District of Columbia; and we want to keep our promises to America's veterans.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this is a first for me. This is a first for a lot of us. Because of a partisan refusal even to talk with House Republicans about a plan to keep our government open and ensure fair treatment for all Americans under ObamaCare, the Federal Government is shut down. Yes, the consequences of Presidential partisanship are real and are being felt throughout the country--in furloughed offices and in faulty health care exchanges. Over the past 2 weeks, the House has offered four bipartisan proposals to fund government services fully and put ObamaCare uncertainty on hold. Each effort was rebuffed. Each good-faith step we took to the middle was rejected--even the simplest request to sit down and work through our policy differences. Really. Call us names, belittle our values, refuse to negotiate with us-- fine. In this moment where leadership is required, be small. But House Republicans still recognize that it is going to take bipartisanship to reopen government. We will continue to lead as the only body that has provided bipartisan solutions for the country.