Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an outstanding young man from Deep Gap, North Carolina. Kyle Stockamp is set to graduate from the United States Air Force Academy this May. He will be graduating as squadron commander of his unit and was recently selected to represent the Air Force Academy at the Doolittle Raider reunion. He was selected as the number one cadet from all of the history and FAS-history majors to serve on the silver goblet detail at this historic event. Kyle was first nominated for the Air Force Academy in 2006. In 2007, he left the academy to spend time as a missionary in Taiwan and subsequently returned to the academy. Today, I am proud not only to congratulate Kyle for graduating at the top of his class but proud of his dedication and commitment to God and his country. May God continue to bless Kyle and his family.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of a friend, former colleague and public servant, North Carolina State senator Dr. Jim Forrester. Jim was a lifelong public servant. He was a brigadier general with the U.S. Air Force and the North Carolina Air National Guard. He served as a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War. He was a small town doctor and community leader. He and his wife of 51 years, Mary Frances Forrester, shared the values that made our country great, were committed to the community, and worked tirelessly for the betterment of their city and State. Together they sold Bibles to pay for his education at Wake Forest Medical School. He made time from his successful practice and family to serve on the Gaston County Board of Commissioners in 1982 before being elected to the State senate, where he served 11 terms. Today we pay tribute to his life and service. My heart goes out to Mary Frances, his three daughters and son, and his eight grandchildren. May God's peace be with them and the many people who mourn his death and celebrate his life of service.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks the second anniversary of ObamaCare. Since that day 2 years ago, we've seen multiple reports and heard firsthand the disastrous effects of the law that allowed the Federal Government to take over our health care system. People in the Fifth District of North Carolina tell me they're worried about the cost of health care and about the 15-person board that will be making decisions about their health care. The President and Democrats said, ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' But now we know this is not the case. The Independent Payment Advisory Board will pick and choose what should be cut from Medicare medical services. And they will do so without any accountability to the American people, to Congress, or to even the President. As we prepare to vote on another bill that would repeal another part of this disastrous law, we should remember that Americans should have the freedom to make their own health care decisions, Mr. Speaker, and ObamaCare takes that away. It's time to repeal ObamaCare for good, either in whole or in part.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. It is time that we emphasize the facts about the price of gas in our country. On inauguration day for President Obama, the average price of gasoline was $1.84 per gallon. Today, it's $3.75. That's an increase of 103 percent. The estimate is that it will be $4.50 by May. A 1-cent increase in the cost of gas equals $1 billion out of the economy, and it's a $4 million-per-day cost to consumers. As the price of oil continues to rise at an alarming rate, the President and the congressional Democrats have tried to deflect the blame of their failed energy policies and point the finger at Wall Street speculators for the rise of the cost of a barrel of oil. But that's not the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Obama administration's energy policies are creating uncertainty in the marketplace and are driving up costs. We need this President to assume the responsibility for the problems that he has caused the average hardworking American taxpayer and to do something about the price of gas.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely disappointed by the President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which would dramatically increase health care costs for our Nation's veterans and military personnel. While I applaud the Pentagon's willingness to make tough choices, these changes are simply unacceptable. The President's plan would hike annual TRICARE premiums by up to 78 percent in the first year alone. Every 5 years, beneficiaries would face premium hikes ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent--345 percent, Mr. Speaker. This means that a retired Army soldier with a family could see his annual premiums jump from $460 to $2,048. This is disgraceful. It's wrong to impose crippling rate increases on our Nation's heroes while leaving benefits for unionized civilian defense workers untouched. It is wrong to surreptitiously dismantle TRICARE in an effort to funnel beneficiaries into ObamaCare's subsidized health care exchanges. It is wrong, and it is shameful. Mr. Speaker, I wear a pin every day that says I support veterans. Every American should be supporting veterans. It is the reason we are here and allowed to speak freely and the reason Americans are able to speak and go about their business every day doing what they do because of the sacrifices that have been made by those who have served. In every generation, the men and women of America's Armed Forces have answered the call to service. They have sacrificed greatly, and they deserve better than this.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I know I'm going to repeat some of the things that my colleague from Texas has gone over as it relates to energy in our country and the response of the Obama administration. But, Mr. Speaker, these facts bear repeating because the media has been complicit with the Obama administration in hiding the facts from the American people about the extraordinarily negative impact that the President and his administration have had on the American people as it relates to energy prices. Let me say, again, that on his inauguration date in 2009, the average price of gasoline in this country was $1.84. The average price of gasoline today is $3.73. That is a 102 percent increase. By spring, the estimates by Barrons are that the price of gasoline will be $4.50. This is a tremendous burden on the hardworking American taxpayers. We hear the President and his people in his administration talking about how they want to be fair--fair to the middle class. Well, what's not fair to hardworking American taxpayers is the President's inability to see how the price of gasoline is hurting those hardworking American taxpayers. A 1-cent increase in the cost of gas equals $1 billion out of our economy and is a $4 million per day cost to consumers. A 50-cent increase in gasoline equals a $70 billion yearly loss to the U.S. economy. Again, how does it affect the average family? In 2009, it cost them $173.80 more; in 2010, $281.06; in 2011, $368.09. The Republicans have a plan to do something about this, but again, we have to explain to the American people we're only one-half of one-third of the Federal Government. We've passed five bills in the House to increase energy production from the abundant supply of natural resources we have in this country. Mr. Speaker, we could be energy independent in this country, but the President and the people who work for him and the Senate are stopping us from being that way. We've passed legislation to ensure construction of the Keystone pipeline. Together with the Keystone pipeline and the other bills we've passed, we'd decrease our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and stabilize gas prices. They will create hundreds of thousands of good American jobs and make our Nation more secure. But what is the Obama administration saying? And they are being helped to perpetuate these myths by the lame-stream media. They claim they are not responsible for the increased prices and that there's nothing they can do. But they are trying to take credit for previous Presidents Clinton and Bush pro-energy policies. The reason oil production is up today is because of development on private and State lands. North Dakota alone produced almost 16 million barrels of oil in January 2011 compared to only a little more than 2 million in January 2012, the majority of which is on State and private lands. The Obama administration is not opening new offshore areas for energy production. The President and the administration claim to be opening more than 75 percent of offshore lands for energy exploration. This is absolutely false. The Obama administration has blocked energy production on Federal lands, and the Obama administration denies the potential of domestic oil production. So everywhere we turn, the President and the people who work for him are keeping us from becoming energy independent. Let me give you some quotes from the President. January 2008: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. We all remember that. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, December 2008: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. And another one: Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over the next 15 years to coax consumers into buying more efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work. Mr. Speaker, we Republicans have a plan. We need the Senate to act on that plan.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, again, I appreciate the sentiments of my colleague from Colorado; but I would say to him that there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Secretary of Education from coming to the Education and Workforce Committee and presenting his ideas on where there is waste, fraud, and abuse. We would be more than happy to do that. Most of what we hear from the administration is spend, spend, spend, not how can we save money, but spend, spend, spend. All of us want to make sure that every dime of taxpayers' money is well spent, and I can assure you that members of my committee want to see that the money is well spent, and we'll be working on that issue as we have been working on it, as will all the Republican majorities in the House do that. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I appreciate the very positive comments that my colleague from Colorado has made about the underlying bill. I hope very much that he will support it. I appreciate, actually, serving with him on the Rules Committee and the often commonsense approaches that he brings to legislation that we're reviewing. However, I have to say reluctantly that I am opposing his amendment. I don't think, again, that we need to ask the Department of Education to present more plans or more rules and regulations. It is certainly doing a lot to present rules and regulations that are totally unnecessary. Next year we will have the reauthorization of the higher education bill. As I think most people know, the Speaker has asked all the committees, all the subcommittees to exercise their oversight responsibilities, and we are certainly doing that and will continue to do that. Therefore, I think that the gentleman from Colorado's amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct; deans and assistant deans and others at colleges and universities have that authority right now. They've had it since the beginning of the creation of institutions of higher education, and we don't need the Federal Government meddling in places it has no business meddling. I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, the creation of a Federal definition of credit hour is a prime example of Federal overreach into an area that should be left to colleges and universities. This has worked from the beginning of our country. Our accrediting bodies, our colleges and universities, have done their jobs. There have been no complaints about this. There was one minor episode that occurred, one isolated event, and it was addressed through the accrediting body. This is a typical example of the overreach of this administration, and particularly the Department of Education. If a need arose in the future to create a Federal definition or put some additional parameters around this section of the law, then it should be done through the legislative process where the implications of such a definition can be thoroughly examined. Madam Chair, the Founders were very, very wise when they created the Constitution. They delineated exactly what the Federal Government should and should not be doing. The word ``education'' is no place in the Constitution, but article I, section 1 does talk about the House of Representatives and the Congress. That's where the Founders wanted the power to lie, where the authority is to lie. We are accountable to the people whom we represent. We are the people's House. We should not be abrogating our responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. I'm almost embarrassed that any Member would want to do that. We need this responsibility. We have the time to take care of it if there is such a need. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, again, I want to state my opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This amendment is simply unnecessary, and I oppose it. Since the day the President took office, members of his administration have been issuing one heavy-handed regulation after another, primarily in the name of program integrity. However, the regulations simply bring increased Federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives and do not provide the kind of accountability that we need to have throughout our Federal Government. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, urging my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. In the months since the Education and the Workforce Committee approved H.R. 2117, States and institutions have expressed concerns about interpretations of the clock-hour provisions in the credit-hour regulation. The regulation would prevent some programs from converting to a credit-hour program even though the conversion is permitted under State law. This change could alter the manner in which colleges and universities disburse Federal student aid, and it could harm students' abilities to progress sufficiently in their coursework. My amendment would prevent the Federal Government from reinterpreting a State's laws or regulations to require credit-hour programs to convert back to clock-hour programs. The State should be the final judge of its own laws and regulations. This is a necessary step to correct the Department of Education's interpretation of a clock-hour program, and it will reaffirm our intent that the discretion for determining clock-hour programs should remain with States' accrediting agencies and institutions. Madam Chairman, the amendment improves the underlying legislation and ensures colleges and students are protected from the harmful Federal intrusion into academic affairs. I urge my colleagues to lend their support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I will say once again that I believe this is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting agencies are already required to have a system for individuals to give complaints about a college or a university. Under current practice, many States have well-established complaint processes that are serving students. I am also concerned about the burden this regulation will place on States. While the economic situation in our country has shown modest improvements recently, States are struggling with huge budgetary challenges. They have limited staff and may not be able to handle new and unnecessary changes required under this proposal. During a time when States, institutions, parents, and students are worried about ways to increase college affordability, I think it would be better for States to put their limited resources towards helping colleges and universities keep their tuitions down rather than adding another layer of State bureaucracy. For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we don't need this motion to recommit. My colleagues should all vote against it. We have a situation where our colleagues across the aisle want to take the Secretary of Education and make him a Czar of Education. We, on our side of the aisle, are very much concerned about the cost of a college education, and we've done a lot to make college accessible and affordable for students in this country. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are very much concerned about the cost of going to college ourselves. We want to reduce the cost of going to college. Our subcommittee has had hearings on this. There are many ways to do this. But having the Federal Government establish price controls is not the way to do it. The Federal Government, in fact, has encouraged too much borrowing. Because the Federal Government has been such a big borrower itself, it has established that kind of mentality across the country. So we'd like to see the level of borrowing reduced. We'd like to see the level of debt and deficit go down so that the economy would rebound, people could get jobs, and those who do have debt would be able to better deal with that debt. We do not need more government rules and regulations. We don't need the Federal Government picking winners and losers, and we don't need this kind of authority ceded to the Secretary of the Department of Education. The Congress needs to be dealing with these issues. We are dealing with the issues. The underlying bill deals with the issues because we reduced the role of the Federal Government and rules and regulations. Higher education has policed itself very well over the years. We need to pass the underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.