Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I now yield such time as he may consume to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. We keep talking about the economic situation in this country because it is extraordinarily important to all of us, and all of these bills that are being passed are exacerbating the problem. As my colleague from Arizona said and we have said over and over, you cannot repeal the laws of economics. Our colleagues across the aisle think they can. Right now, just the interest on U.S. debt in FY 2010 is going to be $425 billion. That's like paying interest on a credit card and never ever paying off the principal. The enormous burden of the interest cost on our debt takes money out of the economy for future generations and diverts funds from being used for other more pressing priorities. In addition, the U.S. dependence on borrowing money to fund our budget deficit places our Nation in the precarious situation of being beholden to foreign nations like China to finance our Federal spending. High national debt also diminishes confidence in an economy. As even President Obama said in November 2009: I think it is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that some people can lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double-dip recession. The President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a good game, and then they do the opposite. Despite their rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, the President's budget more than doubles the debt, drives spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011, pushing the deficit to a new record of $1.6 trillion in FY 2010, and raises taxes by over $2 trillion through 2020 by the administration's own estimates. The President's FY 2011 budget doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it by 2019 from FY 2008 levels. It pushes the debt to $9.3 trillion this year, or 63.6 percent of gross domestic product, the largest debt in history and the largest debt as a share of our economy in 59 years. Despite the Senate's passage of a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit, Congress would need to increase this limit again before October 1, 2011, under the President's budget. The interest bill on the debt would more than quadruple by the end of the decade, reaching $840 billion in 2020. The budget boosts the deficit to a record level this year, $1.6 trillion, or 10.6 percent, of GDP. This is the largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II. Deficits never fall below $700 billion, never below 3.6 percent of GDP, and end the decade at more than $1 trillion. Even with a decline in spending due to the repayment of most TARP funds and the eventual spend-out of stimulus funds, spending reaches a record level of $3.8 trillion in FY 2011. The budget does not include the spending impact of the administration's cap-and-trade proposal. Even so, spending is still 23.7 percent of the economy at the end of the decade when the historical average has always been 20 percent. Madam Speaker, we are in a critical time in our country. Economists have told me that unless we stop spending in a very short period of time, we are going to become like a Third World nation. What has set us apart for so long from the rest of the world has been the rule of law and the fact that we have been fiscally conservative. The American people are fiscally conservative; they expect their government to be so. We are putting this country in danger and Republicans are sounding the call. We want to help the American people, but we know the best way we can do that is for the Federal Government to get out of the way and let the entrepreneurial spirit and the freedom that has always characterized this country allow people to do what is the right thing to do for our economy. This direction is wrong. We are going to continue to say that it is wrong, and we know the American people understand that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. We don't need to create more government jobs. We need to let people have control of their lives and of their money. They will bring the economy back. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding and answering my questions. I didn't say anything about FEMA and its response to Hurricane Katrina. I think if you will look back at my comments, it was that Congress was able to respond immediately when there was a need, which is what we believe should happen.

Ms. FOXX. Well, my question is: Who was in charge of the Congress beginning in January of 2007, when the economy started going south?

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague. What I don't understand, if this is what the Democrats want to do, why don't we have an emergency reserve fund? Again, we advise families to prepare for emergencies. That's what we should do in the government. We should go through regular order. We should have debate. We should have some idea of where money is going to need to be spent in advance in terms of how we respond at the Federal level. This is more government knowing the answer to everything and government control from the Federal level. That's exactly what this is. Is it going to create jobs? Well, yes. It's going to create some summer jobs for young people, but it's not going to affect that job picture that my colleague talked about. Neither did the stimulus. The stimulus was passed. We were told by the White House, by the Congress, ``Pass this and unemployment will not exceed 8 percent.'' Unemployment has been right at 10 percent for months and months and months. In fact, again, the only thing that's been stimulated has been the government, and that's not where we need to be going. The American people don't want more government. They want more jobs. The recent health care overhaul and last year's stimulus bill illustrate the Congress is very good at growing government; not so good at spurring job growth. The simple truth is that if the Democrats really wanted to stimulate youth employment, there's one sensible, effective policy change that could do so without spending a dime. As articulated in a March 10 Wall Street Journal editorial: ``The recent act of Congress that has caused the most economic hardship goes to the May 2007 law raising the minimum wage in three stages to $7.25 an hour from $5.15. Rarely has a law hurt more vulnerable people more quickly. A higher minimum wage has the biggest impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond what you would expect even in a recession.'' The editorial continues by comparing: ``the three-stage increase in the minimum wage with the jobless rate for teens age 16 to 19 since 2007. The first increase, to $5.85 from $5.15, after a decade of no increases and when the overall joblessness rate was below 5 percent and the teen rate was 14.9 percent. The demand for labor was sufficiently strong in many areas that most employers were probably willing to absorb the higher wage. ``But as the minimum wage increased even as the overall job market began to worsen, the damage to teen job seekers became more severe. By the time the third increase to $7.25 from $6.55 took effect in July 2009, the teen jobless rate was 24.3 percent, and by October, it peaked at 27.6 percent before dropping to 26.4 percent in January. ``The story is even worse for black teens, who often have lower than average education levels or live in areas with fewer job prospects. Their jobless rate climbed from 38.5 percent before the third wage hike to 49.8 percent in November 2009, before falling back to 43.8 percent in January. For black male teens, the rate climbed to 52.2 percent in December from 39.2 percent in July. The difference between the jobless rates for black teens and the entire population widened by six percentage points from June 2007 to January 2010. Even assuming those rates fall as the job market improves this year, they will remain destructively high. ``The third increase was especially ill-timed because it hit while the recession was ending but before employers have felt confident to rehire. To raise the cost of unskilled labor precisely when the jobless rate is heading toward 10 percent is an act of almost willful economic stupidity.'' Madam Speaker, I want to remind the Speaker that I am quoting. ``A Congress that has spent $862 billion to create jobs thus managed with its wage increase to harm tens of thousands of entry-level job seekers. And it did so in the name of `compassion' and a `living wage.' In many cases that wage has since become zero. ``The evidence is clear that increasing the minimum wage is an expensive and misguided way to try to move working families out of poverty. According to the Employment Policies Institute, 85 percent of people who earn the minimum wage aren't the primary bread winner in a family. ``Most readers remember the work habits they learned from their first job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to use technology--such habits are often more valuable than the actual paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer months or after school, they have higher lifetime earnings than those who don't work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce lifetime earnings. ``Most Democrats won't bend on the minimum wage because it is a core union demand, but free thinkers ought to at least consider the teenage job problem. The long-term danger is that we are building in a higher level of structural unemployment as our least skilled workers find it harder to climb onto the first rung of the job market.'' This will not solve problems. It creates more. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate my colleague pointing out the fact that we did have some areas in North Carolina. Indeed, two of the counties that he mentioned were in my district, because of the rain that we had recently. But, you know, declaring a disaster and allocating money to those counties are two different things. I would bet--and I'm sorry I don't have time to do it while we're here on the floor, but I bet it'll be 18 months before any of those people see a dime of the money because the bureaucracy is so incompetent in terms of responding to people. So the money won't be given out for a long, long time from those disasters, unfortunately, because usually when there is a disaster, people need help right away, but it doesn't get done. We could have gone through regular order on this. There's no reason not to have gone through regular order. But what you wanted to do was get this jobs money out there, is my guess, so that you could declare jobs being created through more government funding. Madam Speaker, I was in the Congress when Katrina hit, and here's what happened. We were on August break. Katrina hits on Saturday, Sunday, Monday. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, had a conference call on Wednesday of that week and he said, I either can call everybody back into session and we will allocate the $10 billion that needs to be allocated for Katrina right now, in an emergency, or we can have unanimous consent, no one will come forward and object. I will bring a few people back in. We'll take care of this need immediately. That's exactly what happened. Everybody knew there was an emergency, and we reacted to it. I don't understand my colleague saying we are not prepared for a massive disaster. If we aren't, with all the money that we spend on things, then we have a major problem. I think we are prepared for major disasters. We showed that on 9/11. We showed it with Katrina. So this is a straw dog. That's all it is. Now, given the best efforts of the Democrats to create jobs, starting with the stimulus last year, perhaps this bill would be better titled: The Disaster Relief and Summer Government Jobs Act of 2010. As has been so well articulated in a March 3 Washington Times editorial, ``From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new government programs in Washington nowadays then to declare them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and potential opposition crumble.'' The piece goes on to cite multiple examples of how Democrats claim their proposals will create jobs, but what they never seem to mention is where these jobs are coming from. Ends up, many of the Democrat policies do create jobs after all--government jobs--and they do so by stealing jobs from the private sector. And don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the evidence. As you can see, this chart shows the net job gains or losses by major sector from February of 2009 to February 2010. It illustrates how the private sector lost 3.9 million jobs over the past year while government grew by a total 293,000 jobs. Again, the American people are understanding this and they're getting sick and tired of it. They don't want to be paying high taxes to be put in debt until infinity in order to create more government jobs, generally paying twice as much as the private sector jobs do. The Senate health care overhaul, replete with its backroom deals, mandates of dubious constitutional standing, and a dozen tax increases that break the President's tax pledge, is now law. It remains to be seen how this health care overhaul will be implemented, but one White House advisor said it must be implemented ``effectively, efficiently, and with great accountability.'' If that sounds familiar, it's because last year the White House was saying the same thing about the stimulus bill. It turns out the trillion-dollar boondoggle wasn't nearly as stimulative as advertised. Job creation, not so much. This is the proof. Our colleagues continually say that we don't represent things accurately. I know we can argue about numbers, but these are not Republican numbers. These are numbers that are true. Madam Speaker, this bill is not going to do anything to create more jobs. It's going to continue to hurt the economy. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, despite what the Democrats may say about this bill, my colleagues could be well served to recognize how this bill represents little more than a continuation of the arrogant approach to governing that has pervaded this body since they took control 3 years ago. Let's start by considering the process for which this rule and bill are coming before us today. This legislation, which spends $5.7 billion to replenish a FEMA disaster relief account and fund a Department of Labor Summer Jobs program--``jobs'' in quotes--was introduced last Sunday, March 21, and was before the Rules Committee the following day. In February of 2009, shortly after President Obama assumed office, The Hill newspaper quoted a group of Democrats as saying that, ``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We are looking forward to working with you to restore this institution.'' So much for good intentions. Despite their best attempts to divert attention from the simple truth, it is worth remembering the pledge made in 2006 by the then- minority Democrats to ensure regular order for legislation, promising that, ``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Oh, how quickly we forget. You know, $5.7 billion used to be a lot of money. But the ruling Democrats, who have apparently no concept of the value of money, have completely thrown that idea right out of the window. In fairness to my liberal colleagues, working with such large numbers starts to get confusing. After all, who pays attention to all those zeroes? We hardly ever hear the word ``million'' anymore, and it hasn't been that long ago that Everett Dirksen said, ``A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.'' I saw an article today in one of the newspapers from my district where they talked about the fact that they thought they weren't going to have money for a summer job program. Now, it looks like they are going to have it. And the article said, ``Last year, 129 businesses that used this program benefited from free labor provided by Uncle Sam.'' We have established in the minds of many Americans that Federal dollars are somehow or another manna from heaven. They are not manna from heaven. Somebody has to pay this bill. It's not free. There is no free lunch. Every dime we are spending has to be borrowed. The American people understand that, and they are sick and tired of it. Many of our colleagues support PAYGO, which, they argue, forces Congress to ``pay for'' certain spending increases with tax increases. This bill is a perfect example of the sham that is PAYGO. First off, PAYGO applies only to certain kinds of nondiscretionary spending, so they exhaust themselves spending on social welfare programs without so much as a PAYGO speed bump. When looking for another reason to increase taxes, they simply look for an excuse to increase automatic spending. That way, they tell their tax-conscious constituents that their hands were tied as the rules forced them to support the tax increases. Never take responsibility for your actions. What happens when the spending proposals are so much that even liberals can't tax their way out of them? A few of their tricks include budgetary gimmicks, like inserting an exception into the rules, or, my favorite, simply declare the spending to be an emergency. The bill we have before us today designates, as an emergency, $5.1 billion in spending for a FEMA account that could and should be funded through the regular appropriations process. As I raised in the Rules Committee the other day, we recommend to people that they have 3 months of income in an account in case they have an emergency, but this is funding in anticipation. And it means we're borrowing money and we're paying interest on that borrowed money. The excuses from my colleagues just are endless. Spending increases are so common that they have become all too predictable. Observers of this debate are likely to hear one of the most tired excuses intended to dodge responsibility for their unconscionable spending binge. When all else fails, they always fall back on the reliable excuses, Well, George Bush did it, or, You did it before. As a teacher, I never let my students get away with childish excuses like this. This is Congress. People elected us to be responsible for the decisions we make. It is true that Republicans spent far too much while in the majority, but the Democrat response is simply to triple down on the mistakes of the past and return to the same old blame game that's led this government into the budgetary malaise that we're facing today. While they say they're simply responding to the mess made by the previous administration, the Democrats would have you believe that this mess was created because George Bush didn't spend enough. The American people need strong leadership. They need effective leadership. They need leadership that ends the petty, partisan blame game and accepts responsibility for governance. This bill exemplifies how the ruling Democrats fail to offer any of these fundamental leadership traits. That's why this country desperately needs a change in congressional leadership. We need to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bill. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit an editorial published in the Boston Globe on March 8, 2010, entitled ``FDA Lax on Conflicts of Interest.'' This editorial highlights the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the FDA's recent selection of Committee Members for their newly established Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, TPSAC. I understand the committee is responsible for advising the FDA on a broad range of topics, including nicotine levels in cigarettes and the development of reduced risk products. I opposed H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act when it passed through the Democrat-led Congress in the summer of 2009 before being signed into law. The bill, which provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products, defies logic and I have been monitoring the development of these new regulations carefully. Earlier this month the FDA finally announced the members they selected to serve on TPSAC. Alarmingly, as the Boston Globe editorial explains, two of the scientists selected as committee members have direct financial ties to the companies who could benefit from the recommendations they will be tasked with making. Having committee members who stand to gain financially from their own recommendations is unacceptable and represents disturbing conflicts of interest. This action and the resulting conflicts of interest are extremely threatening to the tobacco industry--an industry that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs in North Carolina and throughout our nation. This Administration likes to talk about high ethical standards and transparency but we have yet to see those lofty promises put into action. The Administration can take its first step towards this goal by eliminating these conflicts of interest and ensuring the FDA takes the utmost precaution against selecting such members in the future. FDA Lax on Conflicts of Interest [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2010] The Food and Drug Administration has done far too little to avoid conflicts of interest among those who serve on its scientific panels and advisory boards. The latest example came last Monday, when the agency appointed to a tobacco advisory committee two scientists who have financial ties to companies that sell smoking cessation products. One of the scientists, Jack Henningfield, makes most of his income from a consulting company that has GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Nicorette gum, as a client, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The other, Neil L. Benowitz, formerly worked as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and still consults for Pfizer, which makes the quit- smoking drug Chantix. It could be worse. The pair of scientists could have financial ties to cigarette makers--which would violate federal law since the two will vote on recommendations for how to regulate the tobacco industry. But no matter how honorable the individuals involved, there's a clear danger when those who decide whether menthol cigarettes should be banned and whether smokeless tobacco products are safe also stand to profit from the sale of products that help people quit smoking. It's encouraging that the FDA asked the scientists to disclose their financial ties to the drug companies. The reason for their appointment is the same scientific expertise they also offer to the pharmaceutical industry. But the agency must justify why the nine voting members of the committee could not be selected from the many scientists who do not have such ties. If the two scientists are indeed the best that can serve the committee, they should not be allowed to vote on whether particular tobacco products can come to market unless they agree not to receive profits related to smoking-cessation aids. In addition, the FDA, which promised to screen all panel members for conflicts of interest before each meeting, should make the criteria and results of those screenings public while the panel meets and before any of its recommendations become national policy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have voted for a bill that is a government takeover of the health care system of this country. They talk about all of the good things that they see in the bill that Republicans want to repeal. Republicans want to replace the bad parts of this bill with good things. The main message of this bill is that it is going to tax us for 10 years for benefits for 6 years. The tax increases begin immediately, the benefits in most cases don't begin for 4 more years, and that is not good news for the American people. We need to put the people in charge of their own health care. We do not need government bureaucrats making decisions for us. This is a bad bill. It is bad medicine for the United States. It is bad medicine for our people, and we are going to do everything we can to replace the bad aspects of the bill with good things.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we're about to vote on represents one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States, and the American people recognize this simple truth. Even the ruling Democrats recognize how unpopular this proposal is but have chosen to ignore the overwhelming outcry and convince their wavering colleagues that the government and politicians in Washington, D.C., know better than their constituents. What arrogance. Although this may be shocking to many Americans, this arrogance reflects the approach the ruling Democrats have taken since they regained the majority in 2007. We will be voting on legislation that even the liberal Democrat chairwoman of the Rules Committee said ``Will do almost nothing to reform health care,'' and that ``It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.'' On that, we agree. This legislation contains taxpayer funding for elective abortion, an unprecedented proposal that offends the conscience of American taxpayers. The legislation we're about to vote on increases the cost of insurance, strangles private competition, and ultimately leads to a complete Federal takeover of the health care industry. Voting ``no'' on this rule and this legislation will give Congress a renewed opportunity to do what should have been done from the beginning, vote for effective bipartisan legislation that rises to the challenge facing so many people seeking reasonable health care reform.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we have to respond to those comments that are being made. Republicans did nothing? We did a lot. We opened up HSAs, health savings accounts, for Americans. We passed three bills in my first 2 years here that would allow for associated health plans. But what happened? They get over to the Senate and they can't get passed because the Democrats bottled them up. The Democrats have over 250 Members in this body. Republicans never had more than 232. They are trying to blame us for this health care bill not passing? If it is such a wonderful bill, how come you are having to break arms and bribe people to vote for it? That is the problem. The Democrats themselves can't agree on this bill. We set up HSAs so that people aren't tied to their employers to keep their insurance. You all have ruined the economy and you are destroying jobs. People are losing their jobs; they are losing their health care. That is what is happening. And Medicare rations more health care than the worst of the insurance companies does. Look at the chart. Medicare turns down more people with preexisting conditions than the insurance companies do. And what's going to happen is you're spreading Medicare out. You're forcing people into Medicaid. They will have no choice as to whether to be in Medicaid or have private insurance. That's what the majority is doing here. Don't talk to us about our doing nothing and about your giving access to people and coverage. You're raising the cost of health care. You're going to destroy at least 5 million jobs with this bill because of the taxes on businesses. This is not the way to go. This is not what Americans want. Americans deserve a better life. Americans deserve their freedom.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for the time. I want to just say that our colleagues across the aisle have been lambasting insurance companies about what terrible things they have done to the American people. But I want to say that there is one insurance company they like very much, and that's the AARP. And it's probably because the AARP has come out so strongly in favor of this terrible so-called health care bill. Let me explain to the American people why the AARP is an insurance company. Because their royalty fees in 2008, according to their own financial statements, totaled $414 million, pure profit. And a higher amount of net revenue than that generated by such large insurers as CIGNA, which had $292 million profit, or Health Net, a $95 million profit during the same time period.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4840, introduced by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), designating the United States Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office. Growing up in the poor rural south in a family of sharecroppers, Clarence D. Lumpkin has had his fair share of challenges, but that has never deterred him from moving ahead. Mr. Lumpkin picked cotton as a youngster from sunup to sundown, served lunch to turpentine workers, and at the age of 10 lost his mother, who had been bedridden for most of his life. He entered the first grade at 12 years old. Hungry for knowledge, Mr. Lumpkin was a model student who studied constantly. After graduating from high school, Mr. Lumpkin joined the Army, where he served in New Guinea during World War II. After the war, he moved to Ohio, where over a period of 41 years he worked a number of jobs, finally retiring as chief of the enforcement division in the Department of Highway Safety's Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Lumpkin is a remarkable man who came from a very difficult childhood and turned his experience of hard work into service to his country in the Army and lifelong service to his community, where he has truly made a difference every day in people's lives. In gratitude for his service, I ask all Members to join me in supporting H.R. 4840. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues have said today, and I have mentioned, also, we are here this week, we are here on a Friday afternoon, we are not normally here, because our colleagues across the aisle, along with the President, have decided that it is time for the government to take over one-sixth of our economy and to institute a government-run health care plan in this country. We have talked about this before, but this is the wrong way to go. The American people do not want this plan. And why are we being kept in town on a Friday afternoon and being told we will probably vote on Sunday? Because despite the fact that the Democrats control 253 seats and need only 216 votes, they cannot get their colleagues to agree with them to vote on this terrible bill. They, again, try to blame Republicans for the situation that we're in, but they cannot do that. The American people are paying attention, they know about the Slaughter rule, they know the tricks and chicanery that are being used to get people to vote for this bill that Americans do not want. But we've raised the awareness of process as well as substance here. And I want today to talk about even a person in this great State of Massachusetts who has predicted that passing this bill will be a disaster. There was an article in The Boston Globe on March 17, 2010, that talks about State treasurer Timothy Cahill who was, until recently, a Democrat but who has become an Independent candidate for governor, who has said that the State's universal health care law is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally if Congress passes a similar plan. ``If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years.'' That is a statement that he made at a press conference. He went on further to criticize the 2006 health care law and said--he started last summer when he began to think about running for Governor. His criticism has echoed that leveled by Senator Scott Brown during his run for the U.S. Senate. Another quote from Mr. Cahill. ``It is time for the President and the Democratic leadership to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.'' Many people are understanding exactly what Mr. Cahill is talking about. They know that this is not the direction to go. Another quote from Mr. Cahill in this article says, ``The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform. And I would argue that we're being propped up so that the Federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.'' He says in this article that the only reason they've been able to survive in Massachusetts is because the Obama administration is pumping money into Massachusetts, as he said, to keep it going in order that they can get their own health care plan through, which will be a disaster. I want to point out further that our own chairman of the Rules Committee said herself last year that the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn't worthy of its support. And she said then in an op-ed, Supporters of the weak Senate bill say just passing any bill is better than no bill. I strongly disagree. It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that. Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement of the esteemed chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. I believe that Americans know that they deserve a better life. They know that our freedom is at stake. They know they are not more secure than they were 3 years ago when the Democrats took control of this Congress. They know that their taxes are higher and will go higher. Mr. Speaker, it's time that we stop the charade of saying that this health care bill is going to help the American people and admit to the fact that it is going to destroy jobs, bring down our economy, and take away the freedom that Americans have to choose their health care. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Republicans are not saying that we don't need to do something to reform health care. We all agree with that. We need to do something to reform it. We have commonsense solutions. And compassion begins with preserving freedom. Don't tell me you're compassionate when you want to take away the people's freedom. That isn't compassion. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida has made our case by bringing up the fact that Medicare is a government program. It's going broke. Medicare costs were 20 times more than what was estimated for part of the program, seven times more for part of the program, 2\1/2\ times more for part of the program. The gentleman from Florida has made our case on this issue. I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the former attorney general of California, Mr. Lungren.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentlewoman from Maine that Republicans did a lot when they were in control, and what got stopped was because of Democrats in the Senate. We passed health savings accounts which give people individual control, Medicare part D which Democrats voted against because there was the private sector involvement. And I guess we are going to get the same kind of results from the promises of this that we are getting from the stimulus bill. Her State is in such bad trouble because the President's stimulus plan, which was not going to allow unemployment to go above 8 percent, has failed so badly. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. FOXX. I now yield 2 minutes to Dr. Cassidy from Louisiana.

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. FOXX. I will give the gentleman 30 more seconds. That leaves me 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker?