Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. If our colleagues would listen, they would hear us say we don't want to do away with these programs. We want to save them. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4840. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1174, supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month. Designating a month each year to honor women's history gives us the opportunity to highlight the significant role that women have played in the history of this Nation through their many accomplishments. From colonial times to the 21st century, the advancements of women have been inspiring. They are now being given their rightful place in our country's history for their tireless efforts in enriching all of our lives. The President's Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History was established in 1987 to give national recognition to this effort and to highlight the accomplishments of women in American history throughout the month of March. Establishing March as National Women's History Month created an ideal teaching opportunity for educators, parents, community organizations, and workplace programs. Embracing the history of women in the United States gives us the opportunity to recognize the many contributions women have made to the growth and success of the United States. I encourage all Members to support this important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, some comments are so far from reality that they're not really worth responding to. I'd like to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Ms. FOXX. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support the underlying bill that we have been talking about, H. Res. 1174, Women's History Month and urge people to vote for it. But I do want to say that Republicans have been maligned, I believe, on the floor today in many, many ways. A majority of Republicans in the House voted for Medicare. Republicans support Medicare and support Social Security. We have never, ever suggested doing away with those programs. We know that the bill that is being proposed by the Democrats does not control cost, will not improve access, will not improve care for people in this country, and we know that is going to happen. We want to protect the American people. We want to protect their freedom. We do not want to turn our lives over to the government to run not just health care, but everything about our lives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my three colleagues who were here for the last hour doing yeoman's work on explaining why this so-called health care reform bill is bad, why it's unconstitutional, why it does not deserve to be passed. I want to especially thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for reminding us of the words in the Declaration of Independence and John Adams' letter to Abigail Adams. What we're doing here is really pitiful compared to what the Founders did and all those who have sacrificed to keep this country free. This country is really a miracle. Never before in the history of the world were there people who believed that they had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We were a totally revolutionary people. It was a totally radical idea, and it is our job now to keep that miracle going. The founding of this country was truly a miracle and I think ordained by God. From the beginning of this country, it has been average people who have kept us free: those who fought in the Revolutionary War, those who have fought in every war since, those who gave their lives and who gave their time, who were wounded, who came back wounded and maimed from those wars in other countries because they know that the price of freedom is dear. The price of freedom for us is not threatening our lives currently, but it could in the future. It could threaten the lives of other people, and that's why we have to continue to resist the passage of this horrible bill. As Leader Boehner has said, Republicans can't defeat this bill alone, but the American people can. So we need you tonight to continue to call your Member of Congress and to say, We do not want you to vote for this bill. We want you to live up to your oath to the Constitution and be reminded that the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. We also want you to ask Congresswoman Slaughter, Why did you say in an op-ed on CNN on December 23 that the Senate bill was not worthy of our support, and yet you find the sleight of hand to do everything you can to get the bill passed? And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the op-ed written by my colleague Ms. Slaughter. [From CNN, Dec. 23, 2009] A Democrat's View From the House: Senate Bill Isn't Health Reform (By Louise M. Slaughter) Story Highlights: Senate bill isn't worthy of being called health reform, says Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York); Slaughter, who heads Rules Committee, says lack of public option is a fatal flaw; She says Senate bill would not stir competition among big insurance firms; Slaughter: Senate needs to go back and start over on health care. Editor's note: Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat, represents the 28th Congressional District of New York. Slaughter is the first woman to chair the House Rules Committee and the only microbiologist in Congress. Washington (CNN).--The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago. Even though the House version is far from perfect, it at least represents a step toward our goal of giving 36 million Americans decent health coverage. But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently? I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform. By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn't worthy of its support. The public option is the part of our reform effort that will lower costs, improve the delivery of health care services and force insurance companies to offer rates and services that are reasonable. Although the art of legislating involves compromise, I believe the Senate went off the rails when it agreed with the Obama Administration to water down the reform bill and no longer include the public option. But that's not the only thing wrong with the Senate's version of the health care bill. Under that plan, insurance companies can punish older people, charging them much higher rates than the House bill would allow. In the House, we fought hard to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed for years. We did that because we believed firmly that those Fortune 500 corporations should not enjoy special treatment. Yet the Senate bill does not include that provision-- despite assurances from some members that they will seek to add it. By ending that protection, we will be able to go after insurance companies with federal penalties for misleading advertising or dishonest business practices. The House bill would cover 96 percent of legal residents, while the Senate covers 94 percent. Compared with the House bill, the Senate's bill makes it much easier for employers to avoid the responsibility of providing insurance for their workers. And of course, the Senate bill did not remove the onerous choice language intended to appeal to anti-abortion forces. Now don't get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. Supporters of the weak Senate bill say ``just pass it--any bill is better than no bill.'' I strongly disagree--a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills. 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. We've had so many things said about this bill that have been misrepresented. We're told that we're the ones who misrepresent. But I want to say that President Obama has said over and over again, If you like your plan, you won't have to give it up. You can still keep it. But at our Republican retreat, President Obama was quoted as saying, ``For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you have your--if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision-making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.'' The President admitted that what he had said and what he continues to say is not accurate because the bill that they proposed that we vote on is the very bill that has those things in it. It's the very bill that Ms. Slaughter has said is not worthy of the American people. Well, we need you to continue to tell the President, Ms. Slaughter, and all the Democrats who have said they're going to vote for this bill that they are right, this bill is not worthy of the American people. It's not worthy of the sacrifices that have been made to keep us free because this is a government takeover of our lives. We will be giving up our freedom if this bill is passed. The government will take over not only our health care but ultimately our lives. That is unworthy of the people who started this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think the thing that my colleague across the aisle fails to mention when he talks about the deficit is that, in order to do that, they raise taxes, and that's something they always leave out. They're never real about that. I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague from Texas.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague across the aisle talks about what the State of North Carolina does and does not do. This insurance should be a State issue; it should not be a Federal issue. Maybe changes need to be made in the State of North Carolina, but that is up to the State of North Carolina. This is a Federal Government takeover, which is inappropriate. Let me talk about the AARP and what they do about preexisting conditions, because our colleagues have put a special carve-out in this bill for the AARP. They deny access with preexisting conditions by imposing waiting periods on Medigap plans. They have a tremendous turn- down on preexisting conditions. Medicare turns down more people, twice as many people as the insurance companies do, and they want to put us all in Medicare-type plans. My colleague is a little disingenuous when he brings up selective situations like this. I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time. Madam Speaker, we are on the cusp of voting on legislation to permit a Federal Government takeover of one-sixth of the Nation's economy. This is the most significant piece of legislation in our generation. The American people get that, and they do not want this bill. They want health reform that makes sense and that will make health care more affordable and accessible. When the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, floated the proposed Slaughter solution last week, the outcry was immediate. You would think that my colleagues would take their title of ``Representative'' seriously and want to listen to the American people and have an open process. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question today, so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider H. Res. 1188. This resolution, sponsored by Mr. Griffith, will ensure an up-or-down vote on the Senate's health care takeover by preventing the Speaker from using the Slaughter solution to ram the Senate health care bill through the House, bypassing regular order. The American people do not want the Senate bill, and neither do most Members in this Chamber. The American people deserve an open process and an up-or-down vote. Voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will be on the record opposing the Slaughter solution and voting to allow for consideration of a remedy aimed at protecting against this attempt to ram through the Democrat plan to socialize medicine. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. FOXX. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman obviously did not pay attention to what the President said at the Republican retreat, because he said he had made a mistake in saying that people could keep their insurance plans if they liked them, that a few stray cats and dogs had gotten into the Senate bill. And what I wanted to ask my colleague is: Can he guarantee the American people that, in the Senate bill that they are going to vote on under a trick being used by the Rules Committee, that the American people will be able to keep their insurance plan if they like it? Because the President has said that isn't the case, and I think it's really important that we get that said here. With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that our colleagues across the aisle talk about the problems with the filibuster in the Senate. But that is exactly why bills could not get passed that Republicans in the House passed but couldn't get them passed in the Senate because Democrats filibustered. And about misinformation, there probably has never been a bill that has been more misrepresented to the American people than what is going on here in terms of this bill. And I do think the American people understand the truth, and they're going to act on the truth later on this year. They're doing it now. They're telling them, don't vote on it. But they feel obliged to do it. I want to say that while my colleague across the aisle keeps ranting and raving about corporate profits for insurance companies, he doesn't say a word about the corporate profits for the Big Pharma companies. And yet, these are, they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Big Pharma companies. Of all the single industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA sent $26.2 million on lobbying last year. That's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, which spent only $8.9 million. And let's talk about profits. Drugmakers' combined profit margin last year--this is from an article of The Examiner from March 17, 2010, yesterday--profit margin was 22.2 percent, compared with the insurers' 4.4 percent. Drugmaker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined. And I can go on and on. Madam Speaker, I'd like to put this article in the Record. And the reason they don't talk about Big Pharma and the drug industry is because Big Pharma helped write this bill, because it protects them. They know that they are going to get a windfall out of this bill, and they, again, our colleagues across the aisle, are wholly owned subsidiaries of them. Madam Speaker, our colleague, my colleague from Louisiana, brought up a very, very important point that I think needs to be mentioned again and again. What Chairwoman Slaughter has proposed, and what will be done here, is to use a rule providing for consideration of both the Senate and reconciliation bills to deem the Senate bill passed, avoiding the political problem that stems from taking a true up-or-down vote on the horribly unpopular legislation. If this legislation is doing so much good for the American people, then our colleagues should be proud to be voting for this in an up-or- down vote. They keep saying it, but you know, saying it doesn't make it so. Even though, again, Speaker Pelosi said on page 23 of her ``New Directions for America'' document issued in the 109th Congress that ``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' Then on page 24 she states that ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, and Members should have at least 24 hours''--later expanded to 72 hours--``to examine the bill text prior to floor consideration.'' Yet, as Mr. Scalise has said, all we've seen are broken promises. And now, Speaker Pelosi is advocating parliamentary trickery to avoid an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. And he quoted her as saying, ``This is a great way to do it because it avoids an up-or-down vote.'' This is not what the American people sent us here for. They didn't send us here to undermine the rule of law and to do things with tricks. They know this is the wrong thing to do. That's why they have been jamming the phones and telling our colleagues, vote ``no.'' [From the Examiner, Mar. 17, 2010] Dems Tap Drug Maker Millions for PhRMA-Friendly Bill (By Timothy P. Carney) As they whip for the health care bill, Democratic leaders pack a mean one-two punch of populist rhetoric and the hefty financial backing of the drug industry. In the heated yearlong health fight, President Obama has often accused his opponents of willful misrepresentation, even as he and his allies have endlessly repeated the biggest whopper of all--that the bill would rein in the special interests. The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e- mails this week warning that ``for every member of Congress, there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill'' and ``Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists.'' But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent the weekend ``huddled with Democratic staffers'' who needed the drug lobby to ``sign off'' on proposals before moving ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The doctors' lobby and the hospitals' lobby are also on board with the Senate bill. So the battle at this point is not reformers versus industry, as Obama would have you believe. Rather, it is a battle between most of the health care industry and the insurance companies. (And the insurers are not opposed to the whole package. On the bill's central planks--limits on price discrimination, outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, a mandate that employers insure their workers and a mandate that everyone hold insurance--insurers are on board. They object mostly that the penalty is too small for violating the individual mandate.) Pharmaceuticals are a far more entrenched special interest than the insurers. Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year-- that's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, which spent $8.9 million. If you include individual companies' lobbying pharmaceuticals blow away the competition, beating all other industries by 50 percent, according to data at the Center for Responsive Politics. Given this Big Pharma clout, it's unsurprising that the bill Obama's whipping for--Senate bill--has nearly everything the drug companies wanted; prohibiting reimportation of drugs, preserving Medicare's overpayment for drugs, lengthy exclusivity for biotech drugs, a mandate that states subsidize drugs under Medicaid, hundreds of billions in subsidies for drugs, and more. PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin, who was vilified by Obama on the campaign trail, worked out much of this sweetheart deal in a West Wing meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Tauzin visited the White House at least 11 times. He left his imprint so deeply on the current bill that it should probably be called BillyCare rather than ObamaCare. Recall that pharmaceutical executives and political action committees dug deep trying to save the flailing candidacy of Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts--a race that was explicitly a referendum on health care. She took in more than 10 times as much drug company cash as Republican Scott Brown. This week, PhRMA, through a front group called Americans for Stable Quality Care, is rolling out millions of dollars in advertisements for the Democrats' jury-rigged package consisting of the BillyCare bill and some as-yet-undetermined ``budget reconciliation'' measure. The ads reportedly will target wavering Democrats. But supporters of BillyCare will continue to attack opponents as shills for insurance companies, demonizing, as Obama puts it, ``those who profit from the status quo.'' Let's look at those profits. Drug makers' combined profit margin last year was 22.2 percent, compared with insurers' 4.4 percent. Drug maker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined. Pfizer, which netted $8.64 billion last year, gave its CEO, Jeff Kindler, a 12.5 percent salary increase, bringing his compensation to $14.9 million. Pfizer, in a federal filing, attributed the raise partly to Kindler's work ``developing and advancing U.S. and global public policies that serve the overall interests of our Company,'' including his ``constructive participation in the U.S. legislative process.'' Kindler contributed the maximum to Obama's election, and Obama raised more money from the drug industry than any candidate in history. On this bill, Republicans side with insurers, and Democrats mostly side with the richer and more powerful drug makers. The difference: Republicans didn't cut a backroom deal with the insurers. Obama will still play the populist card, even as the drug lobby is his ace in the hole. Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the people of this country like to have simple truth; and the simple truth about the bill that we are probably going to vote on this week is that Americans are opposed to the health care bill. But the Democrats in charge of the Congress think they are smarter than the average American and are going to cram through this bill with tricks, and the people do not want it. It takes away individual freedom and puts the government in charge. Even the President admitted at the Republican retreat that you would not be able to keep your health insurance if you like it, despite the fact that he had been saying that for months. Even some Democrats don't like the Senate bill or didn't like the Senate bill that is what is going to be voted on. And the chair of the House Rules Committee said last year the Senate should, ``go back to the drawing board,'' and that the Senate bill, ``will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies.'' Vote ``no'' on this bill.