Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that what my colleague from Massachusetts just said about all those hours of hearings, it was a totally different bill. No hearings have been held on this bill; a totally different bill. That isn't the way we work around here. What they're asking people not to vote on is a bill that came from the Senate. It isn't the House bill. So let's, again, get real here and let's talk about what we should be talking about. You know, my colleagues across the aisle were against the Senate bill before they were for the bill, and I would like to quote my distinguished colleague who is the Chair of the Rules Committee when she said on December 23, 2009, ``Under the Senate bill, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance 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.'' She went on to then say ``The Senate has ended up with a bill that isn't worthy of its support. Supporters of the weak Senate bill say, just pass it. Any bill is better than no bill. I strongly disagree.'' Now that very same person has done everything possible to get this bill passed in this House so that it will become law. It is no wonder that the majority is considering procedural tricks and sleight of hand, because the bill that they are proposing to pass doesn't provide true health care reform. And the process doesn't pass the sniff test. Republicans will never accept the status quo for health care. We can do better. We need to have a bill that will lower the cost of health care in America. But you do not lower the cost of health care by creating new government-run programs. We can lower the cost by putting patients, average, everyday Americans in charge of their health care, not insurance companies and not the government. Lower costs will result from putting patients in charge of their health care through innovations like expanded health savings accounts and by making sure that trial lawyers are not driving up the cost of health care with a blizzard of frivolous lawsuits. We should be revitalizing America's economy and promoting economic freedom. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican plan will reduce the deficit by $68 billion.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to say that, again, our colleagues across the aisle are in the business of picking winners and losers. They do love one insurance company. They love the AARP, which in 2008, from their financial statements, had royalty fees of $414 million. Pure profit on their bottom line. I raised this issue with Mr. Rangel when he was at the Rules Committee before, because I am very concerned about the way AARP is being represented to the people. Their profits have skyrocketed in recent years, jumping 31 percent just from 2007 to 2008. So we find, again, that they want to pick the winners and losers instead of allowing individuals in this country to make their decisions on what they should be doing. I'd like now to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Kentucky, even his own President has said that Americans will not have competition and choice in terms of what they are able to keep. He said that people will not be able to keep the insurance plans they like under this plan. So I wanted to make a correction of that. With that, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina and the next Governor of South Carolina, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I think another thing that they have a hard time understanding is how a Member of Congress could lambast the bill one minute and then say we need to vote on it the next. And I want to say Chairwoman Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who is now doing everything she can to get this bill passed with the trick that she has come up with, the Slaughter sleight of hand I call it, she said last year, right after the Senate bill was passed, ``The Senate should go back to the drawing board.'' And she further said, ``The Senate bill will do almost nothing to reform health care, but will be a windfall for insurance companies.'' So the public is really confused because one day these folks say one thing and then the next day they are doing everything they can to destroy our country and all that we stand for to get these bills passed. It's got to be terribly confusing.

Ms. FOXX. I thank you, Congressman Akin, and I thank you for leading this special order. I want to build on what you and Mr. Jordan have said. I had a town hall meeting in my district on Monday. The people in my district are commonsense people. And they are saying, we just want commonsense solutions. They want the truth. They want the simple truth about what this bill is going to do and what needs to be done. I find it just unbelievable that these folks who are in charge here, the Democrats who are in charge, have such a low opinion of the American people. I want to talk about that for just a minute because I think that is part of the problem that we have. There is an article today in the Washington Times, and it says, House Democrats Tuesday defended the idea of tying together the Senate health care overhaul bill and a companion bill of repairs that could spare Members from having to vote outright for the Senate's tax on high-cost insurance plans and other contentious provisions. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the public isn't going to be worried about how Congress passed a bill, but rather what's in the bill, and won't differentiate between the procedural paths. This is his quote: ``Do you think any American is going to make a distinction,'' he asked? ``I don't think any American, real American out there, is going to make a distinction between the two.'' Well, the people I was dealing with on Monday are real Americans. I can tell him that. And they don't like the Slaughter provision. I want to add to that a comment that was made by Speaker Pelosi during a discussion with bloggers on Monday, saying she liked the idea of tying the bill to the rule. And her quote was, ``Because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.'' Now, the public understands that if these folks in charge are trying to keep their people from voting on something that there must be something wrong with it.

Ms. FOXX. Would my colleague yield?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, yesterday I held a town hall in Statesville, North Carolina, to hear from my constituents about health care reform. One thing was abundantly clear: they do not want this bill, and they're sick and tired of the backroom deals and provisions that have characterized this process. They wanted health care reform, but they were vehemently opposed to the Senate bill. My constituents are asking me, If this is such a wonderful bill, why is the majority resorting to tricks and sleight of hand to get it passed? If this bill is so great, why not have a regular vote? The answer is simple: this is not a bill the American people want. Some Members acknowledge that. Madam Speaker, we should listen to the American people. We should take an incremental approach to health care reform that the American people can support.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this week we are going to be taking up, we think, a job killing so-called health care reform bill that the American people do not want but that the Democratic leadership and the President are determined to cram down our throats. This bill will not help our situation in terms of health care or health insurance. It does not reduce the cost of health insurance which was one of the goals the President said that he wanted. It does not solve any of the problems that we need to solve in health care. In fact, it makes those problems worse. Yesterday I had a town hall in Statesville, North Carolina, with about 175 people there. They are very upset about this proposed health care reform bill. They understand that a lot of dirty tricks are being played here, and they don't like it. They don't like several aspects of the proposal that is being brought forth this week. Number one, they don't like the fact that the Democrats are proposing to pass this bill without voting on the bill. They know that goes from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting for them. Another thing that they don't like is they don't like to see two bills that have no relationship to each other put together because one of the bills can't pass on its own and so the folks in charge attach it to a bill that they can get the votes for. And so what the majority people are doing is they are going to latch onto their reconciliation bill a job-killing government takeover of student loans. They are attaching that to their job-killing government takeover of health care which many people have called a monstrosity. This is not the way the American people want us to be operating in this Congress. We are the greatest country in the world with the best form of government in the world. But what is about to happen this week, if the American people do not speak out even louder than they have spoken out, is you are going to see Democrats vote for this monstrosity and undermine the rule of law that exists in this country. It is a scary proposition. Republicans know that we need reform in health insurance and in health care, and we have made proposals to do that. We have legislation that will reduce cost in health insurance. The plan that the Democrats have put forward will not reduce cost. Even one of their Senators, Dick Durbin, said that last week on the floor of the Senate. The bill also does not allow people to continue the current health insurance that they have which the President has been saying you could do. In his meeting with Republicans at our retreat, he admitted that he had been saying that incorrectly. He is still saying it even though he said it was incorrect because you will not be allowed to keep your insurance if you like it. Republicans want for Americans to be able to buy their health care across State lines. We want medical liability reform. We want to expand health savings accounts. We want to put Americans in charge of their health care and in charge of their health insurance. We don't want a giant government takeover of health insurance and health care. This can be done to help Americans, but what the Democrats are proposing will not be the right thing to do. I serve on the Rules Committee. They are planning to bring a rule that will say if you vote for the rule, you voted for the bill. That has never happened in the history of this country. Again, it undermines the rule of law and the American people will not stand for it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I had the great pleasure of holding a town hall meeting in one of the towns in the Fifth District in North Carolina, Statesville, North Carolina. I didn't count the number of folks there, and I haven't had a chance to ask my staff exactly how many were there, but I think probably about 175 people were there. We let these folks put in questions or their names into a box, and we pull their names out randomly and let them speak about the health care bill. This was a health care town hall. And to a person who spoke, and there were probably about a dozen who had a chance to speak for about 2 minutes, and I answered their questions, they all are very upset about what is going on here in Congress. They are upset about many, many things, but they are particularly upset about this government takeover of our health care system, and they just don't understand why the folks in the majority continue to push this issue knowing that the majority of the people in this country are very much opposed to it. They very much are concerned about what they have heard and read about the way this is going to be pushed through this week. They hate it when bills are put together that aren't germane to each other or that aren't related. They heard about the education bill being put on the health care bill, and they are very concerned about that. They just don't like that. They said over and over again they know that the government does not do things more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. One businessman talked about how he has been struggling for the last year. He has used up all his savings, all his equity in the last year to keep his business going because the economy is so bad, and he wants to know, where is that stimulus that he thought that we were getting? So it was a great town hall, because they talked about what was on their mind and got a chance to ask me questions. When I told them about the plan to do this reconciliation bill, where the folks on the majority side are going to go from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting for them, they understood what a threat that is to our entire way of life. They understand that that is a threat to the rule of law, and they are very much concerned about that. I told them of the President meeting with us at our retreat and saying, You know, I was wrong when I said over and over again that you can keep your health insurance if you like it. But, he said, I made a mistake by saying that, because some cats and dogs got into that Senate bill that we weren't planning to get into that bill. But we are going to take care of that. But guess what. That is not going to get taken care of. And the President, I understand, made that comment again this week, saying out on the stump, If you like your plan you can keep it--when he told the Republicans at our retreat that is absolutely not true. We have a major problem, Mr. Speaker, in this country. We have people trying to establish a takeover of our lives from birth to death. They want the government to run our lives and to make all of our decisions for us. I have an article, Mr. Speaker, from The Washington Times, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, that says ``More Government Won't Work.'' [From the Washington Times, Jan. 20, 2010] Editorial: More Government Won't Work Government is bigger than ever and controls more aspects of American life than at any time in U.S. history. Last year, the federal government ate $3.52 trillion out of a $13.2 trillion economy. With the current trajectory of big government under the Democrats, the federal bureaucracy will devour as much as 50 percent of this nation's economic activity by midcentury. To illustrate how wasteful that is, take a look at the empty space above this editorial. That's what government creates--nothing. A basic problem with a future dominated by ever-expanding government is that bureaucracies are hobbled by waste, fraud and abuse. Government simply does not work well. Freedom works, but the more government that exists, the less freedom we have. Under President Obama and the Democratic Congress, the United States is heading in the wrong direction. The big spenders are on a joy ride, and we're stuck in the back seat on the road to dramatically less freedom. The main battleground of the war between freedom and government is the marketplace. Markets work for a simple reason: They give people choice. Consumers know what they want, and businesses try to figure out how to produce and deliver the goods and services the best way, considering price, quality and service. Only the best firms survive. Today is the first anniversary of the start of Mr. Obama's term in the Oval Office. For the past year, Americans have been told that government is smarter than private industry and that more government intervention is needed to fix problems in the market. Central to this agenda is the canard that private for-profit companies have to charge higher prices than nonprofits to recoup enough to earn profits, thus making for-profit firms less competitive. This explanation is wrongheaded because it ignores that profits give an incentive to lower costs and improve quality. The greater the incentive to reduce costs, the less waste there is. That is why, despite all the tax advantages given to nonprofits, the economy is dominated by for-profit firms. Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington don't know what individual consumers want and certainly shouldn't be the ones to decide what individuals need. If the government decides everything, elections will determine what businesses can produce and what options consumers will have. In a healthy market system, consumers wouldn't have to persuade their neighbors to use the ballot box to determine what type of toys, computers, books, houses or cars they can buy. Those products will be produced as long as the value consumers get is greater than the costs of producing them. The government should stay out of the way of these inherently private everyday decisions. A common justification for government intervention is based on the notion that individuals and firms don't bear the full costs and benefits of their actions and that taxes and regulations are needed to correct the imbalance. The debate over global warming is an example of this idea. Climate- change activists argue that markets don't take into account damage purportedly caused by carbon dioxide. Yet even if they were right that carbon emissions cause global warming (which is unlikely), there are many stumbling blocks that prevent effective government intervention. First, there is the pure numbers-crunching aspect: Government must figure out how much to tax carbon emissions to alter behavior, which is a difficult and error-plagued challenge. Other than taking wealth out of private hands, all the negative impact of higher taxation is rarely clear, and it's a fair question whether the outcome is likely to cause more damage than the original problem. Second, politics is a dirty business. Special interests twist programs into dole-outs for favored groups. Political machinations are behind every dollar of federal spending, and the interest of the taxpayer usually doesn't have a seat at the table when the spoils are divvied up. Consider all the special favors to unions and particular constituencies in everything from last year's $787 billion stimulus package to the Democrats' government health care bills. So much of federal spending amounts to nothing more than a big slush fund. Regulations are the second edge on the knife government uses to cut the heart out of private initiative. Bureaucratic red tape ties up markets with little consideration about its impact. Take the health care debate. Amidst government's attempt to take over health care, politicians are telling American families that the suits in Washington know how to run health care at a lower cost and with better quality than what is currently being produced. If that were true, government wouldn't need to pass a regulation. If Democratic ideas had any merit, companies would pay Mr. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for advice to help provide customers a better product at a lower price. Democrats wouldn't have to scheme behind closed doors to figure out how to ram through legislation to force Americans to accept a system they don't want. This gets to the heart of the matter. Markets are fundamentally different from government programs in that market transactions are voluntary. Government's main tool is coercion. Consumers don't buy a product unless they think it makes them better off. Firms don't sell a product unless they think they can make profits. Telling people what to do doesn't make them want to do it or like doing it. There's no question which way works best. Countries with the most market-based economies have enjoyed the largest growth in wealth. The innovations generated in these places benefit the entire world. Messing with the market-based model slows the pace of progress for our children and grandchildren. The massive ``tea party'' protests all across the land reveal how outraged Americans are by the direction of government. President Obama and Democrats in Congress are making government bigger than ever because they think bureaucracies make smarter decisions than individuals and the government is better than private business. But taxpayers aren't hitting the streets for so-called smarter or better government--they want less government. A lot less. A new Congress will be seated a year from now. Hopefully that will bring real change to the nation's capital. The Senate bill that the House is about to pass this week under a very, very, shaky rule is going to let people vote on the rule and then say the bill is passed. It has major problems with it. It is not addressing the cost of insurance and health care. It has a tax on hiring low-income workers. It funds abortions. It has the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Gatorade. It has a new Federal mandate to buy insurance. There is a penalty enforced by the IRS that is going to require an additional 40,000 IRS agents if we don't buy insurance. And there will be a job-killing 8 percent tax on employers who don't offer government-approved health insurance. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The people in my district want jobs. They want to be able to work. And they want to see our country continue to operate the way it always has, under the rule of law, not with the majority abusing the rules. They want us to do the right kind of thing here. What do Republicans support? We want legislation that will reduce the cost of health care. We want to force insurance companies to compete with each other across State lines and let people buy insurance across State lines if they choose. We want to cover preexisting conditions. We want medical liability reform, which would save tens of billions of dollars each year. And we want to expand health savings accounts, which put Americans in charge of their health care and their health dollars. We can do that, Mr. Speaker. We passed a bill the other day in a bipartisan fashion, a 1\1/2\ page bill taking away the antitrust exemption for insurance companies. Folks on the other side said we couldn't do it, but we can. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank both of my colleagues, my classmates, actually--my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for their insights and for their sharing of information in this Special Order today. Instead of going home to be in our districts, we stayed in town today to vote on a bill on algae, which we could have voted on yesterday, but our colleagues across the aisle are twisting arms every minute of every day in order to get votes. They understand that the American people don't want this health care bill that they're trying to ram through and pass. They're trying to be responsive to their constituents, but they're being forced, in many cases, to vote for something by their leadership. I want to talk for just a minute about two problems here. We have a problem with the bill, and we also have a problem with the process, or the rule, that is going to be governing this bill. I serve on the Rules Committee. Up until this year, people have always said, Oh, we shouldn't try to talk about process because the public's eyes glaze over. They don't really want to know about that. Yet more and more Americans have awakened and are paying attention to what is going on in Congress, and I find that people are concerned about the process here because they understand the process is sometimes as important as the substance of what we're doing. The Rules Committee is the committee here that establishes the rules for debate and the procedure on legislation that's being considered by the House. Unfortunately, our colleagues will not allow the Rules Committee to be covered by C-SPAN, so very few people have seen the Rules Committee in action. We meet in a tiny room up here. Really, there are no seats for the public, or almost no seats for the public. There are seats for Members; there are seats for the press, and there are seats for staff, but there are almost no seats for the public. So very few people have observed the Rules Committee, but it is doing extremely important work in the House. The Rules Committee establishes the length of the debate and which amendments, if any, will be allowed to be debated. It has nine Members of the majority and four Members of the minority, so they have it stacked pretty good against the minority. We meet at all times of the day and night, lots of times in the middle of the night. Last year, on the cap-and-trade bill, we got the manager's amendment at 3 a.m., an almost 400-page amendment at 3 o'clock in the morning. Then we voted on that bill just a little later on that day. Well, what is being talked about to get a health care bill passed some people are calling ``the Slaughter solution,'' but I call it the Slaughter sleight of hand. Ms. Slaughter, from New York, is the Chair of the committee, and she has come up with a really, really clever way of having the Members of this body not vote on a bill but say that the bill has passed. I said a few minutes ago that we are facing a major crisis in this country, a crisis with our debt and deficit, but the more immediate crisis is this very cynical attempt to pass a bill without having the Members vote for the bill. That has never happened in this House before. This is a complete cynical approach to this, and they have to do that because their Members don't want to vote for it because they know their constituents don't want them to vote for it. They believe they're going to be able to send their Members home to say, Oh, I didn't vote for that horrible bill. I didn't vote for that bill you don't want. I only voted for the rule, or I only voted for this reconciliation bill, and I didn't vote for that bill. Now, folks, they're trying to go from passing bills they haven't read to passing bills they haven't voted on. I think any high school youngster in this country who has taken civics knows how a bill becomes law. You pass a bill in one House, and you pass exactly the same thing in the other Chamber. It then goes to the President. The President can veto it or sign it. Yet that's not what the majority party is about here. They want a procedural vote that would simply declare the measure to have passed at the moment the Senate passes what they are calling a reconciliation bill. As I also pointed out earlier, we have no reconciliation process here. We have straight up-or-down votes. The majority rules. Because there are four vacancies in the House, and because nobody is in the House of Representatives unless he or she is elected, as you don't appoint people to the House of Representatives, the Speaker only needs 216 votes. So what we have again is a sleight of hand going on. You know, I've seen a lot of cartoons representing the President as the Wizard of Oz, and I think that's a pretty apt description. The President and the people in charge here have been talking a lot about this reconciliation bill because they want people's attention on that. They don't want people to pay attention to the bill that has to be voted on in order for it to become law, which is the Senate bill. Now, a few minutes ago, the majority leader said, Oh, everybody knows what's in these bills. They've been out there for months. We've discussed them for thousands of hours. That is not true. What's going to happen next week is the Budget Committee is going to meet on Monday. They're going to pass what amounts to an empty vessel, which is going to come to the Rules Committee. Sometime next week--and we don't know what time of day or night--we're going to execute an amendment in the Rules Committee that will be seen for the very first time by anybody in a position to vote on it. The staff will have seen it, and perhaps those in charge will have seen it, but my guess is they will not have seen it either. We'll be asked to vote on that immediately in the Rules Committee. That's going to be the first time anybody will have seen it. As my colleague from Texas talked about, and as I mentioned earlier, we don't have a bill from the President. He presented an 11-page set of principles, which he called a proposal, and he has got a 19-page summary of the 11-page proposal on the Web site. There is still no legislative language, and we have to have legislative language. The Democratic majority is engaging in such extraordinary legislative chicanery to get this bill passed that it is a clear indication they cannot pass the bill without doing that. They don't have the votes within their membership to pass that bill, so they've got to do all this sleight of hand to get it passed. These people have exposed themselves as willing to abandon the most fundamental element of legislating, a transparent up-or-down vote, in order to achieve an unpopular, partisan objective. This is very disturbing, and it should be an alarm to every American. This is what banana republics do. This is not what the greatest Nation in the world does. This is not what the greatest deliberative bodies in the world do. The American people do not want this health care bill, and they don't want their democratic process turned on its head to pass it over their objectives. I said it before: I was ridiculed. I was ridiculed for saying that I feared this health care bill almost more than anything else. I want to tell you the American people need to fear it because it undermines our entire system of laws. It takes us from being a nation of laws to being a nation of people who will do anything to pass their ideological program, and they will go out to attempt to destroy what is great about this Nation, and that is our Constitution and our rule of law. With that, I yield back.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been talking for over 3 years about the problem of the debt and deficit facing our Nation. We, as well as average Americans, have realized that these problems are a threat to our existence as the greatest and freest Nation on Earth. But what the Democrats are proposing to do in passing a health care bill that Americans do not want is an even more immediate threat to the future of this Nation. Let me explain just a little bit about that. What the Democrats are proposing to do is a government takeover of health care that the American people do not want. Because they have a political problem, because there is no support for this bill among Americans, they are going to use a procedural mechanism to avoid an up- or-down vote on the bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. They are going to create a reconciliation bill that meets the Senate test for reconciliation. As the majority leader said out here a few minutes ago, we are not the Senate. We don't have reconciliation rules. He kept making that point over and over again. But they are going to create a mechanism to pass a bill in the House to match reconciliation rules over in the Senate. What they want to do is to develop mechanics to hide a vote on the Senate bill and create a scheme to pass a bill in the House that will then pass muster in the Senate. It is a cram-down; and despite what the majority leader keeps saying about the fact that we have seen the bill, we know what is in the bill, we have not. Bills have to be developed in bill language, and we have to see specifically what it is we are going to vote on. The President has never presented a bill to the American people. What the President did present about 3 weeks ago was an 11-page proposal. That is exactly what it is called on the President's Web site: The President's proposal, February 22, 2010. It is really 10 pages with one line on page 11. It has general language. It makes insurance more affordable. It sets up competitive health insurance markets, ends discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions, and it says that it bridges the gap between the House and Senate bills and includes new provisions to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. This is not legislative language. We cannot vote on something like this. In addition, one of my colleagues just pointed out to me that there is a 19-page summary of the 11-page proposal on the White House Web site. You know, if you haven't read ``1984,'' I ask you, read it. If it has been a long time since you've read it, read it again. Now let me give you an example of specific legislative language. This is a page out of the Senate bill that passed. I don't know the section before, but this starts out with (1). It is page 35. ``(1) Requirement to provide value for premium payments. A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, in an amount that is equal to the amount by which premium revenue expended by the issuer on activities described in subsection (a)(3) exceeds,'' and then it has an (A) and a (B) and a (2). That is specific language that is used in bills that we pass here every day. What the President has proposed is not legislative language. What they want to do is use something called the ``Slaughter sleight of hand,'' and the American people don't want it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleagues from Ohio and Pennsylvania for organizing this Special Order today. Today, we are marking National Women's History Month, and we are commemorating the brave and principled women who have spoken out and who have fought for the unborn as well as those who have spoken out for equal rights for women in terms of our voting. It remains more important than ever that women speak out on behalf of defenseless, unborn children, for, each year, more than 1 million of the unborn are aborted in America. I want to strongly agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania that one can be a feminist and that one can also be pro-life. Today, I am pleased to highlight how some North Carolina women are standing up for the unborn back in my district. Two women in particular come to mind today. Toni Buckler and Donna Dyer are in the midst of leading a 40-day-long vigil in Winston-Salem to bring an end to the practice of abortion. Their efforts, dubbed 40 Days of Life, are focused on 40 days of peaceful prayer, of fasting, and of community outreach on the issue of abortion. One of the most important and visible parts of their 40 Days of Life effort is the prayer vigil that is held outside the local Planned Parenthood facility in Winston-Salem. Every day between February 17 and March 28, they are bringing together concerned pro-life citizens to take a stand for the cause of life. What is truly amazing about this effort is that it does not stand alone. Hundreds of other cities in 45 States have similar 40 Days of Life vigils, which seek to raise awareness about the scourge of abortion and to bring an end to abortion in America. It is an honor to represent such committed pro-life women as Toni and Donna. Their efforts echo the voices of early women's rights leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who stood up for women and for the unborn. I want to thank all of the pro-life women who are participating in the Winston-Salem 40 Days of Life vigil. I commend them for their dedication to the pro-life cause. With that, I yield back.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I came to talk about health reform, but would first note that the gentleman from Virginia fails to mention that the economy began its nose-dive when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. For 54 months before that, with a Republican President and Republican control of Congress, the economy was doing very well and growing. Madam Speaker, the American people have spoken loud and clear: they do not want a government takeover of health care. They want sensible, step by step health care reform that works. But the White House is not listening. Instead, they are proposing expensive new entitlements that will only worsen the Federal Government's finances and North Carolina family budgets. At least there is one thing we agree on: we need to have a bill that will lower the cost of health care in America. But you don't lower the cost of health care in America by creating expensive, new, government-run programs. The best way to lower the cost of health care is by empowering patients, putting patients in charge of their health care, not insurance companies and certainly not the government, is the solution. While I agree with President Obama that we need to lower the cost of health care, the problem is that his proposals, which are simply retreads of the House and Senate bills, will not really lower costs. They are simply a trillion-dollar expansion of government control. Lower costs will stem from patients who are empowered in making health care decisions through innovations like expanded health savings accounts and by making sure that the trial lawyers who are driving up the cost of health care with a blizzard of frivolous lawsuits are reined in. So we should start over. Starting over is the single best way to produce bipartisan legislation that the public can support. We should focus on working step by step to enact commonsense health care reform that will lower costs for families and small businesses and expand access to affordable, high-quality care. Republicans have been talking about a step-by-step approach for months. This approach would allow individuals to buy health care across State lines, cover people with preexisting conditions, improve access to health savings accounts, as well as enact medical liability reform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a commonsense plan would reduce deficits by $68 billion and reduce private insurance premiums by up to 10 percent. This is a plan that doesn't grow the government, and it is a plan that reduces cost without a government takeover and without breaking the budget or soaking taxpayers. Madam Speaker, it is a plan that will work for the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute Renee Galliher of Mocksville, North Carolina. Renee was recently named firefighter of the year at the Cornatzer-Dulin fire department in Mocksville. She is the first women in the fire department's almost 60-year history to be named firefighter of the year. This is no small accomplishment and I am proud to recognize Renee for her dedicated service to the public. As this month is Women's History Month, I think it is also very appropriate to single out North Carolina women like Renee who are making a significant difference in their local communities. Today millions of women across America like Renee are making positive contributions to their families, their communities and their country. It is a true honor to have countless women like Renee as constituents and to share their stories of success with my colleagues and the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time. I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule for many reasons which I will outline in my comments, but I certainly want to share with the gentleman from California and with the sponsors of this bill the feeling that all of us want to see that our children are protected, that all children are protected, particularly when they are in State-sponsored institutions, such as public schools or other such institutions. Nobody wants our children to be at any risk, and we want to make sure that the people who are looking after them take the proper precautions when they are dealing with them, especially in a physical way. Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees, specifically in the Tenth Amendment. The authors of this amendment, an amendment ratified in 1791, remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant, all-powerful government, and they understood that a one- size-fits-all approach does not work. Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the Federal Government has slowly, steadily and corrosively eroded the notion of States' rights and of our individual liberties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the Federal Government to override States' rights. When it comes to the education of our Nation's children, we can all agree again that students should be able to learn in a safe, productive, and positive environment. Teachers, principals, and other school personnel have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is maintained at all times. In many cases, it is vitally important that teachers and classroom aides use interventions and supports that are both physically and emotionally safe for the children. What the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 States currently have laws and regulations in place which govern the use of seclusion and restraints in schools. An additional 11 States have policies and guidelines in place. In some cases, school districts may also have their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in the classroom. Furthermore, the Federal Government has no reliable data on the prevalent use of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques in public and private schools and on whether they result in child abuse, no matter the hyperbole used by people on the other side. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education recognized this fact, and through the Office of Civil Rights issued a draft regulation requiring State and local educational agencies to collect data on the use of seclusion and restraints in schools. Moreover, last August, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to each chief State school officer, urging the officers to review their current policies and guidelines regarding the use of restraints and seclusion in schools to ensure every student is safe and protected. However, instead of waiting until the Department of Education completes its review to see how widespread the problem of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques is, the bill establishes a Federal one-size-fits-all mandate to a problem for which there is not yet a thorough understanding and which would otherwise be handled at the State level. We know increased Federal regulations do not equal results, especially when it comes to public education. Despite Washington's spending hundreds of billions in Federal dollars since 1965 on public education, the achievement gap has not closed, and test scores have not improved. Instead, we should be focusing on enforcement of current State procedures addressing seclusion and restraint of students. It is my belief that State and local governments can identify student needs and determine the most appropriate regulations better and more efficiently than the Federal Government. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new majority came to power full of promises for a bipartisan working relationship and a landmark pledge to create the ``most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' On page 24 of Speaker Pelosi's ``New Direction for America'' document issued in the 109th Congress, she calls for regular order for legislation. ``Bills should be developed following full hearings in 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 offers the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. ``Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes, with the customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' ability to reach the House Chamber to cast their votes. No votes shall be held open in order to manipulate the outcome. ``House-Senate conference committees should hold regular meetings (at least weekly) of all conference committee members. All duly-appointed conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as decisions are made toward final bill language. ``The suspension calendar should be restricted to noncontroversial legislation, with minority-authored legislation scheduled in relation to the party ratio in the House.'' Those were all the things that the majority promised us before taking over in the 110th Congress. And what do we get? We get this rule, which provides blanket martial law through Thursday. This practice diminishes democracy. When major legislation is being considered that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt or affect Americans in other ways, Members of Congress should have the opportunity to study the legislation for more than a couple of hours and know what they are voting on. This rule is a structured rule and makes in order two amendments, one from Chairman Miller and one from Representative Flake of Arizona. Chairman Miller's amendment, among other things, would change the title of the bill from ``Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act'' to the ``Keeping All Students Safe Act.'' That is a promise that no Congress can fulfill. Madam Speaker, we have a lot of problems with this bill and we have a lot of problems with this rule, and, again, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the reason that the folks on the other side of the aisle are pushing through this martial law rule, same-day rule, is because they have problems in their own caucus. As the gentleman says, they're still contemplating what it is they want to do. Unfortunately, when the Democrats maybe get together and decide what it is they want to do, then they're just going to spring a bill on us and not even give us a day to read the bill. They just want to bring it onto the floor immediately and then be able to deal with it because, again, they don't know what they want to do. They have dissension in their own caucus. Every time they can't get their act together, they blame it on the Republicans. They're totally in charge of this Congress, totally in charge of the executive branch, and yet every day we hear its the Republicans' fault that we can't get these things done. You all won't be bipartisan. We're very happy to be bipartisan. We're very happy to sit down and talk about what needs to be done. The American people are telling us every day. We're listening to what the American people are saying. It's obvious that the folks on the other side are not. This bill, Madam Speaker, authorizes such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to establish grants to States to help some of their costs. ``Such sums'' is a blank check. We have the worst fiscal crisis we have had in this country in a long, long time. Again, we hear about it all the time on the other side of the aisle. But do they do anything to try to work on that fiscal crisis? No. They make it worse by continuing to authorize ``such sums.'' And we have bills like this every day that continue to authorize more spending, more spending, more spending. I will be submitting, Madam Speaker, a chart that shows how much money on other bills, such as No Child Left Behind, has been authorized, and then how much is actually spent, because we have a history of that. And we know that when you put out bills that say ``such sums,'' with an estimate of what will be spent, that we always go over in that spending. I will submit that chart for the Record, Madam Speaker. Title I, No Child Left Behind Funding [In million of dollars] FY2001............................................................8,763 FY2002...........................................................10,350 FY2003...........................................................11,689 FY2004...........................................................12,342 FY2005...........................................................12,740 FY2006...........................................................12,713 FY2007...........................................................12,838 FY2008...........................................................13,899 FY2009*..........................................................14,492 Total Funding...............................................109,826 * Excludes economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Total No Child Left Behind Funding [In millions of dollars] FY2001...........................................................17,382 FY2002...........................................................22,013 FY2003...........................................................23,625 FY2004...........................................................24,309 FY2005...........................................................24,350 FY2006...........................................................23,333 FY2007...........................................................23,487 FY2008...........................................................24,417 FY2009*..........................................................24,954 Total Funding...............................................207,870 * Excludes economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We, again, have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support the underlying bill here. I have great respect for my colleagues on the Education Committee and some not on the Education Committee who will support this bill. I know that they have the best intentions. But sometimes good intentions can have insidious results. One of the insidious results that will come from this bill is to take away from the States the right they have to regulate education. That is given to them by the Constitution. I don't think that we should be approving the underlying bill, and we certainly should not be voting for a rule that violates even the promises that the majority made, which sounded so good to the American people and which helped them win the majority in 2006 and gain seats in 2008. And every promise has been violated. So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill, although I know that I have colleagues who will vote for the bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time. No one wants children to be in danger in this country, especially children who are in public institutions designed to serve them. Teachers, principals, and other school personnel have a responsibility to ensure the environment is maintained at all times. In many cases, it is vitally important, though, that teachers and classroom aides use interventions and supports that are both physically and emotionally safe for the child. What the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 States currently have laws and regulations in place that govern the use of seclusion and restraints in schools. An additional 11 have policies and guidelines in place, and in some cases school districts may also have their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in the classroom. In addition, the Federal Government has no reliable data on the prevalent use of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques in public and private schools and whether they result in child abuse. It is my belief that State and local governments can identify student needs and determine the most appropriate regulations better and more efficiently than the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees, specifically the 10th amendment. The authors of this amendment, ratified in 1971, remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant, all- powerful government and understood that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work. Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the Federal Government has slowly, steadily, and insidiously eroded the notion of States' rights and our individual liberties. What we need to focus on, as the distinguished ranking member talked about earlier, is the strong punishment of those who do wrong, but not to create costs to the local units of government who must comply with Federal rules and regulations, and in addition giving the Federal Government authority it should not have. This bill is not needed. The States and the localities can handle these situations. They will look after the children. They are the people closest to the children that they are serving. They will do it. If they don't do it, the community will be up in arms and will require them to do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott just made Mr. Lungren's case for him as far as I'm concerned. He just said we want to work together on issues. Mr. Lungren said that's what we've done. A bipartisan amendment passed. The Democrats took the bipartisan amendment out of the bill. We want to work together. Many Republicans are going to vote for this bill. I hope they won't vote for the rule, because it's a bad rule, but they will vote for the bill. The Democrats, time and again, tout their plan will increase competition and lower premiums. We don't think that's true. I want to urge the American people to read the summary the White House has put out on their bill and see the increased Federal control of health care in this country.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new majority came to power full of promises for a bipartisan working relationship and a landmark pledge to create the ``most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history''; however, this rule and this bill are the antithesis of that statement. The bill we consider today, H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, is not the language that passed the House Judiciary Committee in November of 2009 as H.R. 3596. In fact, the bill we have before us today was not considered by any committee and was introduced only 2 days ago, on Monday, February 22, 2010. It is hard to understand what is the sudden rush. Yesterday, the gentlewoman from New York said we have waited 60 years to get this bill; today, she says this is long overdue. But she doesn't point out that in all that period of time, the Democrats have been in charge of Congress except for 2 years in the fifties during the Eisenhower administration and the years 1995 to 2006. So why didn't they get it passed when they were in control before? Why have they been waiting 60 years to get it done? The language in H.R. 4626 is substantially different from the bill the Judiciary Committee passed. That bill dealt with both health insurance and medical liability insurance, but medical liability insurance has since been stricken from the language. In addition, my colleague, Mr. Lungren from California, offered an amendment that was accepted with bipartisan support by the House Judiciary Committee during markup. That amendment was stricken from the language of the current bill that we see in H.R. 4626. During the Rules Committee debate yesterday, Mr. Lungren offered that same amendment; however, it was not made in order. Instead, we have yet another closed rule where Members are shut out from offering any amendments to a bill that did not see the proper vetting process. It is high time that we open this process up and that we hold the majority to their promise to make this an open Congress and allow amendments to be offered on the floor and fully debated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this administration and Democrats in Congress don't seem to have an answer to the single most important question workers across the country are asking: ``Where are the jobs?'' The American people don't want more political pandering on the economy and health care; they want action now that will control runaway Federal spending and create jobs. The third time is not the charm, Mr. President. When government- controlled health care was introduced in the House, the American people rejected it. Strike one. When government-controlled health care was introduced in the Senate, the American people rejected it. Strike two. And when the President puts his government control of health care on the table before a bipartisan handful on Thursday, the American people will reject that, too. Strike three. The Democrats need to scrap their job-killing policies, like a government takeover of health care and national energy tax, and begin working with Republicans on commonsense solutions to create jobs and reduce out-of-control spending. It's time we work together to get this economy moving again and to help put people back to work.