Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. No, I can't. And I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for taking on this Special Order tonight and for bringing up issues that are very, very important to the American people and doing it on such a consistent basis. You've done a terrific job. I think, as I heard today in a meeting--I'm not sure if you were in that meeting when somebody pointed out--when the Communist Chinese start lecturing us on having too large a deficit, something is out of kilter in the world. And we know that in the last few days the President's been in China, and they have been lecturing us about this issue.

Ms. FOXX. What is our unemployment right now?

Ms. FOXX. I have heard from many economists that the actual unemployment rate is probably 17 to 20 percent because of the folks you mentioned, those who've given up looking for jobs, those who have gone to work part time. So it was not supposed to go above 8 percent. This really has damaged the credibility, I think, of both this Congress and this administration because all these promises have been made and none of them have been kept.

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. My recollection is every single Republican voted against the stimulus package in the House.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. The people of America are struggling with 70 percent effective unemployment brought on by actions of this Democratically controlled government. And what do the Democrats want to do? Give us more government. They expect us to believe that more government control of our lives is good. More government control is not good. We've been successful as a Nation because of our freedom. Taking away freedom will weaken us as a people and a country. The American people know that and have told us that. They're opposed to this bill. Medicare, the kind of treatment they want us to have, denies treatment more than twice as often as most private insurance. That will be our future: rationed health care and destruction of freedom. My colleagues should say no to the Pelosi-Obama freedom-killing, job- killing H.R. 3962.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, small business owners and employees need more choices of health insurance plans, not fewer. This bill will drive out the private health insurance market and permit the government to determine if the health insurance options a small business offers are ``acceptable.'' The bill places a new tax-compliance paperwork burden on all small business owners. This bill will kill jobs. It does nothing to lower the cost or increase choice in the marketplace for America's small business. It will harm small business owners with costly employer mandates and punitive payroll taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation and the NFIB agree that more than one-third of the $460.5 billion raised by this bill's surtax will come from small business income. Small business owners have shared their concerns about H.R. 3962 with me. One small business owner in Statesville N.C. summed it up: ``If this bill is passed the way it is written, my business will be unable to afford to comply with the legislation. My business has drastically cut expenses, delayed capital investments and decreased our work force to stay competitive. If H.R. 3962 is passed by Congress it will force us to close down our business and end the paychecks for the 56 employees who depend on our company to feed their families.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this exercise of tyranny of the majority that our Founders so feared on this job-killing bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, despite months of town hall meetings and after millions of Americans voiced their opposition to a government takeover of health care, Democrats in Congress are moving ahead anyway. Not only does the Pelosi health care plan raise taxes and increase spending, it will vastly grow the size and power of the Federal Government, taking more and more of our freedoms away. The Pelosi health care plan proposes the creation of more than 110 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions, or programs. More taxes, more spending, and more government is not the plan for reform the people support. Republicans have a plan that allows us to keep our freedoms and not be dictated to by the Federal Government. It's the right prescription for health care reform.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, yesterday was an exciting day for those of us who believe the American people know best. Thousands of people came to Capitol Hill to tell Speaker Pelosi that they do not want her tax increase government takeover of health care. They said that this bill is a bill the American people cannot afford. Republicans in the House agree with them. Hardworking Americans do not want to pay for abortions and illegal aliens and should not have to pay for them. Unemployment is now 10.2 percent, and this bill will make it worse. Like other ill-conceived bills such as the wrongly named stimulus bill that the Democrats have crammed down the throats of the American people, the so-called health reform bill will do more harm than good. Speaker Pelosi, listen to the voices of the American people. My colleagues on the other side, listen to the voices of the American people. Do not vote for more taxes, more government control, and an erosion of our freedoms. Remember, the first three words of the Constitution are, ``We the people.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there was a wonderful gathering in Washington today of thousands of people from all over the country. Many of those people held up signs that said Abortion is Not Health Care. The American public is more intelligent than those in charge in this House. Pro-life Members here in the House are continuing to stand up and speak out for the unborn, and we will, until we defeat this bill or stop Federal funds from being used for abortions through this bill. Pro-life Members have offered amendments to the majority's original health care plan, H.R. 3200, to permanently exclude Federal funding of abortion. All of these amendments were rejected by the majority. Minority whip Cantor's amendment to stop health care from funding abortion was rejected in the Ways and Means Committee on July 16, 2009. Representative Souder's amendment to stop abortion funding was rejected by the majority in the Education and Labor Committee on July 17, 2009. Democrat Representative Bart Stupak and Republican Representative Joe Pitts offered another amendment to stop abortion funding in Energy and Commerce, and the majority rejected it on July 30, 2009. The reasons given by the majority for rejecting these amendments was that they were not needed as there was no abortion funding in the bill. Now the contrast to that is the Republican substitute which will be offered has a permanent, government-wide Hyde amendment, meaning unequivocally, no Federal funds can be used for abortion anywhere in any bill that passes. Yet despite claims from the majority that abortion funding was not in the bill, the Energy and Commerce Committee voted on July 31, 2009, to include the Capps amendment to explicitly include abortion funding in the health care bill. Recently, Speaker Pelosi unveiled H.R. 3962, her 2,000 page $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care. This bill also includes the Capps amendment, which will increase the number of elective abortions and gut the well-established government policy that prevents Federal funds from being used to pay for elective abortion known as the Hyde amendment. Before the Hyde amendment was passed in 1976, Medicaid funded almost 300,000 abortions. In contrast, the Republican substitute again has a permanent government-wide Hyde amendment, meaning unequivocally, no Federal funds for abortion anywhere. Section 222 of H.R. 3962 permits Federal funds to be used for abortion in the government insurance plan. Section 4(a) refers to elective abortion procedures that are otherwise prohibited from receiving Federal funds in other government programs due to current Hyde amendment policies, but cannot be prohibited in the government-run public insurance plan. Supporters of the bill assert that only private funds will be used to fund abortion in the government-run public insurance plan. This is not true. The bill places individual premium payments for the government- run public insurance plan into a Federal treasury account that may be used to pay for abortions. The bill also federally subsidizes private insurance plans that cover abortion in the government-run exchange. Let there be no doubt that Pelosi's plan explicitly authorizes the government-run public insurance plan to pay for elective abortions and subsidizes private plans on the government-run exchange that cover elective abortion. Despite assurance from the majority that something would be done to correct this, the manager's amendment for H.R. 3962 does not contain any language regarding abortion funding. The proposal outlined by Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana yesterday falls short of addressing these issues. In his plan, the government-run public insurance plan would still cover abortion, but would have to contract with private contractors to carry out the administrative functions related to paying for elective abortion. Rather than reducing the number of abortions, the majority seems content with overseeing legislation to create the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. This is unacceptable. Pro-life Members on both sides of the aisle want the opportunity to vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment to apply the Hyde amendment and exclude the abortion funding in Pelosi's plan. The American people understand this. We should not be using our Federal funding to kill innocent life.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, I was unavoidably detained but as a co-sponsor of the resolution I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when I talk with constituents in my district, it's clear that more and more of the American people do not support the Pelosi plan for a government takeover of health care. Sadly, that will not stop liberal Democrats from pushing forward with the Pelosi plan anyway. Buried in the 1,990-page bill are more than $700 billion in new taxes on small businesses and individuals and employers who can't afford health care. The Pelosi health care plan also includes more than 100 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions, and programs. What it does not include is coverage for 29 million of the 30 million people that Pelosi and President Obama say need health insurance. They will still not be covered by this huge tax increase and increased bureaucracy. We need to reject the Pelosi health plan--it is a tax increase masquerading as a health plan--and take up the Republican alternative, which covers everyone.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time for us. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty. Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. It's totally unrealistic in addition to all the other comments that I'm going to make. H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of H.R. 627, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, a bill that was signed into law earlier this year. I opposed the bill at that time because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry. The provisions it seeks to accelerate would impose unfunded private-sector Federal mandates, increased costs to borrowers; and it would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving. These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become informed. Rather than taking the approach laid out in H.R. 627 and that which is accelerated by the bill before us today, consumers can always exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a loan system, which is how many people are using them now. Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. That's all we hear from the other side of the aisle. Blame. Blame. Blame. Don't take responsibility, blame George Bush. I think that's getting a little old with the American people. Excuses. You know, this country was founded on the concept of individual freedom. That's what we were founded on and on taking responsibility. We are not in the business of blaming others, or we should not be. Our economy was doing really great until the Democrats took control of this House in 2007. You can look. We've got charts. We can show you that job growth was going on and that the economy was doing terrific. The Democrats take over, and all of a sudden everything starts going downhill. You know, the people who take out credit cards are not having guns held to their heads. They take out the credit cards. If they don't like the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit to people who then are irresponsible. All this Congress is doing is setting the example for this irresponsibility by, as my colleague from Illinois said, continuing to spend money we do not have. That is the crux of the argument. It is the largest deficit in the history of this country. In fact, it is larger than all the other deficits put together. This Congress is the example for those irresponsible people out there. I want to talk a little bit about an article by Horace Cooper, which was printed in the May 15, 2009, issue of Politico, which gives the history and potential consequences of the bill before us, both of which are necessary in understanding the right approach to this issue, and I will be quoting Mr. Cooper for the next few minutes: While most Americans take credit card use and ownership for granted, credit cards are a relatively new financial device coming in in only the past 50 years, but their widespread use is ample evidence of the value they bring to most Americans. Their use started in the 1950s with the original Bank of America cards, which cardholders were able to use at multiple merchants. Notably, the entire balance would have to be paid off each month. Now there are more than 175 million credit card holders, and today, credit cards typically have revolving accounts, giving individual users the ability to decide how much of their charges they wish to pay off each month. Cooper continues by highlighting the consequences these new restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations, stating: What the advocates of these reforms have failed to understand is that these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all together, and that will hurt people in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is lower than average. Fees and rate hikes are among the means that credit card companies use to recoup the costs associated with credit card lending. Because credit card charges aren't secured, lenders can't seize your home or even the assets you've purchased. Credit card companies use interest rates and other fees as a way to offset the risks associated with a given cardholder. A cap or limit on fees will cause credit card companies to limit their exposure, particularly to minorities in inner city areas, since those with low incomes are at a higher risk for default, but this won't help the rest of the credit card-holding public. Everyone will likely see lower credit lines and higher average interest rates, since these are now ``forever'' rates instead of adjustable ones, and shorter credit card activation periods, weeks instead of months of authorized credit use. Particularly troubling is that even minorities, women and working class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit access dry up. This is especially bad during an economic downturn as it means that fewer new small businesses, which increasingly rely on credit cards, will start to bring more jobs and economic growth into the economy, and it will be far harder for all families, including minorities and working class families, to bridge job losses or even temporary layoffs by using credit cards to temporarily buy family staples. Critics of the credit card industry fail to appreciate the alternatives that presently exist to credit card use by most Americans; payday lending, auto title loans, and pawnshops for those who wish to operate within the law, and street lamp vendors named ``Rocky'' for those who don't. Minority and lower income families will be disproportionately forced to these alternatives when traditional credit card access goes away. Mr. Cooper brings to the attention of the American people some very important points. What Republicans have done is to provide an alternative measure, H.R. 2327, the Protection of Consumer Credit and Consumer Choice Act of 2009, which embodies the principles necessary to protect the availability of credit while providing consumers with the information needed to make informed decisions. H.R. 2327, of which I am a sponsor, would require credit card issuers to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures pertaining to, one, the time provided to make timely payments; two, allocation of payments when different annual percentage rates apply to different balances of such accounts; three, increases in APRs; four, a two-cycle average daily balance method of balance calculation; and, five, fees that may be assessed at the opening of each account. Additionally, this alternative bill would require credit card issuers to provide advanced written notice of a change in such terms before it takes effect, with certain exceptions. With the presence of this reasonable alternative that provides sensible consumer protections, while avoiding the pitfalls of assigning a variety of new federally unfunded mandates, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I do not have any further speakers, but I do intend to speak a little longer on the rule.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago during 1-minutes, one of our Democratic colleagues came in and talked about the number of ``shalls'' in the proposed health care bill by the Democrats and then spoke about the Ten Commandments and pointed out that the Ten Commandments liberally uses the word ``shall.''

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Colorado very much on a personal level, but let's get real: This bill is going nowhere. Republicans have an alternative bill that will do very well. And those of us here know that this bill is just a time consumer, because the Democrats have no real legislation to offer. They know this bill can't go into effect by December 1, but they need something to keep us here this week because they are trying to twist arms to get the votes for the health care bill. So we have to spend time talking about something, so this is what was brought up. Let me say that, talking about health care now, we are doing that because we know when the health care bill does come to the floor, the almost 2,000-page health care bill, or a little over 2,000 pages, I suspect, won't get any time for discussion, not what it deserves, taking over one-sixth of the economy, because, and I quote from today's Roll Call, ``House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter, Democrat-New York, said that the rule would be locked down, allowing a vote on a Republican alternative and perhaps one other, but no additional amendments,'' continuing the tradition that has been going on here this entire session--no amendments, because you don't want debate on what it is we should be debating. But let me talk a minute about the Republicans' alternative plan. It will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, which addresses the number one priority for health care reform of Americans. It will establish universal access programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with preexisting conditions. I have read part of the plan that you have. It provides for waiting lists and taking people with existing conditions out of your plan. You don't even guarantee those people coverage. Ending junk lawsuits. The Republican plan will help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful laws in California and Texas. It will prevent insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or instituting annual lifetime spending caps. It will encourage small business health plans. It gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do. It will encourage innovative State programs. It will allow Americans to buy insurance across State lines. It will codify the Hyde amendment. The Republican plan explicitly prohibits Federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. It will promote healthier lifestyles. It will enhance Health Savings Accounts, and it will allow dependents to remain on their parents' policies for a longer time. We have alternatives, sensible alternatives, what the American people want. And I think yesterday's elections give us some idea about what the American people want. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, as our good colleague from Illinois pointed out, the health care bill is going on the Federal credit card and it's going to have very high interest rates, and it's something the American people want us to talk about because of its effect on the economy. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana and the Republican Conference Chair, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Colorado. He mentioned that we would be able to debate the health care bill in the Rules Committee, that we'd have a long time to do it. But the Rules Committee is the only committee in the Congress that meets behind closed doors, that does not allow C-SPAN to televise what it does, despite the fact that Barack Obama promised to have deliberations on all bills broadcast on C-SPAN and Nancy Pelosi promised the most open Congress in history. This is like the book ``1984'' by George Orwell. They say one thing and do absolutely another. It's doublespeak. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule. The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule. The bill currently has 214 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs. The existing House rule that committee reports be available for 3 days prior to floor consideration has been repeatedly waived by Republicans and Democrats alike. This is not a partisan measure. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting legislation online prior to its being voted on. In the beginning of the year, Members of this Congress, Democrat Members of this Congress, voted to spend almost $790 billion in taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package that most Members did not even read. The enormous document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m., the day before the vote to pass it was taken. Furthermore, before the debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote the following afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated the need to read the bill and the arguments. Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it? We need to have this debate. If people oppose having the text of bills available to read, they should make their case. This amendment to the rule allows them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, after weeks of meeting behind closed doors, last week Speaker Pelosi unveiled her latest plan for a government takeover of health care. According to a preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, the Pelosi health care plan includes more than $1 trillion in new Federal spending on health care over the next 10 years. And when one looks past the budget gimmicks, the reality is the Pelosi health care plan will cost taxpayers roughly $1.3 trillion and create 111 new bureaucracies. This is not the kind of responsible health care reform the American people want. It's time for Speaker Pelosi to dump her budget-buster plan masquerading as health care reform and start over. House Republicans have a plan for health care reform that will lower costs and provide greater access to affordable health care for all Americans. That's what the American people want.