Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for one short question?

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, in the ongoing debate over health care reform, the topic of freedom is often overlooked, but it ought not be. The Democrats' health care bill is a massive expansion of government that will alter the lives and livelihoods of every person in America. For many, that means higher taxes; and for even more, it will mean an unprecedented intrusion of Federal Government bureaucrats into the way we receive health care. This is a fundamental erosion of our freedom. The great freedom fighter, Abraham Lincoln, gave a speech in Springfield, Illinois, in 1838 where he touched on the idea of the loss of freedom. He was very explicit. He explained that our country could one day suffer a loss of freedom, not by an outside attack but from within. I will quote what Lincoln said and then give it in its larger context: ``At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.'' The larger context of those words is as follows: ``In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running, under date of the 19th century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the Earth as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them. They are a legacy bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave and patriotic but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task, and nobly they performed it, to possess themselves and, through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these--the former, unprofaned--by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general all imperatively require us faithfully to perform. ``How then shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the Earth, our own excepted, in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. ``At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for months millions of concerned citizens voiced their strong opposition to a government takeover of health care. Yet last week Speaker Pelosi unveiled her latest plan for a government takeover of health care. The Pelosi health care plan does nothing to control the rising costs of health care. But struggling businesses that can't afford to provide health insurance coverage to their employees face higher taxes. According to an economic model developed by President Obama's chief economic adviser, an estimated 5.5 million jobs could be lost as a result of the taxes included in the Pelosi health care plan. At a time when several States are struggling with double-digit unemployment, pushing policies that will raise taxes and increase job losses is the wrong direction to take our country. It's time for Congress to reject the Pelosi health care plan and start over on responsible health care reform.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as anyone who has been paying much attention to what has been going on in Congress this fall will know, we have been talking about health care. What we had introduced last week was H.R. 3962, which I call a ``tax increase bill'' masquerading as a health care bill, and I want to outline some of the tax increases that are included in H.R. 3962 to back up my comments. Number 1: Small business surtax, section 551, page 336, $460.5 billion. Number 2: Employer mandate tax, sections 511-512, page 308, $135 billion. This violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax increases on Americans earning less than $250,000. Number 3: Individual mandate tax, section 501, page 296, $33 billion. This also violates President Obama's pledge. Number 4: Medical device tax, section 552, page 339, $20 billion. Again, it violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax increases on Americans earning less than $250,000. Number 5: $2,500 annual cap on FSAs, section 532, page 325, $13.3 billion. It violates President Obama's pledge. Number 6: Prohibition on pretax purchases of over-the-counter drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs, section 531, page 324, $5 billion. This is another violation. Number 7: Tax on health insurance policies to fund Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund, section 1802, page 1162, $2 billion. It violates the pledge. Number 8: 20 percent penalty on certain HSA distributions, section 533, page 326, $1.3 billion. Number 9: Other tax hikes and increased compliance costs on U.S. job creators, $56.4 billion; IRS reporting on payments; delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules; override U.S. treaties on certain payments by insourcing businesses; codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties. All of these are referenced by the section number and the page number so the American people don't have to rely on what we're saying. There is one other, which is revenue-raising provisions for $3 billion. The total tax increases in the bill: $729.5 billion. This information came from the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Speaker, what we need is reform in our health care system. Republicans have offered commonsense reform. Those commonsense reform items are not being allowed to be heard. They were voted down in committee over and over and over again by the Democrat majority. This is not what the American people want. They want to see reform in health care, not increased taxes and a job-killing bill that will do very little to help with their challenges in dealing with health care reform.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. They are frightened about what is happening in this country. They fear for the future of our country. What they're talking about is that they fear for our freedoms and they fear for the principles that formed this country and have always been the basis on which we've operated. I share that fear; and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe that the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room, this very room, and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country. In order to help explain some of why we should be fearful, the Republican Conference has gone through Speaker Pelosi's bill--tax bill masquerading as a health care bill--and brought out some pertinent points page by page; and I want to share some of those with people. One of the good things that's happened this year is that people have learned they can read these bills and become familiar with them themselves, so they don't need us to tell them, but it may help to point to specific pages. Page 94--section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the Federal Government. We can't make that up. It's right there in the bill. Page 110--section 222(e) requires the use of Federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan; and, if the Hyde amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions. Page 111--section 223 establishes a new board of Federal bureaucrats (the ``Health Benefits Advisory Committee'') to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase; and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion. I think one of the funniest pieces in the bill, if anything can be considered funny, page 122, section 233(a)(3), requires the commissioner, the new insurance czar, to, quote, issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing--this from the same people who wrote a 1,990-page health care bill which is very difficult to read. Page 1183--section 1904 provides $750 million in Federal funding for a new entitlement program to offer, quote, knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors and skills for parents to interact with their child. Page 1255--sections 2231-2235 makes veterinary students eligible for up to $283 million in Federal scholarship and student loan forgiveness funding. Page 1432--section 2531 provides incentive payments to States that enact new medical liability laws--but only if such laws, quote, do not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages. We need medical liability reform. This bill will prevent that from happening. It's a bad bill. The American people should be frightened of it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for beginning the hour for us. We stand up here and we talk a lot about what's in this bill, and I know that many Americans wonder are we telling the truth or not. But as you pointed out, there is a provision in that bill that will do away with private health insurance policies beginning in 2013. And if people want to find that, they can find it on page 94, section 202(c). I heard when I came in you were talking about how to read the bill by going to your Web site. I think all of us have Web sites with links to the bill, and I'm assuming most people also have links to these page numbers and section numbers that will back up what we are saying. I think one of the best things that has come out of the debate that has been going on about this health care, and as our colleague from Illinois said earlier, if this was such a great idea, this bill would have been passed in July, as our colleagues across the aisle wanted. But it isn't a good idea, and it's been very contentious. But we point out to people what's in the bill, and people have been reading the bill. I think that is a very healthy thing to do, and I hope people will continue to read the bill. I am a bit surprised, actually. The bill was introduced on Thursday, we didn't have session on Friday, and tonight when we had Special Orders and the Democrats had the first hour, I thought they would be here defending this bill and explaining to the American people why this is such a wonderful thing. And yet, they didn't show up. Here we are doing our best to explain to our fellow Americans what is wrong about this bill and why they shouldn't be supporting it. I have found a dearth of Democrats out here defending the bill and saying, Let me tell you on page 94 what is good, or on page 112. It seems to me, if they really liked this bill, they would be doing that. I know over time we have done that kind of thing. I want to say to my colleague from Tennessee how important I think it is to point out that there are going to be 111 new bureaucracies established by this bill. I am a small government conservative, and I have had the same experiences that my colleague from West Virginia has had. Everywhere I went this weekend, people said to me, Vote ``no'' on that health care bill. Do everything you can to stop that health care bill. I am not finding people who are saying to me vote for this. My mail is running about 9\1/2\ against it to 1. I think the reason is the American people, the average American, understands that increased government intrusion in our lives takes away our freedom. This country is the freest country in the world. We are the greatest country in the world because of that. But when you expand the Federal Government's power over our lives, that undermines our freedom. And Nancy Pelosi's Big Government health care bill is the single largest expansion of government that we have seen in over a generation. It is, I think, a threat to our freedoms. I believe the average American understands that. When I talk to school groups, I say to them the major difference between Democrats and Republicans is we believe that individuals can solve most of their problems. Yes, we need government. We need a police force. We need an Army. There are many things that we need. But very few things at the Federal level do we need. Republicans have figured this out. We have made proposals. We have not talked much about those tonight. I think we need to at least say that we have made these proposals that fit with what the American people want. They want to be able to buy insurance across State lines. They want to take a tax deduction for paying insurance premiums like their employer does. They want to be able to get into pools like my small business can join with other small businesses. We want to let the States come up with innovations. We have lots and lots of ideas like that that won't cost $1.4 trillion but will solve this problem for the approximately 10 million Americans who want health insurance but can't afford it. We are turning our whole country upside down to take care of 10 million Americans who want insurance but can't afford it. We want to do that. What it is going to do, if the American people have any hesitation about what we are talking about in terms of where we are going with health care, we need to point out that it will allow the IRS to be monitoring small businesses and, ultimately, us as individuals. I don't know anybody in this country that wants to be dealing with the IRS. We know what a friendly group they are. And we know what is going to happen to those bureaucracies that take over our health care decisions. That's just the wrong way to go. We can beat this thing. We need the American people to be calling their Members of Congress who are on the other side who are either undecided or have said that they are going to vote for it and say that this is not what we want. We don't want a further erosion of our freedoms. We want to remain the greatest country in the world.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Gohmert. I still don't think you and I sound a lot alike, although people say that. You definitely have a Texas accent, and I know I don't have an accent from North Carolina. But I want to thank you for the leadership you've given on this issue. I know you've been here several nights, late at night, talking about the issues that the American people need to know about. It's so difficult to get the information out to them, and I appreciate what you're doing. I find it very ironic that we are a couple of days away from Halloween. I'm not a great phrase maker, but today it hit me that we really need to talk about this in terms of Halloween. This bill that Speaker Pelosi has introduced today is a tax increase bill masquerading as a health reform bill. In this time of Halloween, the kids get really concerned about monsters and get afraid of them. But I want to tell you there is no scarier monster that has ever been conceived of by cartoon people, by movie people, than this 1,990-page bill. It is a monster. It is a monstrosity. It is something that should scare every American to death. It is frightening to me, I can tell you that. I think my colleague from Texas has done a very good job of framing how a bill should come to the floor. Bills that are thoughtfully done go through subcommittees. People get a chance to debate them, look through them, find things that are not as well defined as they should be. We vote. That's the way legislation should be done, on a bipartisan basis, bringing in everybody's brain, bringing in everybody's aspect about it, and making sure that when we pass something, it's going to be as well thought out as it can possibly be, ``vetted'' sometimes it's called. That's what we should be doing. But that is not what is going to happen with this bill because the President made a promise in his campaign that he would get passed a health reform bill. The people in this body think that they owe it to the President, not to the American people, their fealty is to a President, to help him meet his campaign promise. That is not where my loyalty lies. It did not lie with the President when we had a Republican President. My loyalty is to the American people. That is where all of our loyalties should be, and this bill is a betrayal of the American people because it takes away their freedoms. It promises something that it isn't. It is worse than a shell game, as I said. It is a tax increase masquerading as a health bill. The one good thing that we have been able to accomplish with the great help of the American people in recent weeks is to really raise Cain about these bills being crammed down people's throats. So we will have 72 hours to look at the bill. The American people may think that we are not telling the truth. Sometimes the things we say are in the bill are hard for people to believe. The bill will be there and be able to be read, and we will be reading it and looking at every single aspect of it. And I want to encourage other people to do that. We will put copies in libraries. We want the American people to see it. We are not trying to mislead people about what is so horrible about this bill. You all may remember that the President said in his campaign, ``We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it.'' To me that meant take what is good about this country and change it into something that is not good. This bill will take us down that path very, very quickly. We will be losing our freedoms, and we will be beholden to a government that is not always the most benevolent and will get less benevolent the more power it has. We have a fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. We believe that the American people should be in control of their lives. They believe that the government knows best, they and the government bureaucracy. It doesn't matter that the majority of the American people are opposed to this. They believe they have the wisdom and they are going to impose this on the American people. But not if the American people speak up as they should. We are going to be fighting, as my colleague from Texas has said, we are going to fight every step of the way until there is a vote on this bill, probably next week, but we need the help of the American people to contact your Member of Congress and tell them this is not what you want. This is not what America stands for. This is not what we have men and women fighting for all over this world. They are fighting for freedom. But the greatest threat to the freedom of the people in this country is right here in this room. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not exaggerating. It is right here in this room, but we can defeat it, as we have before. With that, I yield back to my colleague from Texas.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, is known here for his extremely subtle wit, his use of metaphors that challenge the most intelligent among us, and for incredible insight into issues. He talks a lot about freedom, and he published a piece today from the Republican Policy Committee that I would like to use as the basis of my comments tonight. The title of it is ``Leeches vs. Laser Surgery: The Contemporary Crux of Health Care Reform.'' He goes on to say that ``Contrary to `conventional wisdom,' on the issue of health care reform (and all others) the Democrats are the party of the past. We Republicans are the party of the present and the future. ``Bluntly, Democrats are fighting against the times. Their stale, government-run health deform proposals are as outdated and unsuited to contemporary life as a leaching is to laser surgery.'' No one can quite put things in perspective like Thaddeus McCotter. But when I read that today, I wanted to share that with the American public, because I think it is a very, very good analogy. Everywhere I go, I talk to people in my district and they say they are scared to death with what is happening in our country. And I talk to other people who travel all around the country, and they say they hear that, too. What are people scared to death of? What they are scared of is losing their freedoms. We have people all over the world fighting to protect the freedoms that have been so dearly won in this country and to help other countries gather their freedoms and to get the freedom that they deserve. Yet the biggest threat to our freedom in this country right now isn't anywhere else in the world; it's right here in this Capitol, right here in this room and in the Senate Chamber across the hall. That's the greatest threat to our freedom. Republicans, though, have alternatives, and I want to talk a little bit about those alternatives. We should be looking at reforming medical liability laws, ending exclusions for preexisting conditions, expanding health savings accounts, providing tax credits for purchasing private health insurance, allowing association health plans, permitting health insurance purchases across State lines, encouraging individuals to ensure against changes in health status, giving incentives for preventive health care, and applying information technology to enhance transparency and increase efficiencies. All that can be achieved without trillions in new spending. In fact, most of it can be done for absolutely no cost. Instead, what we have offered to us by the Democrats is an erosion of our freedom. It's a government takeover of the best health care system in the world. I want to quote again from Thaddeus: ``Unfortunately, trapped in the past of a big government ideology and purblind to the people empowering wondering powers of our globalized world, the President and his Democratic majority cavalierly dismiss such sensible, affordable approach and determinedly toil behind closed doors to impose their radical health distribution scheme on unwilling Americans. If the Democrats prevail, their health redistribution will impel higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices and lost jobs during this painful recession. There is a better way, the Republican way: patient-centered wellness for our people powered world.'' This should not happen in the greatest country in the world. We must do everything that we can to stop this, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, my intentions were to offer an amendment today that would provide an opportunity to do what I think all of us on both sides of the aisle want to do, which is to have effective programs which help our citizens in this country. However, we've discovered that there are problems with the amendment as it has been drafted, and so it is my intention to withdraw the amendment at the end of my comments. Multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office found duplicative programs across the Federal Government. These programs included 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs. These are noble goals with good intentions, but they are no excuse for Congress to abrogate its responsibility to reexamine programs that may have become wasteful or duplicative since their inception. Just yesterday, there was an article in CongressDaily about a situation that should not exist: ``Influential Senators raised fresh concerns about the $7.2 billion broadband stimulus program during an oversight hearing Tuesday, complaining that it is divided between two Federal agencies when only one is necessary.'' `` `There shouldn't be two of you here. Only in the Federal Government would we have two people doing the same thing,' said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, in a blunt assessment of the situation, which she described as `nonsense.' '' [From Congress Daily, Oct. 28, 2009] Red Tape Could Hurt Broadband Program, Senators Warn (By David Hatch) Referring to Rural Utilities Service Administrator Jonathan Adelstein and NTIA Chief Larry Strickling, Senator Claire McCaskill said, ``If I could, wave a magic wand I would morph you into one person and combine your two agencies with the snap of fingers.'' ``I don't know why it was divided up the way it was, but that's what happens with political power around here,'' echoed Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller. He further complained that some applicants well-positioned to aid their communities might be dissuaded by the cumbersome process for obtaining the stimulus funds. Their comments reflect concerns raised by companies and other parties about the complexities of having requests for loans and grants reviewed by two bureaucracies--and the risks of ending up with loans even when grants are sought. After being inundated, with close to 2,200 requests seeking nearly $28 billion, both agencies have fallen behind schedule and plan to begin issuing awards in mid-December--a month later than intended. Rockefeller and McCaskill were among the senators who criticized criteria that could prevent some rural areas within 50 miles of urban centers from being eligible for the most generous grants. They urged the regulators to address the matter, prompting Adelstein to assure them that ``everything is on the table'' when it comes to making adjustments. He described Rural Utilities Service as between a rock and a hard place because it has been criticized for diverting too much assistance to nonrural areas. Senate Commerce ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison reiterated her view that the bulk of the funding should help regions that are unserved or ``substantially'' underserved. During his testimony, Mark Goldstein, director of physical infrastructure issues at GAO, warned that both agencies lack funding for oversight of the program beyond FY10. Adelstein and Strickling said they're doing everything they can to maximize the impact of the grants and loans. ``I want to ensure you today that these funds will be well-spent,'' Strickling said, noting that there have been no turf battles. That is why I am offering this amendment which would explicitly sunset all programs contained in the bill at the end of their authorizations or within 5 years, whichever is first, while granting the administrator the authority to carry out responsibilities regarding all outstanding loans, grants, and other outstanding commitments before the authorization expiration. As a member of the Sunset Caucus and as a cosponsor of H.R. 393, I recognize the need for regular congressional review and oversight needed to restore accountability to the multitude of Federal programs that exist and that are created every day. The amendment I had planned to offer is part of a broader effort to reaffirm the continued relevance of Federal programs and to ensure they continue to operate as intended. With the current budget challenges facing the Federal Government and a $1.4 trillion deficit, the need for provisions that would sunset program authorizations is more pronounced now than ever. Congress constantly creates new programs with little to no thought of the amount of money that will be needed to finance what usually becomes their eternal life. This is a commonsense, prudent, and simple step that can be taken regularly to help keep us honest and to sunset authorizations which will necessitate evaluation. If a program is worth continuing, its purpose and effectiveness should be dependable in the future. This gives committees an opportunity to reevaluate and retool their functioning to help restore accountability. I believe committee chairmen will wholeheartedly support sunsetting provisions, as their inclusion would more regularly work toward shaping policy under their purview. Madam Chairman, again, I have learned just prior to coming here that there is a problem with the language, but I also understand that there is a belief on the part of the chairwoman and the ranking member that this is something that should be done, and we will be able to work on that in the future. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, some of the most harmful components of the Democrats' proposed government takeover of health care are the heavy mandates and taxes placed on business. Under the Democrat bill, small businesses are required to offer government-approved insurance or pay an 8 percent tax on their entire payroll. This is the mother of all mandates. Its effect will be wide-ranging job losses and devastation to small businesses. Small businesses cannot handle $800 billion in new taxes to pay for a government takeover of health care. Small business people are not going to take this lying down. Groups like the Chamber of Commerce, that understand the needs of business best, have been working hard to illustrate just how harmful the Democrat proposals will be to small businesses and communities across the country. Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle health care reform in a constructive way that does not destroy the small business people who make our economy work.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, what does a government takeover of health care mean for seniors? It's simple. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Democrats' health care and tax increase bill slashes funding for Medicare Advantage plans used by millions of seniors across the country. All told, the Democrat plan cuts $162 billion from Medicare Advantage. That will directly affect the 40,000 seniors in my mostly rural North Carolina district who enjoy Medicare Advantage plans. With such huge cuts, Medicare Advantage plans are expected to disappear, limiting seniors' choices and causing real hardships for seniors in rural areas who simply don't have many options. So much for the President's promise that ``if you like your current plan, you can keep it.'' Sure, this promise is true, unless of course you're one of the millions who will lose their plan. The bottom line is this one-size-fits-all government-run plan and tax increase combination is bad news for America's seniors.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, does America's biggest senior citizens organization, AARP, get a free pass in the ongoing health care reform debate? Speaker Pelosi recently called insurance companies ``immoral villains,'' and Senator Jay Rockefeller derided their tactics as ``rapacious,'' yet the majority has simultaneously relied on an organization that has received billions of dollars in windfall profits from those same insurers as an ``independent'' source to support their government takeover of health care--AARP. The Democrat majority has even relied on AARP's support for legislation, S. 1776, that would increase the Federal debt by nearly $250 billion to fund physician reimbursements, even though the bill would raise seniors' Medicare premiums by over $60 billion. AARP opposed unpaid-for legislation as recently as December for the very same reason. An analysis of Democrats' rhetoric and actions provides evidence why AARP may have changed its position. In exchange for its support of a government takeover of health care, AARP has received special considerations regarding several provisions in health reform legislation that could benefit the organization quite handsomely. While the AARP Web site claims that the organization supports ``guaranteeing that all individuals and groups wishing to purchase or renew coverage can do so regardless of age or preexisting conditions,'' a review of the New York State Insurance Commissioner's Web site finds that AARP-branded Medigap coverage imposes a 6-month waiting period for individuals with preexisting conditions. Yet section 111 of H.R. 3200 would exempt Medigap policies from new limits on preexisting condition restrictions, thus allowing AARP to continue to deny Medigap individuals with serious health conditions. The health reform bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would eliminate the tax deductibility for all insurance company executive salaries over $500,000. However, as drafted by the committee, the legislation would exempt AARP from this requirement, even though fully 38 percent of its $1.1 billion in 2008 revenue came directly from royalty fees paid by United Health Care--more than AARP received in membership dues, grant revenue, and private contributions combined. But for Chairman Baucus' exemption, AARP salaries would in fact be subject to the penalties in the Finance bill. In 2008, then CEO William Novelli received total compensation of $1,005,830, more than 78 times the average annual Social Security benefit of $12,738. According to a story published today in the Washington Post, AARP collected $650 million in royalties and other fees last year from the sale of insurance policies, credit cards, and other products that carry the AARP name. One of the main products that AARP pushes are so-called Medigap insurance policies for senior citizens. These policies supplement existing Medicare policies that seniors already have. So what's the big deal? Well, in case you missed it, AARP is helping push the Democrats' big government version of health care reform. They've been a vocal proponent of the government-run health care proposal before Congress. Interestingly, the proposal before Congress slashed funding for a Medicare program called Medicare Advantage. This program is especially popular with seniors in my district. About 40,000 seniors in my district enjoy the benefits of a Medicare Advantage plan, but these plans will be killed off under the Democrats' government takeover of health care, and AARP has been pushing this brand of health care reform. AARP has the right to offer services to its members, but pushing for a version of health care reform that will hurt millions of seniors who have Medicare Advantage plans and that will almost certainly increase shares of AARP's Medigap policies is a very dangerous conflict of interest. AARP has hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance revenue on the line in today's health care debate. I think America's seniors deserve to know the facts about how health care reform will affect them, and it appears that AARP may have a few too many dogs in this race to be an impartial source of information.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate your being able to quote chapter and verse in the bill. When I have spoken to groups and have told them particularly about the part you were reading earlier, that once there is any change in any health care plan that plan goes away, I remember when I read that--you know, this is very boring reading. We all know it's very boring reading, but when I read that, I went, Whoa, what is this? Every plan will go away if one little change occurs? And, you know, when I've talked to people about that and told them it was in there, I think a lot of people didn't believe me. I think they just thought that couldn't possibly be the case. Did you get that kind of reaction from people when you explained that to folks?

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank the gentleman from Texas for taking on this Special Order tonight and for laying things out so well from H.R. 3200, which, as you've said, is the only bill on our side of the Congress that is out there. As you said again so eloquently, what the Senate has been working on has been behind closed doors. I was really busy today. I heard there might be a bill released today, but I don't think it has been. I do want to talk about what you were saying about the fact that we are about to turn our whole economy upside down to take care of a small number of people who are lacking health insurance and who can't afford it. As we know, at the beginning, our colleagues across the aisle and the President were saying there are 45 or 47 million people in this country who don't have health care. When they were challenged on that, they said, Okay, there are 45 to 47 million who don't have health insurance. Even the President, on the night he spoke to us in the joint session, took that number from 47 million down to 30 million because we had kept talking about illegal aliens who were here in the country and who were counted in that number. So he got it down to 30 million, but the number is really much, much smaller than that. The ironic thing is that, in all of the legislation we've been hearing about, it looks as though 28 million people are still not going to be covered by health insurance even if H.R. 3200 is passed or even if the bill out of the Senate is passed. So we're talking about, again, taking over the whole economy, putting us tremendously more in debt, spending $1 trillion to serve approximately 1 million people if the numbers they have been using are accurate. Of course, we know that, most of the time, they're not accurate, but they're using the numbers. Let's talk a little bit about who these people are. We have a few variations of the exact numbers that people are using. For example, in noncitizens, I think this says that there are 10 million. A chart that I had said 9.5 million, but if you're talking about starting out with 30 million, then what we're talking about again is of the 10 million who are not citizens and then of the approximately 9 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year. I had the figure of 7.3 at $84,000, but again, different people use different numbers. These people can afford health insurance if they want it, but they choose not to purchase it. There are 10 million people who are eligible for government programs but who told people when they were questioned that they didn't have any insurance but that they were on either Medicaid or Medicare. They don't understand that Medicaid and Medicare are health insurance programs. So we've got 10 million there who are eligible for employer-sponsored insurance but who are not enrolled. Six million of these are people who just don't want to pay for health insurance and who are not going to pay for it if we have a plan that says you've got to be on it or pay a penalty. So, on the chart that the gentleman from Iowa, Steve King, has been using, he has got 12 to 15 million Americans who don't have affordable insurance options. The number I had been using showed about 8 million people. So we've got a really small number of people. We could take care of those people easily with a subsidy to help them get affordable insurance. We want to help working people, the working poor. That's who most of these people are. They work, but they can't afford insurance. Republicans have a plan. As you pointed out earlier, we have several plans, and our plans deal with the things that folks most want. They want portability. People want to be able to take their health plans with them if they lose their jobs. Well, the way to do that is to give individuals the opportunities to take a tax deduction or a tax credit and buy their own health insurance. We have a system now where we give that preference to companies, but we don't give it to individuals. So a simple thing to do would be to simply say you, as an individual, can buy your health insurance, and you can take the same deduction that your employer has been taking all of these years. That won't cost the Federal Government a dime. We can also allow people to buy insurance across State lines. That can be done. It won't cost the Federal Government a dime. We can have across-the-board medical malpractice reform, and we can get rid of frivolous lawsuits. Texas, I know, has done that. California has done it. My own State of North Carolina has tried on several occasions to do it, but the Democrat-controlled legislature won't allow it to be done because they basically are beholden to trial lawyers. So those are the three most important things that people want. They want accessibility and affordability. We can take care of those without spending any money whatsoever, but the Democrats seem intent on spending money. This is really not about health care. I think we all know it. I think the examples my colleague from Texas was using from H.R. 3200 are very clear. This is about government control of our lives. This year in the House, we have already passed a bill that allows the government to take over all loan programs for students who are going to college. That's another takeover of our lives. The government has already taken over car companies, the car production companies. It's going to be having the government run every aspect of our lives. I want to point out that part of the problem, again, is that we have a real difference in philosophy here in the United States. We have a difference of philosophy here in the House. Republicans think that it's best for individuals to take care of themselves and to keep as much of their money as they possibly can. Democrats want to take as much money from citizens as they can and let the government run their lives. I just want to give a couple of examples of what's happened since the Democrats have taken control of the Congress. The spending has increased in 2009 alone, the stimulus funding and the budgets, we have looked at that and we have found that all Federal agencies will, on average, receive a 50 percent increase in appropriated funds from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, real family incomes fell by 3.6 percent last year. The people in Washington in control of the purse don't act like there's any recession. They just keep spending, spending, spending. Another thing that's a real problem with this health plan that's being proposed here is that it's going to cause the loss of another 5\1/2\ million jobs. Now I know many people who watch us, even when we read from sections of the bills, think this just isn't possible. How could you have people in charge of this Congress who are so anti-capitalism, who are so anti all of the values that have made this country a great country? I know it's hard to believe, but it happens every day, and it continues to happen. We have, again, a deficit right now, for last year, $1.4 trillion. Yet since the year began, we are on target to have an increase of that next year of 12 percent. An article in today's Wall Street Journal points that out, and the increases are in what is called discretionary spending. I want to point out, in the mandatory spending programs, that's Medicare and Medicaid--and my colleagues know I hate those words mandatory spending, because there is no such thing. We simply allow things to go on automatic pilot, and they increase in spending every year because we've written it into the law. But we can change that. There is nothing mandatory about it. We allow it to be that way. Medicare, this year, went up 9.8 percent, spending for Medicare, and spending on Medicaid went up 24.7 percent in the fiscal year that just ended October 1. We are to believe that by putting in a brand new health care program that purports to cover every citizen in the country, that we are going to reduce spending? Well, I have got some swampland in New Mexico I will sell you if you believe that story. It cannot happen. We cannot add people to the Medicare rolls and still spend less money. It just isn't going to happen. I think it's incumbent on us here in the Congress, who understand the truth, who have read H.R. 3200, to come out here every night, every day, and explain to the American people we are not selling you a bill of goods, they are selling you a bill of goods, because all you have to do is read the bill, and you will see it and match up the numbers with what's been happening. This is not rocket science, it's happening, and the American people are the poorer for it.

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. I find it interesting that the government is going to do that to businesses that are being highly successful all across the country, and yet we find ourselves right now in a situation where we have the largest deficit ever in the history of this country, a debt so large it is almost incomprehensible, and yet our Federal Government is going to go out and analyze successful businesses to decide whether they are solvent. I find that--I can't even say the height of hypocrisy, it is beyond hypocrisy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it's going to be a rough time to be a small business owner if the Democrat health care reform plan becomes law. Their government takeover of health care hits taxpayers with more than $820 billion in tax hikes. This plan also includes a new $540 billion tax on the so-called ``rich'' to bankroll this health care scheme. The problem? According to IRS data, more than half of those who will be hit with this new tax are small business owners. Small businesses are our economy's engine for job growth. In fact, in the past, they have created 72 percent of all new jobs. If you're like me, you would like to see more job growth right now, not less. But small businesses will be hit hard by the new taxes in this plan, severely hampering their ability to create jobs and help us emerge from this economic downturn. This doesn't sound like health care reform. It sounds like a disaster.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate time to ask: Is that all there is? Yesterday, President Obama's economic adviser, Christina Romer, testified before Congress' Joint Economic Committee on the so-called stimulus plan. Her testimony was illuminating. She indicated that the stimulus plan's greatest impact on economic growth happened between April and September of this year. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs during each of these months. How could they possibly consider this a success? If the greatest impact of the trillion dollar stimulus is behind us and we still experience a terrible loss of jobs, that seems the opposite of success. This whole scenario reminds me of a Peggy Lee song from 40 years ago, called, ``Is That All There Is?'' Where are the jobs we were promised in this stimulus? According to President Obama's economic adviser, the main impact is behind us. Really? Is that all there is? Republicans have better solutions to get Americans back to work that don't involve reckless, ineffective borrowing and spending that drive us further into debt. Americans deserve better.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, I supported the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act which reauthorized the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and included important provisions that sunset the program's authorizations. However, the 2009 reauthorization bill, S. 1793, that the House passed on October 21, 2009 repeals all prior sunset provisions. With the current budgetary fiasco facing the federal government, the need for provisions that would sunset program authorizations is more pronounced now than ever. Congress constantly creates new programs with little or no thought to the amount of money that will be needed to finance its eternal life. The thought seems to be that a billion dollars for any specific purpose is so minuscule when compared to the federal deficit that one cannot resist supporting worthy causes and efforts. The problem is that this excuse occurs on a daily basis around here. Collectively, that mentality is what has led us to the insurmountable federal spending levels currently threatening the economy and overall strength of the U.S. dollar. One simple way to help combat that mentality is the inclusion of provisions that sunset program authorizations. This is a commonsense, prudent and simple step that can be taken regularly to help keep us honest. If a program is worth continuing, its purpose and effectiveness should be defensible in the future. If it is not defensible, then committees can reevaluate and retool its functioning to help restore accountability. Moreover, committee chairmen should wholeheartedly support sunset provisions as their inclusion would more regularly work towards shaping policies under their purview. Some may argue that the programs are too plentiful and the task too overwhelming for Congress to evaluate effectively on a regular basis. This is all the more reason to fight for smaller government, and terminating ineffective and duplicative programs. Congress must put the necessary accountability and oversight measures in place to ensure that American tax dollars are being well spent on worthy, well-functioning priorities. S. 1793 authorizes the appropriation of about $2.55 billion for fiscal year 2010, a 14 percent increase from the appropriation the program received in fiscal year 2009 of $2.213 billion. The bill increases the program's overall authorization levels by an automatic 5 percent each year for total of $8.44 billion over the 2010-2013 period. In comparison the federal government sought only to increase the defense budget by 3 percent. What is additionally troubling is that there is no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report available estimating how much this program could cost. Moreover, S. 1793 was considered under a suspension of the House rules, leaving no opportunity for members to amend the bill to address any of these concerns. Therefore, I could not in good conscience support a bill with such a large increase in authorizations coupled with no CBO score or a sunset provision.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I was absolutely talking about the economic condition, and it was our exchange today. I am glad to have a chance to have this colloquy with you. We do agree that we are the freest country in the world, and I hope you agree with me that we're the greatest country in the world as a result of that freedom. And I don't want anything to threaten any of our freedoms. And I know you join me in that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule before us today. The underlying legislation is being brought to the floor under yet another structured rule that does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle presented during the Rules Committee hearing. This is especially wrong when debating one of the important issues of our time, our Nation's energy policy. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the legislative process. My assumption is that, along with me, all other Members want to see more solar power used in this country; but the Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adequately represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government. Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process? With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.