Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I would like to share with the Members some concerns that have been shared with me by the University of North Carolina system, and I will quote: ``UNC is concerned about the committee's attempt to divert Federal funding away from higher education to K-12 construction and early childhood education. ``While K-12 construction and early childhood education may be worthwhile Federal priorities, they should not be funded at the expense of higher education.'' Another point that they have made is that they're very concerned about a provision in the Miller reconciliation bill that would eliminate the in-school interest exemption for graduate and professional student borrowers. While we are talking about how we want people to continue their education and how important an education is to our country, putting graduate students in the position of having to pay interest while they're in school is not a very smart thing for us to be doing. I want to talk a little bit about other changes that are coming to the Federal Financial Aid Program through this bill. It's going to eliminate restrictions that prevent individuals convicted of drug possession from receiving taxpayer-funded financial aid. It's going to change the need analysis formula, which is going to fail to do enough to fundamentally simplify our system of financial aid programs, and there is a move to variable interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans, which keeps the system unnecessarily complex for borrowers in an effort to cover a broken political promise to cut interest rates in half, which was made last year and which we debunked, I thought, pretty well then. With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me time to discuss this bill. During the month of August, people all over this country spoke out against the government takeover of our health care system. They are fed up with increased spending, increased long-term deficits and debt, and want to reduce the role of government in our lives. This bill does just the opposite of that. I complimented my colleague from California Mr. Miller, yesterday, in a kind of a backhanded way, by saying that he has come up with very, very good titles for the bills that he has been handling in this session. The titles do just exactly the opposite of what the bills do. This bill is called Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, and to a person who hasn't spent time reading it or thinking about it, that sounds like a good thing to do. However, this bill and, of course, the rule, which we are debating today, aren't fiscally responsible and this is not the way we should be going. As I listened to my colleague speak today, I was impressed by the paternalistic attitude that is represented by this bill and by the comments being made by our colleagues: It's going to give more freedom to people. It's going to ensure that community colleges do such and such. It's going to close the achievement gap. Would that the government had that kind of power. Would that money alone do that kind of thing. That's not what this bill is going to do, and this rule needs to be voted down. This bill was passed out of the House Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 30-17. It eliminates the Federal Family Education Loan Program and shifts all student loans to a government-run system under the Direct Loan Program. In addition, the bill creates nine new programs and increases the Federal Government takeover of early education, higher education, school construction, and more. It is an insidious intrusion into education at all levels by the Federal Government, and it doesn't deserve to be passed by this House. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to add to the comments of my colleagues to briefly discuss a court case that may have ramifications for the constitutional rights of religious expression of all Americans. On August 27, 2008, the ACLU filed a complaint against the Santa Rosa County School Board in Florida, seeking to enjoin the parties from endorsing and engaging in religious activities, including prayer. The school district consented to an agreement prohibiting prayer at school-sponsored events. The school district then entered into a broader agreement prohibiting all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. Michelle Winkler, a clerical assistant in the Santa Rosa County School District, attended a privately funded event to honor non- instructional employees in the school district. She asked her husband, who's not an employee of the district, to read a prayer that she had written, and was charged with civil contempt of court. Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman were charged with criminal contempt for a prayer offered at a luncheon to honor private contributors to the school's athletic program. There were no students present at either of these two events. In 2003, the Secretary of the Department of Education issued ``Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public and Elementary and Secondary Schools.'' These guidelines state that public school officials must be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism nor hostility. The Supreme Court held that ``there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the establishment clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect.'' The court also held that ``private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free speech clause as secular private expression.'' In its Santa Fe ruling, the court explained that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is speech attributable to the government. Additionally, the court held that ``the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.'' Although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, students do not ``shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'' Yes, teachers and administrators, while acting in their official capacity, may not encourage, discourage, or participate in prayer with students. However, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch, as the context makes clear they are not acting in an official capacity. The circumstances involved in this case have unmasked the agenda of the ACLU. Students were not present in either event, yet contempt charges were brought against all parties. Mrs. Winkler was targeted for a prayer that her husband read, even though he was not an employee of the school district. Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman face penalties of 6 months in jail and loss of their retirement benefits for an innocent prayer said before a meal at which no students were present. America was founded on the principle of religious liberty, and the constitutional protection of this right does not stop when they enter the doors of our public schools. The ACLU is targeting small counties, towns, and school districts, not in an effort to protect against establishment clause violations, but to stifle religious expression. As John F. Kennedy said during his inaugural address, ``The trumpet summons us again to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle.'' He spoke of foreign enemies who posed a threat to our Nation's freedoms, but this case shows that this threat has become a reality here at home.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, in a recent article, conservative commentator Thomas Sowell, an African American, examined some of President Obama's claims about the health care legislation moving through the Congress. I wanted to quote some excerpts from his column that I found insightful. Sowell writes that in his joint address to Congress, President Obama is wrong about the spending levels of his health care reform. Sowell says: ``To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words.'' Sowell continues along this accounting line by addressing the issue of paying for the health infrastructure implied in the President's health reform plan. He writes: ``Even those who believe that Obama can conjure up the money by eliminating `waste, fraud and abuse' should ask themselves where he is going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses, and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients. ``If he can't pull off that miracle, then government-run medical care in the United States can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in Canada, Britain and other countries has produced-- delays of weeks or months to get many treatments, not to mention arbitrary rationing decisions by bureaucrats.'' Sowell later draws a parallel to the difference in the words and deeds of President Obama in other areas of policy. He writes: ``Obama can deny it in words but what matters are deeds--and no one's words have been more repeatedly the direct opposite of his deeds-- whether talking about how his election campaign would be financed, how he would not rush legislation through Congress, or how his administration was not going after CIA agents for their past efforts to extract information from captured terrorists. ``President Obama has also declared emphatically that he will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations--while telling the Israelis where they can and cannot build settlements and telling the Hondurans whom they should and should not choose to be their President.'' Then Sowell writes that: ``President Obama tells us that he will impose various mandates on insurance companies but will not interfere with our free choice between being insured by these companies or by the government. But if he can drive up the cost of private insurance with mandates and subsidize government insurance with the taxpayers' money, how long do you think it will be before we have the `single payer' system that he has advocated in the past? ``Mandates by politicians are what have driven up the cost of insurance already. Politicians love to play Santa Claus and leave it to others to raise prices to cover the inevitable costs.'' Sowell concludes by noting that no manner of lofty rhetoric about certain policies not coming to pass will convince many Americans that those same policies will not in fact occur because of the intrusive nature of government-run health care. As Sowell says: ``Barack Obama's insistence that various dangerous policies are not in the legislation he proposes sounds good, but means nothing. Unbridled power is a blank check, no matter what its rationale may be. No law gave the President of the United States the power to fire the head of General Motors, but TARP money did.'' Furthermore, in the bill, an analysis of the bill by objective agencies tell us that the Democrats' health care bill would increase the Federal deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. The bill includes $1.2 trillion in new Federal spending over the next 10 years. The Democrats' bill spends so much that it needs 8 years of higher taxes to finance just 6 years of spending. The Democrats embedded an automatic tax increase in their bill by doubling the 1 percent and 1.5 percent small business tax in 2013, continuing their revenue grab from small businesses. 4.7 million jobs could be lost as a result of ``pay or play'' taxes on small businesses. The prescription of a health care bill from the Democrats and the President is wrong, and we need to do everything we can to stop it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to take a little time to examine some of the statements President Obama made when he addressed Congress on the issue of health care. Many of the things he mentioned in his address deserve some clarification or outright rebuttal. The President said that, Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. That was easy for the President to say, and it is technically correct. It is technically correct only because there is no Medicare trust fund. It is an accounting mirage, a sham of government IOUs, thanks to decades of government deficit spending. And, furthermore, among more than $500 million in proposed savings from Medicare, the Democrat bills also propose redirecting $23 billion from the Medicare Improvement Fund to fund new health care entitlements. According to current law, the Medicare Improvement Fund is designated specifically ``to make improvements under the original Medicare fee-for-service program.'' Then there is the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. President Obama said, Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place. But independent groups have confirmed that the legislation will result in Federal funds being used to pay for abortions--both through the government-run health plan and through Federal subsidies provided through the exchange, despite various accounting gimmicks created in a so-called Energy and Commerce Committee ``compromise.'' Republicans offered amendments in all three of the committees to say this money cannot be used for abortions, and they were rebuffed at each turn. President Obama also went on to claim that, ``Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest will be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.'' But the Congressional Budget Office had previously found that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans included in the Democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors, including thousands and thousands in my district in North Carolina, losing their current plan--a direct contradiction of the President's assertion that, Nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have. The President could have strengthened his statements by quoting sections and lines to back up the statements. We who have presented our alternatives and who have stood to refute the comments have been able, in most cases, to quote the section and the line of the bill to show that what we are saying is the truth. As you can see from this discussion of the President's speech, when it comes to the debate over health care reform, there are often two sides to the issue, and it is simply not as cut and dried as President Obama has tried to make it out. Many of us have serious misgivings and disagreements with the proposed legislation and will not allow our disagreements to be mischaracterized and sidelined by lofty rhetoric.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the horrific attack on our country on September 11, 2001, and we need to remember that there are still people in the world who want to destroy us and all that we stand for. It is up to us at the national level to provide for our national security, and we need to focus on that. Today someone sent me a column by Ben Stein that I had not seen but was written in 2003. In this column, he does a great job of putting us and trivial things into perspective, and I thought that today would be a good day to share this column entitled ``How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?'' ``As I begin to write this, I `slug' it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is `eonlineFINAL,' and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end. ``It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that `Splendor in the Grass' was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, although it probably will be again. ``Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to. ``How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a `star' we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails. ``They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all the decent people of the world. ``A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him. ``A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad. ``The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists. ``We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die. ``I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject. ``There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament. The policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards. ``Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. ``Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin . . . or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them. ``But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms. ``This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human. ``Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the Census Bureau currently estimates that our nation's elderly population will double between 2000 and 2050. And in my home state of North Carolina, the elderly population is growing much faster than the national average. As our population ages, a rising number of baby boomers will become susceptible to one or more chronic health conditions that will cost our Medicare system billions of dollars. At the same time, our citizens age 65 and over have expressed an overwhelming preference to live independently at home for as long as possible, among family and friends. What is the solution? Since the elderly population overwhelmingly prefers to receive their healthcare at home and since such treatment is much more cost effective, our government should be investing in home healthcare. Today, home healthcare is more than just basic, long-term care. It is much more advanced and sophisticated. Highly skilled nurses and therapists are already working within the existing Medicare system to help patients manage heart disease, diabetes, balance problems and other illnesses that, if not properly treated, can increase the cost to Medicare. Home health is helping many of these people stay out of expensive alternatives, and is allowing our seniors to remain at home where they ought to be. With a rising older population, home healthcare programs that improve care, save money and are preferred by constituents are closely aligned with the government's objectives for health reform. Yet, provisions in the Democrat draft healthcare bill would cut $51 billion from the Medicare home health program over the next decade. These reductions will have a detrimental effect on access to home care for our elderly population and could potentially cost Medicare more by forcing people unnecessarily into other facility based care. For these reasons, I believe we must oppose these cuts and lend our support to home healthcare.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, tonight President Obama will address a joint session of Congress to make yet another appeal for his health care plan. According to an analysis by CBS News, the President has already delivered 27 speeches on the issue of health care. Tonight will mark speech number 28. Yet with each passing day, as the American public digs deeper into the details of the plan, they learn that the President's rhetoric doesn't always fit with reality. Pushing for a government takeover of health care with new spin will not change the minds of the American people who strongly and correctly oppose a government-run insurance plan. Tonight the President should reset on his health care plan and begin working with Republicans on bipartisan reform that addresses the concerns of Americans and that the American people can support.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it was a long, hot August for many Members of Congress who returned home to face the displeasure of constituents fed up with Washington's tin ear syndrome. Over the past month I have heard from more people than I can count who have had enough of the explosion of Washington-style big government. And of course it was no comfort that in the middle of August the White House announced that they expect $9.1 trillion in new government debt over the next 10 years. So how is it that the American people are expected to stomach a new government-run health care proposal that is estimated to cost up to $1.6 trillion? Let's scrap the Democrat government-run health care proposal and return to the drawing board for a plan like ones that Republicans have offered that puts patients, not government, first.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for having begun this dialogue and this talk tonight about the rule of law. I often say when I'm speaking to groups, particularly of young people, that what has made our country so great are several things, but underlying all of those is the rule of law. I think the three most outstanding are the rule of law, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and our capitalistic society--our economic system. We couldn't have our ability to worship God as we please and our capitalistic economic system if it weren't for the rule of law undergirding those. When you look at other countries in this world, at other countries in this hemisphere, you will see that Mexico, for example, has been in the news a lot lately. They have many, many natural resources, as we do here, but what has created the problems for Mexico is that it is such a corrupt system. They do not operate by the rule of law. Most Americans just accept what we have in this country as something that exists everywhere. It doesn't. If we allow the rule of law to be torn down, then we really undermine our entire country and our entire culture. I want to tell a little story, because I agree with Congressman Carter on everything that he has said tonight. None of this is personal. This is all about the very strong and positive feelings that all of us have for the House of Representatives and for our government. And I may get choked up in telling this story, but it was a great thing that happened today, because it allows me to explain to people why I feel so strongly about what has happened. I was on my way over here this afternoon a little after 6 o'clock to vote, and I was coming a little bit early, because I like to watch the news at 6 o'clock, and I was coming a little early so I could get in between commercials and watch a little bit more of the news before we had to come in to vote. But as I was coming up the steps towards the Capitol, I noticed this couple, I don't know their age, I would say middle-age couple, since I don't want to guess people's ages. And I noticed that the woman spoke to one of our great security guys out there. And then I saw her walk up to the Capitol Building, up on the steps, and touch the building and then walk away. And I could tell that she had asked permission to do that. And so I walked over to her husband and I said to her, Would you all like to go inside the Capitol? And she got very emotional, and she said, Well, you know, we have never been to Washington before. This is our first time here. And she said, All I thought that I had the hope of doing was touching the outside of the building. She said, I just, I don't have the words to express what a thrill it would be to go inside the building. I asked them if I could use their names, it was Gary and Vicki Klassen from Oregon. And so they said, yes, they would like to come in. And so I brought them up, brought them up into the Members gallery and explained a little bit about the gallery here and told them that we were about to vote. And I explained some things to them and answered their questions and told them that between the first and second vote I would come back and answer the rest of their questions. And they just kept on exclaiming, We are so thrilled to be in this building. We are in such awe of the building. We are in such awe of our government. And, you know, I thought, we need more people like that in our country. We need more people who feel in awe of our government. We need people who get a thrill out of walking inside the Capitol. After voting, I gave them a little bit more of a tour, and they just stayed that way. They were so grateful to me. But I was grateful to them because when we meet people like that, we need to cherish that because these are folks who understand what this country is all about, and they feel an awe toward their government. And I don't want people to stop feeling that way. And if we as Members of Congress don't uphold the highest standards amongst ourselves, then the majority of the people will stop feeling that way about our country, and we will lose our country. You know, Mr. Franklin was asked when they signed the Constitution, What kind of country have you given us, and what kind of government have you given us? And he said, A Republic, if you can keep it. Well, if we are going to maintain our Republic, if we are going to maintain what's good about this country and we are going to maintain the rule of law, then we cannot have a double standard. I agree with the President in his comment: we cannot have two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks. It is bad policy to have different rules for Members of Congress than for the rest of the public. And I have told the people I represent, I will never, ever vote for anything knowingly giving a different set of rules for people in Congress than we have for everybody else. We shouldn't have a double standard. And I am very concerned. I also point out to people when we come into this room, the ancient law givers whose faces are in profile around the top of the Chamber here, I know C-SPAN doesn't show them. But what I point out to them they are all in profile except one, and that's the one over the center door, and that's Moses looking down on us. When Moses brought us the Ten Commandments, they weren't divided into A and B. They weren't divided into saying, you know, some people shalt not but others may because they have power. All of those 10 commandments apply to all of us. And it's very important that we make sure that we pay attention to the fact that Moses is looking down on us every day and that we have a responsibility to the people of this country to live by the laws that have been set for everyone in this country. And like my colleague from Texas, I have personally a good relationship with Mr. Rangel, as far as I know. He is a very affable person, always smiling or almost always smiling, always jovial. So this is nothing to do with him personally. It is that the Congress and the House of Representatives in particular must abide by our own laws. And if we establish laws that say, particularly here, that we have to report our income, that we have to report our assets, it is not right for some Members to leave things out and other Members to report everything. We must uphold the rules and the laws. And so I want to commend again my colleague from Texas for putting together this Special Order tonight. And I know that there are others here who will add to the discussion that we are having.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today, the House rushed through a bill that provides an additional $2 billion for the so-called Cash for Clunkers program. Apparently, the lure of free money from Uncle Sam provoked such a tsunami of clunkers that the program is already broke. Mr. Speaker, everyone loves ``free money.'' The bailed-out banks loved their $700 billion last fall. The bailed-out automakers loved their $86 billion. So it's not a surprise that the initial funding for Cash for Clunkers dried up in a matter of days. So the question is: If the government so underestimated the cost of this program, and if the backlog of requests from dealers is already so huge, what does this tell us about these types of government programs-- that maybe they don't always function as they were predicted to, and that sometimes they cost taxpayers much more than was estimated? One large dealership group in Utah had this to say about the hoops they had to jump through to avoid the fines for noncompliance: The auto dealer said, ``Dealers are being asked to be compliant with several rules that are often confusing and unrealistic . . . it is apparent that those writing the rules don't understand how a car deal actually happens.'' This dealer went on to say that the government agency in charge of the Cash for Clunkers program has ``threatened large fines for noncompliance. We are a top-10 dealer group in the country, and have gone to great lengths to be compliant, but it is even confusing to us. It will be a nightmare for the many smaller dealerships around the country.'' So far, we've learned several things from this Cash for Clunkers program. Lesson 1: Businesses and consumers really love free money-- except when they're the ones paying for someone else's free money. Lesson 2: The government is abysmal at predicting how much programs will cost. Lesson 3: Complying with Federal mandates is a nightmare. Of course, we should not overlook the fact that there may very well be some unintended consequences of this program. For instance, The New York Times reported in April that France had a similar program from 1994 to 1996. Guess what? It worked. Well, kind of. There were lots of auto sales initially, but the program was followed by a severe drop in auto sales in 1997 and in 1998. Isn't that interesting? It turns out the program was simply shifting demand forward. What is keeping the U.S. Cash for Clunkers program from doing the same thing? Nothing. Let's return to Lesson 2: Congress' inability to accurately estimate the cost or the effect of new government programs. Based on research from Congress' Joint Economic Committee over the years, congressional estimates of the cost of health care programs have been extremely unreliable. For example, when Congress was considering Medicare part A, the hospital insurance component, Congress estimated it would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion, 7 times more than Congress estimated. The 1967 estimate for the entire Medicare program in 1990 was $12 billion. The actual cost? $111 billion. It was almost 10 times the original estimate. Later, in 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid's disproportionate share of hospital payments to States would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. Five years later, the results were in. It was $17 billion, which is an incomprehensible 17-fold increase over the estimate from just 5 years earlier. You get the idea. Today's Cash for Clunkers example is just the latest in a long line of programs that turned out to be dramatically more expensive than anyone predicted, not to mention notoriously difficult to comply with or to figure out. Perhaps the most amazing part of this example is that it reminds me of the ongoing discussion over health care reform. Here we've got a health system that is in need of reform, and some people are pushing a bill that amounts to a government takeover of health care. They like to call it a ``public option.'' The Congressional Budget Office already has said it would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but as we've just seen, government programs have a tendency to take on a life of their own and cost taxpayers way more than was originally estimated or envisioned. While I'm willing to allow for some margin of error in estimated costs--they are estimates after all--what concerns me is that, today, we're starting out with estimates for huge deficits with this health care plan. At the same time, we're paying for it out of the pockets of America's job creators--small businesses. If the current proposal becomes law, are we going to be coming back to these small businesses with another tax increase in 5 or 10 years? With our track record on programs like Cash for Clunkers, that wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting and losing jobs at an alarming rate. The President and the Democrats in Congress promised that their trillion dollar stimulus bill would create jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8 percent. But since the President signed his so-called stimulus into law, the national unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent, a 26-year high, and over 2 million more jobs have been lost. It's clear the Democrats $1.1 trillion stimulus scheme isn't working. It's clear Democrats are on the side of more government, more taxes, and more debt. House Republicans are on the side of the American people, fighting for working families and small businesses to put America back to work. The American people deserve real solutions for real recovery, and House Republicans will continue to fight for these solutions on behalf of the American people.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The concern about closed rules is not just one expressed by Republicans. Democrats have expressed their own frustrations with the closed manner in which this Congress is being operated, but nothing has changed. In February, a group of Democrats garnered more than 60 signatures on a letter to Majority Leader Hoyer calling for a prompt return to regular order. In the letter, they stated that ``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress.'' This was written by, as I said, over 60 Democratic Members. They went on to say, ``In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We look forward to working with you to restore this institution.'' So not only does the closed rule process hurt and exclude Republican Members, it hurts and excludes Democrat Members as well. By preferring to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they've been elected to do, offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. The Democrats in charge are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to legislation, and this is an injustice to all of their colleagues, and this rule and this bill are prime examples. The Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be represented in this 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 a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being borrowed and spent by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, it's very concerning to me that the Democrat majority has chosen to silence their colleagues on both sides of the aisle yet again. In doing so, they have chosen to keep the millions of constituents we represent from having a voice on the floor of the people's House. My colleagues have offered a lot of reasons why this bill underlying this rule is not a good bill and needs to be improved. But I want to make a couple of comments about that, also. This bill actually does very little to enhance food safety. In fact, I want to call attention, again, to the motto of the State of North Carolina, ``To be, rather than to seem.'' We have a bill here called the Food Safety Enhancement Act that does very little to enhance the safety of food. As my colleague from Virginia said just now, the FDA is not being required to spend one extra dime on inspecting food. But it gives unprecedented authority to the Food and Drug Administration by imposing mandatory recall, quarantine authority, recording requirements, warrantless inspection authority and country-of-origin labeling requirements. By enacting user fees on inspections and licensing requirements on food facilities, this bill essentially places a tax on consumers by increasing the price of food. So much for the promise that taxes would not go up on people who make less than $250,000 a year. This bill grants the FDA the authority to shut down or inspect businesses and determine what qualifies as a health concern. This bill leaves our Nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to regulatory burdens by allowing the FDA to regulate how crops are raised, dictating to farmers how they should farm. We've been farming since our earliest beginnings as a species, and we've done it without the regulatory guidance of the FDA. This bill reminds me of the tactics of the former Soviet Union, and we know how successful that was. This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a tracing system for food. Each person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports or holds such food would have to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and pre-use distribution history of the food. This bill does not explain how far foods will have to be traced back, or how it will be done for foods with multiple ingredients. Given these ambiguities, it's unclear how much it will cost farmers and taxpayers. This bill also creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to a total of $100,000 for individuals. The bill would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any facility that holds, processes or manufactures food. Even though farms are technically exempt, FDA has defined ``farm'' very narrowly. People making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive small and start-up producers out of business during difficult economic times. The bill would empower the FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the Federal government right on the farm dictating to our farmers. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it never went through the Agriculture Committee. This bill that will directly impact American farmers was never vetted through the established processes in the Agriculture Committee, doing a great disservice to the American people. Why is the Democrat leadership refusing to allow a committee with jurisdiction over this matter to offer their ideas and join in on the legislative process? This bill will cost taxpayers nearly $2.2 billion over 5 years. Every day I hear from constituents their concerns that the Federal Government in Washington is borrowing and spending too much. The American people know that in these tough times they should save, not spend money. However, the Federal Government does not reflect the common sense I see throughout my district. Instead, the Democrats in charge continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our Federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren. This bill will increase the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we do not have. We can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration. The Democrats in charge have shown they do not care about the deficit by continuing to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless spending. This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration, and as a result, the unemployment rate will continue to rise and the deficit will continue to increase. I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question and the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate your helping to correct some of the things that they said. But I was very concerned with the fact that they said, We, on this side, want to do nothing. You know, I can challenge the veracity of their comments, particularly on that one. The gentleman, I know, is aware of the fact that Republicans have been trying for 2\1/2\ years to do something about the situation with energy. I know that you shared with 130 of us, I think, who came down last summer and spoke all during the month of August. But just for my sake and for anybody who's watching tonight, would you please verify that Republicans have offered several bills to do the very kinds of things that these gentlemen were talking about tonight? The unfortunate thing is that we're in the minority. They're in the majority. So they can talk a lot about it, and they could do something about it when we could not at the time, except bring it to the attention of the American people. But please make a comment about the American Energy Act.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. Well, I think that this is a great segue to talk about the other subject that we wanted to talk about tonight, which is health care, and what is happening with the health care debate.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the folks who said it are not here to hear you say that. But thank you very much.

Ms. FOXX. One of the gentlemen just speaking in the Special Order said, ``Republicans keep lying about it.'' I thought there might be some concern about the use of that phrase, and I would like to ask the Speaker if that is an acceptable phrase to be used on the floor when speaking about other Members.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. FOXX. Would my colleague from Texas yield for a moment?

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate my friend leading the Special Order here tonight on health care. I always like to start with setting the stage and getting the facts. I come from a background in education and in business, and I like to put the facts out so that people can see what they are and then make judgments themselves instead of just saying, like some of our colleagues do, what is happening. So I would like to show a chart that I have and I'd like to really talk about what is being talked about and what has driven this emphasis on doing something about health care. Now, we hear that it's being called ``health care reform,'' although I think some of our colleagues and the President have stopped using that term ``health care reform.'' But I think it's really important that we put into perspective what it is we are talking about. We hear all the time that there are 47 million Americans who do not have health care. That is not accurate. I have the numbers. I have the sources for them. If anybody wants to get these from me, they're from the Census Bureau. They are from the Congressional Research Service, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute for Health Care Management, and the National Survey of American Families. So these are not numbers that I have made up or Republicans have made up; these are numbers that come from government sources. So first of all, we don't have 47 million Americans who do not have health care. I've said it before. I have been criticized for saying it. But it is the truth. All Americans have health care. All they have to do is go to a doctor or go to a hospital. They will get health care. We do not turn people away from health care providers in this country. So they have health care. But what these people really should be saying is they want to talk about the number of people who do not have insurance. There is a big difference between saying a person doesn't have health care and doesn't have insurance. And even that number needs to be clarified. So the folks who are making a big issue out of 47 million Americans, which is an inaccurate figure, really should be saying there are 45.7 million people in this country who are uninsured. Now, let me break that down. Of those, 9.5 million are not citizens. So when you hear it's Americans who do not have health insurance, that's not accurate either when you're using the 45.7 million because 9.5 million of them are noncitizens. Many of them are here illegally. Then we have people who are eligible for public programs: Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. That's 12 million people. They have chosen not to participate in those programs. You know, this is the freest, greatest country in the world. We are allowed in this country to make decisions, lots and lots of decisions. And I find it really interesting that our friends on the other side want to push choice that destroys unborn babies but when it comes to choice for school, when it comes to choice not to participate in a government program, they are not so keen on that. But we do have 12 million people who have chosen not to go into Medicare, not to go into Medicaid or SCHIP. That's their choice. Then we have 9.1 million who are only temporarily uninsured. That means for maybe a month out of a year, in between jobs, or for other reasons, they might be uninsured. But they are not uninsured all the time. That is just for a brief period of time. So that's another 9.1 million. Then there are 7.3 million who make over $84,000 a year. They are perfectly capable of purchasing health insurance. But most of them are young people who don't feel the need to do it. I talked to a lady on the phone tonight who used to own a small business, and she said that it was all men, and they were between the ages of 20 and 35. And she said, we had the lowest rates for insurance of anybody because those people don't get sick very often and don't need a lot of insurance, and insurance obviously is calibrated on facts related to the age and the usage. And so she said it was very low rates at that time. So a lot of people who are in that age range don't see the need to get insurance. So there's 7.3 million. That brings us down to 7.8 million who have lower income and long-term uninsured. These are people who probably would like to have insurance, but they feel they can't afford it. That's the number of people that we need to be serving in this country. We do not need to turn our culture completely upside down, which is what the proposal from the Democrats is, in terms of health care, give government control of our lives, to take care of 7.8 million people. That would be a relatively inexpensive thing to do when you're talking about trillions of dollars. Now, I believe, as my colleague has mentioned, that we need to reform Medicare and Medicaid. I believe in that. I think we should be doing better in those areas. We could make those programs better. We could have a higher quality of care, I believe, and again, more choices for our seniors and for those who need those programs. But we simply do not need to redo the entire health care system in this country to take care of 7.8 million people. We know that American people are hurting. Republicans know that we need reform. And I want to go back to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep saying. But saying it isn't going to make it true. They keep saying, Republicans don't want to do anything. They talk about our being the do-nothing group. That is simply not true. It was Republicans who instituted health savings accounts. And it's one of the things that the Democrats most hate because, again, it gives people choices. It allows people to build wealth. If they put that money into health savings accounts and they don't use it, they keep it. If you put money into insurance and you don't use it, it's gone. We believe in building wealth and allowing individuals to do that. We believe in continuing the good habits that this country has fostered over the years, again, keeping the government out of our lives, keeping the government from running our lives from cradle to grave, and letting people make their own decisions and continuing to make this country the great country that it is, the only country I know of where people are struggling to get into. And I'd like to yield back to my colleague from Texas, because I know he has some great stories to tell about issues related to health care and some experiences, more experiences to talk about. And so I'd like to yield back.