Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for his leadership on this bill, and I am happy to come and lend my comments to the discussion. Last year the Democrats got elected partly on the basis of their promise to cut spending. They made a big to-do about the fact that we were increasing spending. Republicans had done that. This is not cutting spending; this is holding the line on spending. The eight appropriations bills that have passed the House so far are $34 billion above last year's spending levels. That is not fulfilling the promises that they made to help hold the line and even cut spending. As my colleagues have said, this inevitably is going to lead to the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Furthermore, in terms of this bill in particular, I have searched the Constitution and I see no role for the Federal Government in most of what is going to be funded in this bill. But the Democrats have never met a request for spending that they didn't like, and so they are going on willy-nilly increasing spending, putting the American taxpayer at risk, and increasing the deficit in this country; whereas, the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003 have led us to a very, very strong economy which we know is benefiting the American people right now. Furthermore, none of the promises that they made about slowing the exploding growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that would result in deficit reduction have been dealt with in this Congress. We have simply got to come to grips with the fact that we cannot tax the American people to the level at which they are being taxed and the level to which the Democrats want them to be taxed. We have to hold the line on spending, and I support this amendment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the Fund for the Improvement of Education by $10 million, while increasing IDEA State grants by $10 million. Transferring these funds will ensure that Congress does not create a new unauthorized $10 million grant program for ``full-service community schools'' with the Fund for the Improvement of Education, a program which was specifically mentioned in the committee report. We should not be using appropriations bills to authorize programs. It appears that language in the committee report for this program has been taken from legislation introduced by the House majority leader, as well as in the Senate by Senator Nelson. Their bill would create a $200 million full-service community school grant program. What exactly is a full-service community school? According to the underlying funding bill, it's a ``public elementary or secondary school that coordinates with community-based organizations and public-private partnerships to provide students, their families and the community access to comprehensive services.'' The language specifies that the grants must be used to provide not fewer than three services selected from a variety of selective services, including community service, service learning opportunities, nutrition services, job training and career counseling, primary health and dental care, mental health counseling services adult language, including instruction in English as a Second Language. I am concerned we are moving schools away from focusing on the basics, academics. Our schools still have room for much improvement in ensuring all students are proficient in the basics of math, reading, writing, science and history. So why is the Federal Government sending money to turn schools into social, medical, educational job training hubs? I am also concerned about the unsettling prospect of having adult, nonfamily members of the community regularly visiting school grounds for job training and medical and mental health services when young children and teenagers are present. Combining schools with health care and other social services for community residents poses a danger to students that would need to be addressed in any future legislation. Since 1965, Congress has increased the role of the Federal Government in public primary and secondary education, as well as in higher education. If history has taught us anything about education, it's that the proliferation of Federal programs and regulations has not improved education. In a time where the Federal Government continues to spend more and more and expand its reach with very limited results, I question the need for us to meddle in affairs such as this. With this in mind, my amendment would transfer $10 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Education to IDEA grants. These grants help States and localities pay for the rising cost of special education for 6.9 million children with disabilities. While my amendment adds only a small amount to these State grants, any amounts are helpful in fully funding Congress' commitment to fund 40 percent of the average per-pupil excess cost of educating students with disabilities. IDEA part B grants to States is funded at only $11.29 billion, which is $7 billion or 41 percent below the 2007 authorized level of $19.2 billion. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that any full-service community school legislation goes forward through the proper authorizing process, not through the appropriations process, and we put money where it's desperately needed, as we all know from hearing from the schools in our districts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to say again that I am sorry that my colleague from Maryland is not aware of this really excellent program that exists in North Carolina called Smart Start, which did this back in 1995, where we pulled together these different agencies to work together on this very good concept. But it is being done in States without Federal dollars, and I would urge the people in Maryland to look at that concept and deal with it. I want to say that I am very concerned again, not by your comments but by the comments of the chairman, about the denigration of the allocation of $10 million as negligible. That is the attitude of people from Washington that adding $10 million is negligible. That is hard for people who are paying their taxes every day to understand that. I am sure that the teachers and parents of special needs students who are getting just a small percentage of money already authorized by this Federal Government to do what we are demanding that they do, they are not getting all their money. Now, I commend the majority party for increasing the spending in this area, but it is the biggest complaint that I get when I talk to people about what is happening in education and the Federal role. So I think we need to put every dime we can possibly find into authorized programs already that are not spending what they should be spending. And I would say, I find it hard to look in the eyes of the parent of a special needs child or the teacher of a special needs child and say: We had an opportunity to give you 10 million more dollars and it was turned down; because they are there, and they need it.

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the ranking member for yielding time to me. I want to say that I am very troubled by the fact that the terms that are being used here that we want to test, creating holistic educational experiences, that's one of the problems, again, with the Federal Government being involved in the education process. It is not up to us to be doing that. The testing needs to be done at the local level. There are programs. North Carolina has a tremendous number of programs where it's working through community centers, sometimes at schools, most of the time not, where they are trying to do these kinds of things. We don't need to be funding this at the Federal level. If the States want to do it, they ought to be doing it. I think that calling this a symbolic amendment is a denigration it doesn't deserve. This is a serious amendment. We are violating our processes. We are violating what we say we are going to do here. Appropriations bills should not be authorizing bills. We separate that process. I have not been here very long, and I know I don't know all the rules and the way things are done, but I noticed that the chairman reserved a point of order, but they were able to the waive points of orders in order to authorize. So when the majority wants to break the rules, it easily breaks the rules to try to accomplish what it wants to accomplish when it can't accomplish it the other way. So I am very concerned about it. I think this is a very valid amendment done very seriously. I haven't sat over here for a couple of hours and haven't worked on this for many hours to think that it is frivolous or simply symbolic. It's an important thing. And I don't appreciate the amendment being denigrated in the way it has been denigrated by the chairman of the committee.

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

Ms. FOXX. I want to just say I am very concerned when there is an attitude here in the Congress that it is our money to spend. I want to make sure that nobody ever forgets that we are the stewards of money that we legally steal from the people of this country. We take it from them under duress, and we have a tremendous responsibility to make sure that that money is being spent well. There's no such thing as Federal dollars. It's all money that belongs to the American taxpayers, and we're up here confiscating a great deal of their money and deciding how to spend it. And it's up to us to make sure that we spend it very, very carefully and very, very fairly. The Constitution provides for no role for the Federal Government in education. We're already overstepping our bounds, and if we're going to overstep our bounds, we better be extraordinarily careful in that respect. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. FOXX. Yes.

Ms. FOXX. I do. We would actually save $1 million with this amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. There is no one who appreciates firefighters, police and other public safety personnel more than I do. However, I rise in opposition to H.R. 980 because public sector labor relations has never been and should not be an issue with which Congress meddles. Historically, the terms and conditions of employment for all State and local employees has been an issue decided on the State and local level. This is the way it should be. Some States, such as my home State of North Carolina, have laws banning monopoly bargaining schemes, while others give unions total control over public sector labor relations. Most States fall somewhere in the middle. But in a move that chips away at States rights, this bill requires all States to set up systems to impose monopoly bargaining on all public safety workers, in effect nullifying the pre-existing laws of 27 States. A move like this is a virtually unprecedented infringement on States rights. I want to be perfectly clear. Every worker in America, whether public or private, already has the right to form and join a union. That is not the question here. What the unions are asking for is the power to force their so-called ``representation'' on police and firefighters who do not want it. While some States have made what I view as the mistaken decision of giving unions that kind of power, that is their right under our Federal system. This bill is flawed in that it takes away the right of States to make the decision on their own. At the end of the day, this issue does not belong in our hands. It should be left to the States. And, frankly, it is not Congress's business. More than half the States in the country have refused to grant union bosses the complete monopoly control over public safety employment mandated by H.R. 980. They have done this not only as a rightful exercise of their States rights, but in the interest of keeping costs low for their taxpayers. Studies have shown that monopoly bargaining increases costs for taxpayers. Multiplied across dozens of States, this would impose millions of new costs on taxpayers. State and local governments should have jurisdiction over their own employees, not the Federal Government. The fact that this bill inserts the Federal Government into an issue that has always been one left to the States should give us pause, and it ought to make us wonder why it is being passed under suspension today. Any bill that makes this sort of dramatic change to public policy should be subject to the regular order of full debate and amendments. Please, I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of States and vote against H.R. 980 today.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, much of the $18 billion in new spending in the College Cost Reduction Act doesn't reduce the cost of college, but instead consists of new entitlements targeted at people who aren't even students. The bill cuts loan interest rates for those who have graduated from college--to the tune of $6.2 billion. This is less than the amount the bill allocates towards Pell Grants--a form of aid that actually goes to students. With so many new entitlements in this bill, I am concerned about the direction we are headed. Most of these new entitlements are given to institutions and to college graduates. The bill creates new TEACH Grants at a cost to taxpayers of $375 million. This new entitlement gives grants to colleges and universities. It doesn't cut the cost of college for students--instead it moves towards creating a system that discourages personal responsibility and has no congressional accountability. For instance, this bill expands a government program to repay the education loans of public sector employees. Public sector jobs include those in emergency management, government, public safety, law enforcement, public health, education, public social work, and public interest legal work. The current program repays loans remaining after 25 years of payment, but the expanded program grants loan forgiveness after 10 years of repayment, dramatically decreasing borrowers' incentive to pay off their loans. Take for example a college graduate working in the public sector and making $35,000 a year. If he or she has $20,000 in debt upon graduation, this debt would be paid off within 25 years and the Federal Government would not have to pay off any remaining balance. But under the new terms the federal loan forgiveness comes at 10 years, which in this case means a payoff of more than $10,000. This is a new $10,000 entitlement that creates incentives which directly discourage people in public service jobs from investing their own money in college debt. Why would someone pay off his debt at a rate any faster than the absolute minimum if he or she knows that in 10 years the Federal Government will come along and erase the remaining balance? I want Americans to have access to education, but I don't want this access to come at the cost of a new entitlement mentality and increased dependence on the Federal Government for meeting the cost of education. At a time when we face massive increases in the cost of entitlement programs, I question the responsibility of constructing a whole new set of entitlements that will saddle future generations with new layers of government spending and the higher taxes needed to fund these entitlements. Education is important for the success of this nation, but giving entitlements to institutions and college graduates is not the way to lower the cost of college. In fact, heaping helpings of new entitlements will do much to undermine our national success as we face an impending entitlement crisis in the coming decades. Scenario 1: Income-Contingent Repayment for Public Sector Employees Under H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act (10 Year Period) repayment plan for public sector employees The Secretary shall forgive the balance due on any loan for a borrower who makes 120 payments (monthly payments over a ten year period) on such loan pursuant to income-contigent repayment. And who is employed, and was employed for the 10- year period in which the borrower made the 120 payments, in a public sector job. This includes full-time jobs in emergency management, government, public safety, law enforcement, public health, education (including early childhood education), social work in a public child or family service agency, or public interest legal services (including prosecution or public defense). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Borrower payments Loan amount AGI (over 10 year Forgiveness \1\ period) (after the 10 years) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $20,000.................................................... $35,000 $20,887 ($174 $10,026 ($30,913 monthly, 5.9%) total) 20,000..................................................... 50,000 24,426 ($204 5,183 ($29,609 monthly, 4.9%) total) 20,000..................................................... 65,000 26,140 ($218 2,838 (28,978 total) monthly, 4.0%) 50,000..................................................... 35,000 28,700 ($239 57,138 (85,838 monthly, 8.2%) total) 50,000..................................................... 50,000 58,700 ($489 16,194 ($74,894 monthly, 11.7%) total) 50,000..................................................... 65,000 $65,350 ($545 7,093 (72,443 total) monthly, 10.0%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario 2: Under Current Law (25 Year Period) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Borrower payments Loan amount AGI (over 25 year Forgiveness \1\ period) (after the 25 years) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $20,000.................................................... $35,000 $33,433 ($111 $0 ($33,433 total) monthly, 3.8%) [12,546 more than 10 yr] 20,000..................................................... 50,000 30,230 ($100 0 ($30,230 total) monthly, 2.4%) [5,804 more than 10 yr] 20,000..................................................... 65,000 29,198 ($97 0 ($29,198 total) monthly, 1.8%) [3,058 more than 10 yr] 50,000..................................................... 35,000 71,751 ($239 70,188 ($141,939 monthly, 8.2%) total) [43,051 more than 10 yr] 50,000..................................................... 50,000 77,263 ($257 0 ($77,263 total) monthly, 6.2%) [18,563 more than 10 yr] 50,000..................................................... 65,000 72,996 ($243 0 ($72,996 total) monthly, 4.5%) [9,646 more than 10 yr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Covers interest incurred, no cap on forgiveness (however, there if a threshold where you would be able to pay off your loan during the 10 year period and the forgiveness would not apply)

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I noticed one of my colleagues in the majority on the Senate side on Fox News Sunday discussing our Nation's Iraq policy. In his conversation with Brit Hume he asserted that our Iraq policy was a failure because of limited progress on the political front in Iraq. Mr. Hume challenged him on this point by pointing out that progress has been made recently in other areas of Iraq. Mr. Hume noted that if a lack of political progress in Iraq was the only thing that mattered, then couldn't people call the Democrats a failure because of their dismal record on enacting their priorities this session of Congress? The Senator from Michigan responded by drumming up a list of Democrat success, the first of which I find to be entirely dubious. He attempted to prove that the majority party has not been a complete failure by first saying the Democrats have adopted a budget for the first time in years. Mr. Hume had asked him, ``My understanding is that you got the minimum wage increase, but nothing else passed. Does that make you a failure?'' The Senator responded, ``Well, no, because it is not true. There is a lot of things that have passed. For the first time in years we have adopted a budget.'' I am not sure if he has been in the same Congress that I have been serving in. He makes it look like it has been years since we passed a budget, and that is simply not true. In 2005, a budget resolution passed the House and the Senate as well as a conference report. In 2006 a budget resolution also passed the House and the Senate without an accompanying conference report. So I am a little confused as to where the Senator is getting his facts. Unfortunately, Mr. Hume did not catch the untrue statement. As a result, the millions of Americans watching the popular Sunday news program were led to believe that somehow the fact that the majority has adopted a budget resolution was an unusual feat, unseen for years in Congress. I wish to set the record straight. Some people might wonder why I call attention to this. My reasoning is simple: The truth matters. When we allow untrue statements to enter the public record, we have allowed the public to be led astray. Those to whom we are accountable deserve so much better. The American people deserve the whole truth, the whole picture, not half truths or dodgy statements intended to cloud a less than stellar record of accomplishment. I will give the Senator from Michigan the benefit the doubt. Maybe he really thought that it has been years since Congress adopted a budget. But if that is the case we have an equally large problem; he can't keep his facts straight. Both problems serve to mislead the American people. Fortunately, at this point I don't think the American people have been too misled. They know that this majority has quickly established itself as the party of broken promises. Recent polls tell the whole story. Since taking office, the majority's job approval ratings have taken a nosedive. It is not a temporary dip either. Ever since January, their approval ratings have consistently trended negative, dropping from 37 percent to a low of 23 percent. These sorts of ratings are so low that they have even turned heads in Washington, where unpopularity in the polls seems to be a way of life. I will submit for the Record a chart showing the plummeting of the Democrat job approval. But I am concerned about the public dialogue at stake. If Congressional leaders can't be trusted with the basic facts and insist on creating a track record of truth distortion and promise breaking, I see it as my duty to voice opposition. Even if I am the only one raising the alarm, I will continue to call for integrity in all aspects of public life, and especially in that most important of arenas, communicating with the American people. The facts are important. The American people deserve the respect that comes with not taking liberties with the facts.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for giving me this time. I have sat here and listened to this debate on this bill, and I want to say we are back at dealing with hypocrisy again, as we have been on a daily basis. The College Cost Reduction Act, the title is not just a misnomer; it is an outright lie. Much of the $18 billion in new spending doesn't reduce the cost of college, but instead consists of new welfare targeted at people who aren't even students. And comparing this bill to the GI bill is truly, truly hypocrisy. We instituted the GI bill to help men and women who had fought for this country and returned to this country to help them get college education and get back into our culture. All this is going to do is increase the nanny state. What we are doing is taking away personal responsibility from people and giving them out and out payments for loans that they take out that they don't need to take out. Economists are not going to tell us that money spent on education is a good investment, and the government doesn't invest money. The government spends money. It is interesting to me that they brought out the big guns for this bill and they say it is no new cost to taxpayers. Well, every dollar we take away from taxpayers is a cost to them. Why is tuition up 43 percent? We are looking at the wrong issue. As long as the government keeps throwing money, then the institutions are going to keep expanding what they charge. I have used myself as an example before, but I know many people who have done this. They went to college and never borrowed a dime. They were as poor as could be. We should call this the new Democrat welfare bill. It is a Trojan horse. It is designed to fool the American people. We have used this analogy before. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig, and that is what this bill is. There is no need for this. There is no need for people to go into debt to go to college in this country. There are all kinds of choices for people. All we are doing is taking money away from hardworking American people and creating new government programs. I am really concerned about the direction in which we are heading in this country. The Democrats have never seen a welfare program they didn't like. Republicans were able to decrease welfare costs when they took over in this body in 1995. This is another attempt by the Democrats to continue the welfare program. I want Americans to have access to education. I have worked in education all my life: school board member, university administrator, college president. I have dealt with low-income students. This is not the way to do it. We don't need a return to the nanny state.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 210, congratulating the Appalachian State University football team for winning the 2006 NCAA Division I-AA National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship. It's my honor today to recognize the tenacity, sportsmanship and national championship victory of the Appalachian State University football team. The ASU Mountaineers won their second straight NCAA Division I Football National Championship in a 28-17 victory over Massachusetts this past season. Powered by the record-breaking, four touchdown performance of junior running back Kevin Richardson, and the stellar leadership of Head Coach Jerry Moore, ASU has solidified its place among the best of America's college football teams. In their championship performance, the Mountaineers rushed for 285 yards, with Richardson racking up 179 of those yards. His four- touchdown performance also broke the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision single season record with 30 rushing touchdowns in 15 games. Richardson, who is the Southern Conference Offensive Player of the Year, finished the season with 1,676 yards rushing, a new ASU record. In a testament to ASU's remarkable championship season, Head Coach Jerry Moore was named the American Football Coaches' Association Division I-AA Coach of the Year. Moore was also named the Southern Conference Coach of the Year for a record fifth time. Coach Moore's been at ASU for 18 years, and last year may have been his best year yet. Despite a 23-10 loss in the season opener at NC State, he led ASU to a 14-game winning streak crowned by their national championship win. Their record-breaking winning streak found the Mountaineers dominating opponents by an average margin of victory of 22.6 points. During his time at Appalachian, Moore has amassed an impressive 154- 68 record, which sets him apart as the winningest coach in Southern Conference history. The 2006 season was a remarkable time for the Mountaineers, and not surprisingly, the team is overflowing with accomplishments. Eight ASU players were named All Americans, and 19 were All Conference selections. ASU players also made a clean sweep of the Southern Conference's post-season awards. Offensive Player of the Year went to Kevin Richardson. Marques Murrell took home Defensive Player of the Year. Kerry Brown won the Jacobs Blocking Trophy, and Armanti Edwards captured the Freshman of the Year honor. Edwards led the Mountaineers to 13 victories as a freshman quarterback and was the second freshman and fifth player overall in Division I history to tally 2,000 passing yards and 1,000 rushing yards in a season. ASU's 14-game winning streak and 14-1 overall record set school records for wins in a season and consecutive victories. ASU now holds the Nation's longest Division I football winning streak at 14 games. In addition to having the longest overall winning streak in Division I, the Mountaineers also hold the longest home winning streak in the football championship subdivision at 27 straight games. I'm so proud to be an alumnus and to represent Appalachian State University in Congress and to once again recognize its accomplishments on and off the playing field. It was just over a year ago that I had the honor of recognizing the Mountaineers as the 2005 NCAA Division I- AA football national champions. Their repeat national championship performance this past season is a clear instance of the value of hard work and integrity. I applaud the players and coaches who are receiving their due recognition for another fantastic season. I especially want to compliment Coach Moore for his strong faith and his open expression of his faith. He and his assistant coaches are excellent role models for the players and students they lead. Two national championships in as many years is reason to celebrate. I'm pulling for a third championship in 2007 and a third opportunity to honor these fine players and coaches on the floor of the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I simply want to end by saying congratulations to Appalachian State University. Go Mountaineers. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 436, a resolution congratulating the University of Central Arkansas as it celebrates the 100th anniversary of its founding on May 14. I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for introducing this resolution in recognition of the contributions the University of Central Arkansas has made to the education of citizens of our Nation and around the globe. The university enrolls over 12,000 undergraduate and graduate students, 90 percent of whom are full-time students, and 54 percent of whom receive financial aid. With more than 100 degrees to choose from, students have a wide range of academic opportunities. In the 2005-2006 academic year, the university awarded 1,286 undergraduate and 324 master's degrees to its students. The university's faculty of over 600 full- and part-time professors ensures an average student-to-faculty ratio of 19 to one. Enrollment has continued to grow at the University of Central Arkansas. Total enrollment increased 8.9 percent in the spring of 2006 due in part to a 26.6 percent increase in total first-time entering freshmen. Graduate enrollment has also made impressive gains, increasing 51.5 percent over the past 5 years. The University of Central Arkansas is nationally recognized for its strong academic programming. This year, the magazine U.S. News and World Report ranked the College of Business Administration at the University of Central Arkansas as one of the best graduate schools in the country. Its undergraduate honors college, established in 1982, has been perceived by the State and Nation as a highly innovative, model program. In fact, numerous universities throughout the country have sought the University of Central Arkansas' guidance in the creation of similar programs to challenge students to read, write and analyze more critically in preparation for excellence upon graduation. The university's theater program is also nationally recognized by the National Association of Schools of Theater for meeting professional standards of quality in theater education and training, as set forth by the association. The University of Central Arkansas proudly participates in 15 NCAA Division I varsity sports and is a member of the Southland Conference. More than 300 dedicated male and female student athletes participate in the conference, which competes against schools in Texas and Louisiana. I would like to congratulate all of the students, alumni, and past and present employees on all they have accomplished over the last 100 years at the University of Central Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Texas.

Ms. FOXX. Well, thank you for helping to get on the record these broken promises. I think over the next several months, we will do our best to make sure that we bring them out one after another, and I am sure we are probably going to have another hundred of them to be able to talk about in the next 6 months without any difficulty. I want to talk about fiscal responsibility and taxes a little bit because I think this is something else the American people are quite concerned about. Let me talk about Democratic Promise No. 49, ``Restore Fiscal Responsibility.'' Promise: ``Democrats offer a New Direction which includes fiscal responsibility,'' Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn, press release, October 10, 2006. Promise: ``We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility,'' Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi, press release, November 16, 2006. Promise: ``It is imperative to the future of our Nation that we come together, Democrats and Republicans, and restore fiscal responsibility,'' Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat, Maryland, press release, January 23, 2007. Broken promise, and this comes from the Post and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina: ``Clyburn Defends Budget Earmarks,'' February 21, 2007. ``Now Democratic Whip James Clyburn, Democrat, South Carolina, also said he loves appearing in the Citizens Against Government Waste Pig Book. `I want to be there as often as I possibly can for as much money as I possibly can,' he said.'' Folks, these are not conservative publications that are putting these quotes out and calling the Democrats to task. These are what we would generally call liberal newspapers. And there are lots of quotes from the New York Times. I just haven't gotten to them yet. Broken promise relating to the promises I just read: ``Democrats resorted to begging, threatening, and, worst of all, bribing Members for their votes with $21 billion in pork-barrel projects . . . Loading a bill that's supposed to keep our soldiers in bullets, boots, and beans, pork-barrel bribes for congressional colleagues must be a low point in the history of the U.S. Congress. This destroys any pretense Democrats have to being a party of fiscal responsibility and good government.'' This came from the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial, March 27, 2007, in an editorial entitled ``Buying Votes; Military Funding Bill a Stain on Congress.'' Broken Promise: ``It's hard to say which is worse: Democratic leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude or Members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts.'' This is from a USA Today editorial, March 22, 2007, entitled ``Pork Has No Place in `Emergency' War Bill.'' These are the kinds of things that make the American public cynical about their elected officials. And it is nothing that the Republicans are saying about the Democrats. It is what the publications of this country are saying about them and showing over and over and over how they have broken their promises. I don't think that we could probably get into a stack up to here of all of the statements that have been made in all of the presses about the broken promises of the Democrats in the first 6 months of their majority reign, but I do think that it is important that we point out some of them so people can make the comparison between what has been said to them and what was promised to them. Democratic Promise No. 57. It is entitled ``Institute `PAYGO' to Control Spending.'' Promise by Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her Web site: ``Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility through pay-as-you-go budgets so that our children and grandchildren are not saddled with mountains of debt.'' Broken promise, and again this is not coming from a Republican or conservative publication. This is coming from the San Diego Union Tribune in an editorial dated April 16, 2007. The quote: ``In Washington . . . congressional leaders have imposed pay-as-you-go budget rules that exclude the existing entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, which dominate Federal spending. So `PAYGO' is really just political cover for new taxes to support new spending.'' Some of the people in the country have gotten this other than the Republican Members of this Congress, and it is very important that these things be published so that people understand what they are doing. Let me give you one more here. Democratic Promise No. 58, ``Adopt Honest Budgets.'' Promise: ``The new Democratic-led House takes America in a new direction, a fiscally responsible budget with the right priorities. Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt is a master of the budget, and he and his team have done an outstanding job reflecting the right American priorities and values,'' Speaker Nancy Pelosi, press release, March 21, 2007. Broken promise: ``American families don't have the option of using gimmicks to put their family budgets in order. But such rules weren't applied by House Democrats in crafting their budget, which is loaded with trickery that hardly reflects American priorities and values. The House and Senate versions of the budget depend on reserve funds to pay for additional spending. There is only one catch: The reserve funds are empty.'' And the title of this, ``Democrats Banking on Empty Reserves.'' The source, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2007. Again, hardly a conservative place to come up. We talked earlier about earmarks, and I think that it is very important, again, that we talk a little bit more about the issue of earmarks because I think that was one of the more egregious of the promises that were made and then broken by the Democrats. And had we not called their hand on it 2 weeks ago in this very Chamber with our standing up and protesting what they were doing to keep the earmarks a secret so that the American people could not judge whether the votes we were taking on the bills were votes that we should be taking, but, no, the Democrats had promised transparency, but they weren't about to do it until we made them do it. Democratic Promise No. 68: ``Allow Lawmakers to Challenge Individual Earmarks.'' Promise: ``I think, first of all, with any bill, any provision, whether it is an earmark or not, there should be transparency. So that is what we have said, and I hope you would agree, that before Members vote on a bill, there should be appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it would be a matter of public record, and if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there,'' then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a press conference, March 16, 2006. Broken promise: ``Rather than including specific pet projects, grants, and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.'' The title of the article: ``House Democrats Sidestep Their Own Rule to Shield Lawmakers' Pet Projects From Scrutiny,'' Associated Press, June 3, 2007. As I said earlier, we believe that it is our responsibility to bring to the American people a list of these broken promises, the promises made and then the promises broken, because the House Democrats haven't kept their promises to the American people, whether it is the result of inaction or an inability to govern. On issue after issue, the 110th Congress has failed to meet the needs of working families, soldiers battling radical jihadists, senior citizens, and others who are waiting for Washington to offer serious solutions to the problems facing the country. One look at the polls shows Americans are taking notice and they aren't pleased. But where the majority is failing to lead, Republicans are stepping up. While Democrats broke their promise to operate the House floor in an open, fair, and bipartisan manner, Republicans have found ways to strengthen and expose flaws in Democratic bills. While Democrats broke their promise to lead the most open, honest, and ethical Congress in history, Republicans are pushing for commonsense ethics rules that hold lawmakers to a higher standard. While Democrats broke their promise to deliver transparency in spending taxpayer dollars, Republicans have forced the majority to restore GOP earmark reforms that bring greater transparency and accountability to Federal spending. While Democrats broke their promise to enact legislation that makes America energy independent, Republicans believe we can lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign energy by increasing domestic energy supplies, conserving more, and investing in the technologies of tomorrow. While Democrats broke their promise to be fiscally responsible increasing taxes and spending in tandem, Republicans put forth a plan that balances the Federal budget without raising taxes. And while Democrats broke their promise to make national and homeland security a priority, House Republicans have stood united to provide our troops the resources they need to defeat al Qaeda and radical jihadists and are determined to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. While Republicans are working to earn back the majority, Democrats are acting like the entrenched majority they led before, saying one thing to Americans outside of Washington and doing something different inside the Capitol building. Over the next few weeks, every House Democrat must answer this key question: Why haven't you kept your promises? I don't have a Web site available like some of the other groups do. But I can tell you that this publication, ``House Democrats' Top 100 Broken Promises,'' will be available from any Republican Member of this Congress, and I am sure that we can make it available. I am sure it is on a Web site, probably on the Web sites of all of the leadership: Republican Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Roy Blunt, Conference Chair Adam Putnam, Policy Chairman Thaddeus McCotter, Conference Vice Chair Kay Granger, Conference Secretary John Carter, Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, Rules Committee Ranking Republican David Dreier. My guess is that it can be found on any of their Web sites. I am going to make sure that it is on my Web site in the next few days. But I think, again, it is important that we hold people to the promises that they have made and make sure that the American people don't continue to have this very negative opinion of the Congress of the United States. We want this House to be respected. We want the Senate to be respected. And we need to live up to our promises so that we can get on with the important work that the American people have sent us here to do. This is the people's House, and I am extraordinarily proud to be a Member of this House. And I know I join with other Republicans in saying that we want to bring back respect and integrity to this House so it is not called a House of hypocrisy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for asking me to speak on this bill again. A few minutes ago Mr. Ryan was here and he had his children. When I spoke, I wanted to say something about the fact that they were here and how good it is that we have children on the floor and that we have young people watching what we are doing. They are here to remind us that the actions we take now are so important in the future because we are setting the stage for their future. The majority party made a lot of promises last year on a lot of little issues, in my opinion, but they have done nothing to really fulfill those promises. They particularly have done nothing to deal with the long-term liabilities that we have facing us. We know that pretty soon 70 cents out of every dollar coming into the Federal Treasury is going to be dedicated to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security or we won't be fulfilling the obligations we have made. So those children are going to be faced with tremendous responsibilities in dealing with those issues, and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. The other thing I want to say is that one of my colleagues talked about wanting to compare notes on having lived in public housing projects. Without realizing it, I think he made one of my points for me. One of the problems that we have in this country is that the Federal Government is funding things it has no business funding. If the States and the localities want to subsidize housing for people, that is one thing. But having the Federal Government absorb that kind of responsibility, in my opinion, is not right. My family didn't grow up in public housing. We never asked for public assistance. We did it on our own. We did without a lot of things, but we did it on our own. And I think we have to look for ways to help the American people learn to live without subsidies from the Federal Government.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I don't think of ourselves as a ``cast.'' I think of ourselves as the people that we were sent here to be, representatives of the hardworking people of the United States and of our districts. I think that particularly those of us in the Republican Party, most of us have led lives that keep us in touch with our constituents. We haven't spent a lifetime in Washington. We haven't advocated for being in Washington 5 days a week, out of touch with the American public. There are a couple of things that have been said that I think have to be responded to today. They haven't been responded to properly in the last few weeks, I don't think. One is the Clinton-squandered surplus. Let me remind the majority party that the reason we had a surplus during the third and fourth years of the Clinton administration was because there was a fiscally responsible Republican majority in the Congress. You cannot attribute the surplus to a President who has no control except to veto. I want to say something about the waste of money on the war in Iraq. Were we not supporting those brave men and women who are currently serving not just in Iraq, but all over the world keeping us free, we wouldn't have the right to come to this floor and say the things that we say. The Federal Government was formed for the defense of this Nation. That is where money should be spent so we can maintain our freedom. Nobody wants to be at war. I don't want to be at war. The President, I don't believe, wants to be at war. But we are at war because we were attacked. Those people have said repeatedly they want to destroy us; they want to destroy our way of life. We need to spend what we have to spend to keep our freedom. We don't have to raise these budgets by 10 percent to keep doing what we need to do for the American people.