Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today the House is going to debate a bill that holds the potential to move us away from a debt crisis and toward prosperity. I want to associate myself with the comments that were made by our colleague the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) a couple of speakers ago when she talked about how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that it is irresponsible to amend the Constitution in order to require the Congress to balance the budget. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, we heard from the gentleman from Maryland who talked about how we're twisting the Constitution to put in a limit on how we could cut taxes, raise taxes, into the Constitution, that how, by putting a two-thirds vote and restrictions into the Constitution, we're damaging the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Congresses in the past have proven that they don't have the restraint that's necessary to keep our spending under control. We need a constitutional amendment in order to do that. They did admit yesterday that we are paying the credit card from the past, and I want to point out that under President Obama, the average annual deficits that were in existence under President Bush became monthly deficits under President Obama. Since 2\1/2\ years ago, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion. That's why we need to cut spending, Mr. Speaker. We need to cut our spending. We need to cap our spending at no more than 20 percent of the GDP. That's what it was traditionally. It has now eased up to 23 percent. We have to take it back down. Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out, as my colleague from Missouri said, that when President Obama was Senator Obama, he spoke on the Senate floor and voted against raising the debt limit, saying that it was a failure of leadership. He doesn't admit that now, that it's a failure of leadership. He doesn't even admit that he's part of the problem. And part of the problem is that he has no plan. When we asked yesterday in Rules, ``Where's the President's plan?'' we were told it was in his speech at George Washington University. Well, even his own staff people, even his own appointees, say they can't score a speech. Republicans have a plan, and our plan is to cut, cap, and balance. We need a constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker, in order to force the Congress to do its job. Past Congresses, as it has been shown, couldn't do it. We're willing to do that. There is no leadership on the part of the Democrats. The budget that the President presented in February was voted down, 97-0, in the Senate. Even his own party will not support him. And what about all these corporate loopholes that the President and our colleagues keep talking about? The President talks about these corporate jets, but he doesn't admit the fact that the loopholes he's talking about, which he calls subsidies, that loophole was in the stimulus that he forced through this Congress, that no Republican voted for. So the corporate loophole for the jets is one the President put into place, and now he's condemning it. Mr. Speaker, we need our President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fess up to the fact that they've created this problem, they have no plan to solve it, and all they want to do is throw barbs at the Republicans who are showing the courage to do something about this serious debt crisis that we face in this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I would like to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Tennessee. I agree with every word he said. And I would like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker: Why is our national debt so high? It's because spending is too high. It's pretty simple. Our debt crisis is the result of Washington spending money it doesn't have and leaving the tab for taxpayers and future generations to pick up. That's irresponsible. The only way out is reducing spending, since at least 40 cents of every dollar we're spending is added directly to the national debt. And, no, despite what our friends on the other side of the aisle would say, raising tax rates and confiscating more money isn't the solution. That ignores the reality that Washington has a chronic overspending problem, not an undertaxing problem. If we're going to restore economic certainty, bolster job growth, and keep America competitive, we need to stop spending money we don't have. Mr. Speaker, we've got to start cutting spending, and we've got to start it now.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, if our Nation's debt crisis has taught us anything, it is that we need a permanent fiscal solution to keep America the permanent land of the free for our children and grandchildren. There is only one way to bind Congress to such a commitment, and that is a constitutional amendment requiring us to balance the budget. Ordinary spending cuts and pledges to slash the deficit are no longer sufficient. Washington went on a record spending binge in the last 2 years and left Americans in an economic hangover. New taxes, as some propose, would only punish the victim and reward the spenders with more money to waste. We need to stop spending money we don't have and begin living within our means. The future of our Nation depends on it. A Washington promise is always temporary. A constitutional amendment is permanent. For the sake of tomorrow's generations, let's get it done today.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I join the friends and family of Dr. David Burr in mourning his passing earlier this week. Dr. Burr, the father of Senator Richard Burr, was a faithful pastor to many over the course of his decades of service as pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. His was a life well lived and his passing leaves a great void in the community in which he was very active. During his 90 years of life Dr. Burr exemplified an ethic of service. He served honorably in the Navy during World War II. He shepherded the flock at First Presbyterian with great care and compassion. And he never neglected the needs and lives of those around him in the community. He was a great man who lived for God, who inspired by example and who will leave a legacy of love of which his family and friends can be proud. Today the loved ones of Dr. Burr are in my prayers as they grieve this great loss and look forward to one day being reunited with a beloved husband, father, pastor and friend.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert the following poem by Albert Carey Caswell into the Congressional Record. This poem is a fitting tribute to former First Lady Betty Ford. A Model Ford In life . . . Do we dance? Or do we stand?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for taking on this Special Order tonight and for bringing with him a group of his colleagues who are called ``freshmen'' around here, but I will tell you the people watching this tonight don't know you guys are freshmen. You're doing a wonderful job, and I want to compliment you on the fantastic job you've taken on here to explain to the American people some of the issues related to energy independence. I was home, like you were, during the Fourth of July and Independence Day, the little break that we had. I was home, talking to people about the fact that we need to declare a new war for independence, and that is a war for energy independence. So I agree with all of the comments that you all have made, and I want to piggyback on what our colleague from South Carolina was talking about. In April 2011, families spent an average of $369 each month on gasoline, which represented 8.9 percent of monthly household income, which was an increase from the average of 5.7 percent. Now, that is hurting the people in my district, and it is hurting the people in your district. We need to continue to point out that this administration has created these problems. These weren't created by Republicans. Democrats were in control of the Congress from January of 2007 to January of 2011. We were in the minority during those 4 years. In the last 2 years, the President and the Democrats were in charge of the entire Congress. They have the responsibility for what has happened in terms of energy prices. What Republicans have done in the last 4 years, as well as this year, is we have put forth and passed legislation that would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled energy production. We have put forward commonsense solutions to these high energy prices. Again, we believe in an all-of-the-above principle. We want to see us have all of the things that we need in this country to make us energy independent. Our government should be promoting our energy resources, not blocking their development. If we don't do that, we are going to continue to have a 9 percent unemployment rate. As for all of the comments that have been made about what producing energy in this country can do to unemployment, we must do that, and until we get an administration that understands that and a larger number of people in Congress who understand that, American families are going to be hurting. So I want to compliment all of you tonight who have come here and spoken out about these issues.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the number one job for House Republicans is job growth. The number one impediment to job growth is uncertainty: uncertainty caused by a record-high debt--$14.3 trillion and growing-- and the record-high taxes that are going to have to pay for it; uncertainty about the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation that the President pledges to support in just 19 months. Add to that the unknown cost of the government takeover of health care and the unknown price of Dodd-Frank and you've got a very uncertain private sector. We cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. They need us to work with them, not against them. If we follow the House Republican plan for America's job creators and stop spending money we don't have, certainty will be restored, our economy will grow, and jobs will be created.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, what sets the United States apart from many other countries that have lots of resources are our values, and that we are a Nation of laws. We may not agree with all of our laws, but they are the laws of our land, and not even the President can decide which laws to enforce and which not to enforce. Yet this administration has said it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of Defense maintains that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not directly challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the right of individual States to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. In February, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. However, the House of Representatives has expressed its intent to continue legal defense of the statute along with other laws of our country. My proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress' assertion that funds may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title I, United States Code, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of the Navy has already demonstrated how pressures to accommodate same-sex couples can quickly lead to policy changes that are ultimately contrary to previous assurances given with regard to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains, in a memo titled ``Revision of Chaplain Corps Tier 1 Training,'' directed that training be revised to accommodate same-sex marriages on military bases that are located in States where same-sex marriage is legal. The memo stated, ``This is a change to previous training that stated same- sex marriages are not authorized on Federal property.'' The memo further authorized the participation of a military chaplain in a same- sex civil marriage ``if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of a State which permits same-sex marriages or unions,'' and if the chaplain is otherwise certified to officiate. This calls into question the intent of the Department of Defense with regard to compliance with existing Federal law under the Defense of Marriage Act. Congress should establish policy guidance on this issue that will cover numerous contingencies and unexpected situations in the future. It is irresponsible for the Department of Defense to dismiss all concerns about issues involving marriage status by pointing to the existence of the Defense of Marriage Act. There's no contingency plan to address this issue should the Federal courts invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, the administration is inviting that very policy. Federal court orders could suddenly overturn current policies of the Department of Defense, which is not likely to resist or oppose new directives that disregard the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act. Congress can and should enact a policy making it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this past week, we were in our districts to visit with our constituents, to learn from them and to celebrate America's Independence Day. Much of my time was focused on the issue of energy and the need for energy independence because constituents are concerned with the high costs of energy and how these costs are impacting their businesses and lives. Republicans believe in an all-of-the-above approach for energy independence. Republicans believe that energy diversity leads to energy security, and there were plenty of examples in the district for me to visit. In Boone, students from Appalachian State University's Solar Homestead Team showed me the home they are preparing for the 2011 Solar Decathlon competition to be held on The Mall here in Washington, D.C., in September. The Solar Homestead team is advancing renewable energy systems through research on phase change, material energy storage, the integration of solar photovoltaic panels, and concentrating solar thermal systems for domestic hot water. While much money has been invested in this project by both the public and the private sectors, the hope is that the research will result in the ability to utilize alternative, renewable energy sources that will be able to provide low- cost energy homes for those in need. Clyde and Pat Colwell have developed Carolina Heritage Vineyard in Elkin, North Carolina, an energy-efficient small business which is benefiting from a taxpayer-funded solar system. The Colwells are very educated people who are retired from their first careers. Clyde served in the U.S. Marine Corps, earned his Ph.D., and served as a teacher, principal and superintendent. Pat earned her MBA and retired from IBM. However, while their graduate degrees were helpful in general, both of them returned to Surry Community College to earn associate degrees in viticulture so they could pursue developing their organic wine business. They work full time in the vineyards and on the winemaking process, and bring many skills to the area and to others in the business. The Gilbert Hemric family farm in Hamptonville, North Carolina, where Gilbert Hemric and his family work hard on their poultry, cattle and tobacco farm, is a microcosm of the problems that this administration has created. Mr. Hemric made it very clear to me that the high cost of energy and regulatory burdens are having a negative impact on his business. The Hemrics are paying more and more for feed and for fuel to run their equipment. Because fuel costs have almost doubled since President Obama came to office, the Hemrics have not replaced two of the 10 workers they had last year. They can't afford to replace them. At Holland Transfer in Statesville, CEO Jeff Harvey told me that the skyrocketing price of fuel and regulatory burdens are counterproductive to job creation and the growth of his business. The Harvey Family practices Christian values throughout its business, and has established nonprofits that feed the needy. When possible, they hire homeless people, which enables the homeless to leave shelters, but all this great work for the community depends on his business performing at a level that will allow him to continue contributing to the community. As I visited with constituents during the Independence Day work period, one thing was clear: that we need another independence movement--independence from Middle Eastern oil. Unfortunately, rather than pursuing energy independence, the Obama administration keeps fostering an energy dependence policy at the cost of American jobs, higher prices at the pump and at the cost of endangering our national security by making us more dependent on unstable Middle Eastern governments. House Republicans have responded by introducing and passing four bills to increase our domestic energy production and to create American jobs, but the Senate has taken no action. Liberal Democrats are obstructing the opportunity for jobs for Americans, lower energy costs and a new era of independence. It is time we declare independence from Middle Eastern oil and start using our own resources for the benefit of all Americans.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this last weekend we celebrated America's Independence Day; and as I visited with constituents, they asked that we create another independence movement, independence from Middle Eastern oil, and I agree. Unfortunately, rather than pursuing energy independence, the Obama administration keeps fostering an energy-dependence policy that costs American jobs, brings higher prices at the pump, and endangers our national security by making us more dependent on unstable Middle Eastern governments. House Republicans have responded by introducing and passing four bills to increase our domestic energy production and create American jobs. But the Senate has taken no action. Liberal Democrats are obstructing the opportunity for jobs for Americans, lower energy costs, and a new era of independence. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to declare independence from Middle Eastern oil and start using our own resources for the benefit of all Americans.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time. I rise today in support of this rule and of H.R. 2278, a bill to prohibit funds for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya except for operations involving search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, and operational planning. In 2007, then the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, confidently proclaimed to the Boston Globe this comment: ``The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.'' However, now that he is not attacking political opponents, that stance has proven inconvenient, prompting one of his many, many flip-flops, such as his vote opposing to raise the debt limit. Regardless of one's position on the constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief or Congress' authority to declare war, the legislative branch unquestionably yields the power of the purse. This bill represents a proper exercise of that power, pure and simple. The bill does not leave our military personnel in dangerous circumstances without the funds or supplies they need. It does not require a precipitous withdrawal since, without a ground presence, there is nowhere from which to withdraw. The bill simply denies U.S. taxpayer funding for what the President calls a ``kinetic activity,'' but what the world recognizes as an ongoing bombing campaign in Libya. It is for these reasons and many more that I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.R. 2278.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great North Carolinian, farmer and agricultural expert, Mr. R.G. Shipley, on the occasion of his 99th Birthday. Mr. Shipley is a standard-bearer for agriculture in the High Country of North Carolina and has for years served faithfully on the Watauga County Farm Bureau Board of Directors. Of course, when we say, ``served for years,'' most people assume five or maybe ten years. In fact, Mr. Shipley has faithfully worked with the Watauga County Farm Bureau since its inception in the 1930's. That is a remarkable testament to his dedication to furthering the cause of local agriculture. R.G. Shipley also taught agriculture as a local high school teacher at Cove Creek High School for many years. During his many years instructing students in agricultural studies he touched countless young lives. Among them was my husband, Tom Foxx, who sat under Mr. Shipley's tutelage as a high school student. He is truly a remarkable member of the Watauga County community. Even as he approaches his centennial birthday, R.G. Shipley remains active in the agricultural community. In honor of his long agricultural service to the area, an endowment fund has been established in his family's name to support local agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent constituents like Mr. Shipley in Congress. As he turns 99 years old in the coming week I want to wish him many more years of vibrant life and thank him for his tireless community involvement over the past many decades.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. I want to thank my colleague from the State of Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for organizing this Special Order tonight, and Mr. Speaker, I am a Republican woman and so proud to be a part of this great group of women that we've heard from tonight. Growing up in a poor family in rural North Carolina meant that there were many opportunities in life that simply weren't available to me. But there was one important opportunity that has always been available to me and to all of us, and that is living in the freest land on Earth, where working hard, taking chances, and persevering are catalysts for success. I'm a Republican woman because over the course of my life I've seen how the incentive to succeed and the guarantee that the fruits of your labor are your own have shaped a people and a Nation that accomplishes great things. Before I came to Congress, I worked in higher education and as a small business owner. Over the course of my career, I encountered good government and bad government. Each is a powerful force. Good government frees us to pursue ideas to invest our money as we see fit, to build, create, and grow a business or even to fail in our endeavors. As a small business owner, I also observed firsthand how government has the power to crush people under high taxes and oppressive rules, or it has the power to unleash creativity with a light touch and low taxes. I came to Congress as a Republican because my life experience in business and education taught me that, by easing off the rulemaking and the tax hiking, government can help foster an environment where hardworking, innovative, and dedicated people can succeed. I'm a Republican because I want to be part of creating a Federal Government that is nimble, focused, responsive, and aligned with the Constitution. I believe that such a government will capitalize on our strength as a Nation of innovators and entrepreneurs by removing barriers to job creation and wealth creation. As Republicans we're going to put our government on track to spend less and live within its means, just like women across the Nation do every day with their family budget. When government is right-sized, our economy grows and businesses create jobs. We know that the Constitution guarantees the rights of the people, not the rights of the government, Mr. Speaker. That's why as a Republican woman I'm focused on making sure government doesn't stand in the way of the people, and that the laws we make here in Congress expand freedom, rather than expand government.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting that I came into the Chamber at this time because my amendment also has to do with Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food. I am very concerned about this program because it is not an authorized program by the Congress. I am very concerned that we have our executive branch off doing all kinds of things that it has no business doing, from fighting wars to running programs that they weren't authorized to run. This program, in my opinion, conducts duplicative marketing methods by taking funds from programs that already exist within USDA through grants and program management activities. All of these entities within the USDA already have marketing tools to reach out to applicants in the local community and work with them. Programs that issue grants from USDA would not be affected or lose a single cent of funding from my amendment. Let me repeat: Grants and program management activities from USDA do not lose a cent of funding under my amendment. Rather, it would strike the redundant Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food effort by the USDA to advertise their programs and ensure that the money in the grants and in the program management activities would be spent on the activities that are authorized. My staff has been told by people at the USDA that grant issuing and farmer and consumer programs will continue to operate as normal without this duplicative effort. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of erroneous information put out there in relation to my amendment, and I would like to take some time to clear it up. It doesn't affect any USDA grant or program management funds already existing because Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food does not issue grants. Nor does it manage any programs. But it is a circumvention of the authority and defeats the intent of Congress when we are the ones who should be authorizing programs and budgets. So I think that this is a program that we do not need, and I believe that it should be abolished, because when the USDA wants a program, it should be coming to the Congress to get authorization for that program. There is a specific violation against establishing a program in the authorization that would have set up slush funds in the Secretary's office, and I think this is similar to that. It allows the department to take money from existing programs, put it into this program, and spend them the way that they wish to, and I don't think that is an appropriate expenditure of funding that we have authorized. Therefore, I urge passage of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding to me, and I want to respond to our colleague from California. I am not afraid of a program. I am afraid, as my colleague from Texas has indicated, of the executive branch continuing to overstep its bounds and develop programs that have no authorization and do the things that it has no business doing without authorization from Congress. I find it interesting that my colleague would bring up the fact that we went to war without authorization. I believe that was his President who did that, and I voted resoundingly not to do that. I also want to sympathize with my colleague from California. I am certainly doing my best to lose weight, too. I think it is a struggle that most of us, particularly in this body, have. But I can tell you that I am not looking to the Department of Agriculture to give me my nutrition information. I know how to find that nutrition information, and I think most Americans know how to do that, and we don't need a special program in the Department of Agriculture to do that. We have got to commit to bringing government spending under control, and we are going to do everything that we can. While no money will be cut from the appropriations by this amendment, it removes a program that is not authorized that gives part of the Department of Agriculture an argument for why they need money. I think that in many cases what happens in these executive branch departments is that when their own entity begins to lose its need for being, they begin to look out there for, What is the latest trend? What can we do in this Department to justify our existence? I think that that is what happens in many, many cases, and you get the continuation. As Ronald Reagan said, the nearest thing to immortality is a Federal Government program, and I think that is what happens in many departments, not just the Department of Agriculture. I have great respect for much of what the Department of Agriculture does, and I think it is providing vital services in many areas. But, again, this is not an area that we need the Federal Government to be involved in. We don't need this program. Frankly, my colleague asked me what I am afraid of the program for. What I don't understand is why our colleague from Maine doesn't want reporting from this program. He didn't ask her that question. Why is she concerned that we ask for reporting mechanisms? Because we have asked the Department, How much money are you spending on this program? They cannot answer. What effect are you having? They cannot answer. There are no results. There is no cost-benefit analysis. It is time that any program that says, We can't tell you how much we are spending; we can't tell you what we are doing; we can't tell you if we are having any effect, to be done away with. And any program that answers a Member of Congress that way should be immediately eliminated.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. I just want to make a point in response to my other colleague from Georgia. I agree with him. We are bringing light to many of these programs, and I think it is very important that we do so. I want to point out again, the WIC bureaucracy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment in the last 10 years. This is an increase of $800 million in administrative costs. If we are not prepared at least to cut administrative costs and programs that have no business being offered at the Federal level, then we are never going to get control of our debt and our deficit. I want to encourage both my Republican and Democratic colleagues to think about this. We have got to have accountability and we have got to start cutting, especially in the area of administration.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me. I think it's unfortunate that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle characterize our doing our best to bring fiscal sanity to this country by saying that we do not care for people who are poor or disadvantaged. Mr. Chairman, I grew up as poor as anybody in this body, and I know what it means to be poor and to be hungry. I have no malice toward any person in this country, none, no malice toward anyone in this body. However, we are on the verge of a fiscal disaster in this country. There are many things that could be done at the local level and the State level, that should be done at the local and State level, but absolutely should not be done at the Federal level. Again, my colleagues across the aisle come here and say what a shame it is that you are picking on the WIC program. Well, they took over $500 million out of the WIC program last year, put it in a totally unrelated program and said nothing about it. We didn't come to the floor and say, you are mistreating poor and disadvantaged women and children. No comments were made about that. Again, I think it is very unfortunate that that is how we are characterized. I believe that we have an obligation, an obligation given to us by God, to help our fellow Americans who are less fortunate than we are. But it is not our responsibility as Members of Congress to tax hardworking Americans who are working all the time just to pay their bills and survive and use that money to help other people. That is not our job. Our job is to do everything we can to create a good environment in this country for everyone to succeed, and that is the direction that I want to go. By lowering our dependency on foreign governments, we will make our country a better place to be. As my colleagues have said over and over and over again in the debate on this bill, we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar that we spend. We have a $14 trillion debt. There is a huge debate about our raising the debt ceiling that is going to be facing us. Do we really want to ignore the opportunity to save $82.5 million in a program that has no business being run out of the Federal Government and help us deal with the big issue that is facing us? That is what Congress should be dealing with. We should be dealing with the big issues. We should let these other issues be dealt with at the local and State level.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is an effort to save taxpayers' hard-earned money by ending funding for an unnecessary program that spends money coming to the Federal Government from our hardworking taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I very much believe in breast- feeding. We wouldn't have a human race here today if it weren't for the fact that breast-feeding has been in existence since the beginning of time; however, I am opposed to the Federal Government funding breast- feeding programs. Under the special supplemental program for women, infants and children, or the WIC program, Congress directed the United States Department of Agriculture to create a national program for the promotion of breast-feeding. In fiscal 2010, the Federal Government spent $85 million to educate women on how to breast-feed. We are facing a national debt of over $14 trillion. Spending taxpayer money to promote breast-feeding is simply not the proper role of the Federal Government and serves to illustrate just one reason--government mission creep--that we are so deeply in debt. In the last 10 years, administrative costs for the WIC program have grown by 72 percent while enrollment has increased by only 26 percent. It is difficult to understand how this program's bureaucracy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment. Again, it's an accepted fact that breast-feeding is good for infants and mothers, and I support mothers who choose to breast-feed, but coaching women on breast-feeding is not the role of Washington. This program came to my attention earlier this year because of the budget crunches that all levels of government are feeling. I was contacted by counties in North Carolina about this program, and it was brought to my attention that most of the money is being used to pay salaries and benefits, some is being used for travel expenses, and some is being used for cell phone use so that the peer counselors are available 24 hours a day to the people that they are counseling. My colleagues across the aisle will shout about this, and I may even be opposed by my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but last year my colleagues across the aisle cut more than $550 million from the WIC program to fund unrelated activities at the USDA. These were totally unrelated. It was obviously not a high priority then. If we want to promote the health and well-being of women, infants and children, then let's get serious about it by creating a job-friendly environment that puts people back to work and allows American families to keep more of what they earn. Let's stop spending money on every well-intentioned program and return the Federal Government to its constitutionally mandated purposes. Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of Washington taking their hard-earned dollars in taxes and wasting it on a bloated Federal bureaucracy. It's time we stop the culture of spending in Washington. That's why I urge adoption of my amendment, which will save taxpayers $82.5 million in just 1 year. The money will go into the Spending Reduction Account. And I want to say my total concern here is the spending of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on a program that the Federal Government has no business running. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that I need to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and offer an amendment that was not printed in the Record.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I will not take advantage of this mistake that I made. I appreciate the indulgence of the ranking member and the chair of the committee, and I will just say that I would appreciate very much having the support for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.