Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the 613 ethnic Azerbaijani civilians who were killed during the massacre at Khojaly, in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, on February 25-26, 1992. According to Human Rights Watch, Memorial Human Rights Center, and other international observers, the Khojaly tragedy was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with the assistance of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. At the time, the massacre at Khojaly was described by Human Rights Watch as ``the largest massacre to date in the conflict'' over Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. Largely condemned by the international community, in 2001 at least 30 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated in Written Declaration No. 324 that the ``Armenians massacred the whole population of Khojaly and fully destroyed the town.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the town and people of Khojaly who died on those fateful days and in offering our deepest condolences to Azerbaijan on this tragic anniversary.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from Colorado, this is not cutting off access of our citizens to the White House. Our citizens have voted in lots of different ways to express their opinions in this country in the last year or so. In November, they voted to replace our spendthrift colleagues on the other side of the aisle with people on our side of the aisle who want to cut government spending. They voted on this program by reducing their involvement in this program to a very small number. If they wanted this program, they could have continued to participate in it. They participated in the YouCut program, which singled out this program as something that needed to be cut. We are listening to the American people, Mr. Speaker--we are doing that in many different ways; this is one of the ways--because they've told us at least in three different ways that they want a different kind of working going on in Washington, D.C. They don't want a lot of spending; they want us to cut back spending. And they've told us this on this program three different ways. So I would like to point that out. Mr. Speaker, according to Congressional Quarterly, nearly $139 million in public funds were spent during the 2008 election cycle, including $17 million each for the Democratic and Republican conventions, $84 million to Republicans for general elections grants, and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for candidates for the nominations of Democrats, Republicans, and other parties. As is the case with so many other actions, the Federal Government has no business funding political campaigns, particularly while the troubled economy demands fiscal restraint. And let me point out that the way the Federal Government gets its money is, again, by taxing the American people or, in this case, by using funds that the people have said that it could be used for. The proposal embodied by H.R. 359 first received attention as a result of then-Republican Minority Whip Cantor's initiative dubbed ``YouCut.'' Majority Leader Cantor is continuing this innovative effort which encourages public participation in our wonderful American democracy. The Web site, located at majorityleader.gov/YouCut, for the first time enables Americans to make their voices heard by voting weekly on various proposals to shrink, rather than grow, Federal spending. As I said in my earlier remarks, this is one of the ways the American people can tell us what they think. According to the official YouCut Web site, ``The Presidential Election Campaign Fund provides Federal tax dollars in the form of matching funds to candidates in Presidential primaries provided the candidates qualify and agree to abide by certain spending and contribution limits. It provides grants to qualifying Presidential candidates in general elections, if they agree not to accept other contributions. The program also provides grants to sponsor national party conventions. ``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates and parties. Since 2000, some major candidates have chosen to forgo public financing. While some have argued that providing even more taxpayer funding for this program might entice more candidates to participate, eliminating the program altogether . . . would require candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather than tax dollars. The amount of funding for the public financing system is determined by checkoffs on income tax returns, and taxpayer participation via the checkoffs has declined,'' Mr. Speaker, ``from 28.7 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 2009.'' And that's the end of the quote from the Web site. Again, Mr. Speaker, the American people are telling us how they feel about this program because they're not using the checkoff. As the program grows increasingly less popular, its purpose is accordingly muddled. For example, while on the campaign trail, then- candidate Barack Obama, who portrayed himself as a longtime supporter of public financing, ultimately broke his pledge to participate in the presidential public financing system. If public financing isn't good enough for such a vehement supporter, why should taxpayers finance partisan political campaigns? That's why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle who are complaining about some of the proposed amendments being declared not germane that it is not the Republicans who decide whether amendments are germane or not germane; it is the Parliamentarian's office that decides that. They can do the same thing to our amendments as well as to the Democrats' amendments. I now yield such time as he may consume to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chair of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, rule, and underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people are buying these tired arguments that our colleagues across the aisle are using about us wanting to be the tools of corporate interest. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that the public has said in at least three different ways, as I said before, that this program is not worth continuing. My colleague from Virginia said that we're denying 10 million Americans the opportunity to participate in donating to campaigns. That isn't true. Individuals can donate to any campaign they want to. So these American people who are now doing the checkoff can easily write a $3 check to the candidates of their choice. We're not stopping that in any way whatsoever. What we are doing is saying we don't need to be supporting political conventions, primarily, and candidates. They're perfectly capable of raising the money directly from the American people. And what we are doing, though, is saying that $617 million is real money. Our colleagues across the aisle don't think $617 million will put a dent in our deficit? That shows you how far away from the American people they are. They don't think of $617 million as significant. Mr. Speaker, the American people think that $617 million is significant. They want us to cut spending wherever we can, and this is a program that has long ago outlived its usefulness. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 54 provides for a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 359, which is a bill to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions. Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to stand before you in a House dominated by new a Republican majority focused on changing the direction from the failed liberal policies that have dominated Washington for the past 4 years. Although there remains some obstacles to realizing the full breadth of a Republican agenda so desperately needed to pull our economy out of the doldrums, it is indeed a new day. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 359, legislation authored by my friend, Mr. Cole, that I have cosponsored as it represents a small step towards a brighter future for our country. Instead of considering legislation providing perpetual spending increases as the solution for all that ails us, in a departure from Washington groupthink, H.R. 359 would actually reduce Federal spending, Mr. Speaker. Although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and many Washington Beltway insiders, it's what the Americans expect out of the new Republican majority they recently sent to represent them here in the people's House. Instead, H.R. 359, which CBO estimates would save $617 million over 10 years, eliminates an expensive Federal program that wastes taxpayer money funding Presidential campaigns and national party conventions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, voters all across the country have rejected the ``government knows best'' philosophy that prevailed during last year's health care debate. In contrast, my Republican colleagues and I believe that American innovation and reduced government intervention are keys to successful health reform that reduces health care costs. After all, reducing the costs of health care should be the primary focus of any health care reform bill. Unfortunately, the highly flawed health care bill that passed last year does not bring down the cost of health care. It drives costs up. If we are ever going to fix health care, we must focus on reducing costs. For instance, it's estimated that 1 percent of the most seriously ill in America account for more than 25 percent of all health care expenditures. What if we could improve the care of these patients and at the same time reduce costs? We can. We can by harnessing the power of innovation and health research in groundbreaking fields like regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine is a highly specialized field that focuses on developing technologies to replace or regenerate organs and tissues using the patient's own cells. These treatments would reduce the cost of chronic diseases by up to $275 billion a year and would dramatically improve the lives of older Americans suffering from terrible, chronic illnesses. The cost of chronic disease is only going to increase if we don't focus on innovations like regenerative medicine that can revolutionize how we treat illnesses. These costs are going to spiral ever higher mainly because we are in the midst of a major aging of our population. Demographers estimate that in the next 20 years, people in the age range of 65 to 74 years old will increase from 6 percent of the population to about 10 percent of the population, almost doubling. At the same time, people over the age of 75 will increase from 6 percent to 9 percent of the total population. This demographic shift will inexorably drive up the costs of health care as more elderly receive treatment for chronic diseases like late-stage Parkinson's disease, kidney failure, heart failure, or diabetes. Regenerative medicine has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of all these diseases. But that may not happen. Why not? It's simple. The same kinds of bureaucracy, regulations, and red tape that are stuffed into every corner of the ObamaCare law are holding back the widespread adoption of major medical breakthroughs in this field. Consider the fact that Dr. Anthony Atala at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University has been able successfully to grow bladders for bladder replacement surgeries from the recipient's own cells. Yet despite several successful bladder transplants, the FDA insists that the institute go through additional costly clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars on testing that is clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human transplant surgeries. This sort of Federal regulatory burden is stifling innovation in America, and the government takeover of health care backed by the Democrats last year imposes still more job and innovation-destroying regulations on health research. Regenerative medicine has the potential to improve the health of our citizens and return them healthy and whole to the workforce. It holds the promise of hundreds of billions of savings in health care costs and, unlike ObamaCare, will create jobs focused on developing these technologies across the Nation. Congress would be wise to strip away the bureaucracy and red tape that is stifling innovation in fields like regenerative medicine that could lower costs and improve the lives of all Americans.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my friend for yielding me time. I rise today in support of H.R. 2, which repeals the job-destroying government takeover of health care. Voters rejected the ``government knows best'' philosophy in November. In contrast, Republicans believe that American innovation and reduced government control are keys to successful health reform that reduces health care costs. For instance, it's estimated that 1 percent of the most seriously ill account for more than 25 percent of all health care expenditures. What if we could improve the care of these patients and at the same time reduce costs? We can. We can by harnessing the power of innovation and health research in fields like regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine develops technologies to replace or regenerate organs and tissues using the patient's own cells. These treatments could reduce the cost of chronic diseases by $275 billion a year. Consider the fact that Dr. Anthony Atala at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University has been able successfully to grow bladders for bladder replacement surgeries from the recipient's own cells. Yet despite several successful bladder transplants, the FDA insists he go through additional clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars in testing that is clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human transplant surgeries. The Federal Government's regulatory burden is stifling innovation in America, and the government takeover of health care, passed by the ruling Democrats last year, will impose more job and innovation- destroying regulations on health research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of investing in new health technology and research by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, last Saturday our country suffered a terrible blow. In a senseless and despicable act of violence, a crazed gunman attempted to kill one of this body's finest members and our good friend, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, while slaying six others and wounding many more, Gabby was gunned down while doing the very thing she was elected to do--listening to her constituents and soliciting their feedback. She was participating in a proud tradition of representative democracy, where democratically elected representatives interact with the constituents they represent in Washington. When the gunman pulled the trigger he was attacking not just a good and decent Member of Congress and her constituents, he was also attacking the freedom-loving people of America who every two years send public servants like Gabby to Washington to handle their interests in the Capitol. We must not tolerate this violence and the assault it represents on our democratic way of life. Make no mistake; there is no room for violence in our vigorous national debate. I pray for God's peace for all the victims of this tragic attack and swift healing for all those, especially Gabby, who are still fighting to recover. The House of Representatives is not whole without the smiling face of Gabby and I eagerly await the day when she returns to work on behalf of her constituents. They could ask for no finer person to represent them in Congress.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the American people sent a crystal clear message to Washington in November that they are tired of this town's job-killing spending spree. But it appears that our colleagues in the current majority didn't get the message. As a result, the government funding bill we're going to debate this week continues the record-setting rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority last year. This includes the higher spending for programs that have been bolstered by unnecessary and ineffective stimulus dollars. Republicans have pledged real spending cuts to get our Nation back to a responsible budget and help create jobs. In fact, we've proposed to cut spending to pre-bailout and pre-stimulus 2008 levels, which would save taxpayers $100 billion a year. Madam Speaker, let's listen to the American people and get Federal spending under control.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lucas has spoken very eloquently about one piece of the legislation rolled into this rule. I would like to speak about all three of them, briefly. One piece is H.R. 5116, the COMPETES Act, a behemoth, authorizing nearly $86 billion, which is $22 billion above the fiscal 2010 base amount and $8 billion above the original 10-year ``doubling path.'' This is in addition to the nearly $5 billion in additional funding that was provided in the so-called ``stimulus'' bill. When H.R. 5116 was authorized in 2007, it enacted approximately 40 new programs. The new spending under H.R. 5116 would create at least seven new government programs, many that are not associated with research and development, and others that are duplicative and unnecessary. This is plain wrong, Mr. Speaker. It's worth recalling that when H.R. 5116 was originally considered by Congress earlier this year, Republicans attempted to make several constructive changes which were systematically blocked by the ruling liberal majority. One of these changes would have saved billions of taxpayer dollars by reducing the authorization levels to FY 2010 levels and freezing them for 3 years. However, in an effort to obstruct Republicans, the liberal Democrat elites did the American people disservice by using a series of parliamentary tricks to shove their bill through without allowing any Republican input. Mr. Speaker, in these difficult economic times, American families across the country are tightening their belts and cutting their spending. Why then are the Democratic elites increasing spending by $22 billion with this legislation and creating new duplicative government programs? The American taxpayers cannot afford this bill. The second bill encompassed by this closed rule which the Democrat elites have brought before us today is H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, again, which my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) has spoken on so eloquently. This bill increases spending by $1.4 billion, subsequently increasing the price of food and increasing the size of government without actually improving food safety. This hastily considered closed rule provides for consideration of yet another bill, H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Act of 2010, which is so riddled with problems that last week it failed to garner the votes necessary to pass under a suspension of the rules. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to fix the flaws and address the other concerns prompting the bill's failure, the ruling liberal Democrats predictably chose to ram it through by any means necessary. And since they've wasted so much time tilting at windmills, they find themselves here in the waning days of this lame duck Congress scrambling to address issues that should've been dealt with through a responsible legislative process. As they wait for the Senate to act, they're refusing to yield any free moment to pursue one of their last opportunities to slam through another so-called rule--unworthy even to be called a rule--providing for consideration of flawed legislation, such as H.R. 2142. This bill would amend the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, GPRA, a law which currently requires agencies to develop 5-year strategic plans, annual performance plans, and actual program performance reports. Unfortunately, under the rules of debate provided for by this rule, the ruling Democrat majority refuses to allow Members to offer these types of real reform ideas or any other amendments, leaving this legislation unlikely to do anything to change the incentives facing decision-makers and will not end the perpetual funding of failing Federal programs. As has been made perfectly clear to the ruling liberal Democrat leadership, many are concerned that although there's no cost estimate available for this version of the bill, it authorizes $75 million over 5 years to establish agency performance officers and interagency councils, but does not contain an effective means to consolidate or eliminate ineffective programs at each agency. If you add the 17,800 employees that the food safety bill is contemplating and then the new employees that will be required under the GPRA bill, we are adding to the number of Federal employees. But we should be decreasing the number of Federal employees. I want to talk a minute about what has happened in terms of Federal employees since the Democrats took over the Congress. In 2007, there were a total of 1,832,000 executive branch employees and in the civilian agencies there were 1,173,000. In 2010, it goes to 2,148,000 and 1,428,000. Federal employment has grown by a remarkable 17 percent since 2007, to an estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-time workers. This is the largest workforce since 1992. Also, Mr. Speaker, according to a recent analysis by USA Today, total compensation for Federal workers has risen 37 percent over 10 years, after inflation, compared to 8.8 percent for private workers. Federal workers earned an average compensation of $123,000 in 2009--double the private average of $61,000. Mr. Speaker, our country cannot afford this expansion of the Federal Government. We need to be reducing the Federal Government, not expanding it. I would like to say further this version of the bill does not contain an amendment considered in committee markup by Republican Representative Schock and supported by Democrat Congressmen Cooper and Quigley that would have established a more thorough process for evaluating agency performance and eliminating programs that failed performance standards, were found to be duplicative or determined to be unnecessary. H.R. 2142 mandates the creation of several new government-wide and agency-specific management plans. However, it does not--does not-- increase executive accountability for failing programs. Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is going in the wrong direction. What it does is it allows agencies to design their performance plans and then to measure their own results, using their own performance indicators. Rather than requiring agencies to focus on achieving measurable outcomes, the bill makes the creation of outcome-oriented performance measures optional. This would be like, Mr. Speaker, letting students set the criteria for getting their own grades, and we all know that doesn't work very well. Strangely enough, also in the process, the bill directs agencies to ``identify low-priority program activities,'' which is ridiculous because, even if agencies had an incentive to label their own programs as ``low priority,'' they do not. This begs the question of why such programs are funded at all. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in. The liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling liberal Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting this rule and the underlying legislation and by protesting the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private-sector job creation and from getting the economy back on its feet. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today very disturbed by the lack of respect the ruling Democrat elites have shown for the will of the American people since election day. Having lost 63 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate, one would think the liberal Democrat regime would think twice about continuing their reckless pattern of spending that has been so overwhelmingly rejected by the American voting public. However, these Washington elites have spent their last days grasping frantically to their waning power and continuing to spend, spend, spend, even in the final hours before Christmas. This rule is a slap in the face to the institutional integrity of Congress and the way this body is intended to operate. Mr. Speaker, I have an article that I would like to insert in the Record from The Wall Street Journal of November 30. This article talks about what has been happening since we have come back into session, and I think it is something that we need to be talking about. Also, I want to say that rather than having conference committees meet to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of bills, Democratic leaders have waited until the last minute and the House will now concur with the Senate-passed measures, sending them to the President. Thus far in the 111th Congress, only 11 conference reports were considered in the House and 25 amendments between the House and the Senate, which denies the minority a motion to recommit. In the 109th Congress, 25 conference reports were considered and only one amendment between the Houses, on which the Rules Committee made a motion to recommit in order. The 109th was when the Republicans were last in control. In Pelosi's New Direction for America, page 24, it states, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' It is clear that the House Democrats on the Rules Committee have not lived up to this promise. Instead of allowing sufficient time for debate on these separate measures which collectively authorize billions upon billions in new spending and grant Federal regulators even more overreaching power, the Democrat elites are arbitrarily presenting us with one overarching closed rule for three separate and enormous pieces of legislation. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bills. [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 2010] Federal Freeze Play American Federation of Public Employees President John Gage yesterday derided President Obama's federal pay freeze as a ``slap at working people.'' It might better be described as a small but symbollc first step toward reining in a ballooning federal payroll that is a slap at the non-government workers who pay the bills. Mr. Obama proposed a two-year pay freeze for all civilian federal employees, a move that will save taxpayers $2 billion in fiscal 2011 and $28 billion over five years. (Congress must approve it.) As cost-cutting goes, this is modest: The freeze doesn't extend to new hiring, bonuses or step increases. It doesn't even match the three-year freeze recommended by the President's deficit commission. But it is more than this Administration has ever been willing to consider, and it suggests that Mr. Obama, post-midterm- shellacking, realizes he must show some willingness to restrain the growth of government. It certainly needs restraint. As the nearby table shows (see accompanying table--WSJ November 30, 2010), federal employment has grown by a remarkable 17% since 2007 to an estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-lime workers (excluding 600,000 postal workers). This is the largest federal work force since 1992, when civilian employment at the Pentagon began to shrink rapidly after the Cold War. These federal employees operate in a pay-and-benefit universe that no longer exists in the private economy. According to recent analyses by USA Today, total compensation for federal workers has risen 37% over 10 years--after inflation--compared to 8.8% for private workers. Federal workers earned average compensation of $123,000 in 2009, double the private average of $61,000. Unions like to argue that federal jobs are unique, yet in occupations that exist both in government and the private economy--nurses, surveyors, janitors, cooks--the federal government pays 20% more than private firms. Voters have swept GOP reformers like New Jersey's Chris Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker into gubernatorial office precisely to rein in bloated public-employee pensions and salaries. If Mr. Obama is serious about cutting spending, his pay freeze needs to be an opening bid for a leaner, more modestly compensated, federal work force. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today is December 16, 2010. There are only 15 days left until the American people are burdened with one of the largest tax increases in almost three decades. We must act now to extend all of the current tax rates for every American. We must allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Stopping the tax increases leaves more dollars and cents in the pockets of those who need them. It will also encourage small businesses and the private sector to invest and hire. We need to spur economic growth to pull us out of one of the worst economies in our recent history. The President and his party currently control both Chambers of Congress and will maintain a majority in the Senate and will hold the White House come January. Let's not just tell our fellow Americans that we listened and have heard their concerns about the economy and their money. Let's show them by extending all the current tax rates for every American and do that without other items that add to the deficit.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I first want to make it clear I am opposed to allowing tax increases to go into effect on January 1. However, I am also opposed to this rule and the underlying bill. It's very interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle arguing against the tax bill before us today because of their concerns that we're adding to the deficit. We didn't hear those arguments when they were voting for the trillion-dollar stimulus and all the other trillions they have voted for in the past 4 years. In fact, their stories and those of the President have changed dramatically over the past few days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record an article in American Thinker, December 14, ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.'' The article does a really good job of explaining the flip-flops on the side of the Democrats. I want to quote a couple of sentences from it. It says, ``The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where they've been since 2003. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious, since they've been saying for about 10 years that the `Bush tax cuts' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats are arguing to keep something they said never existed.'' So we find our friends again on the other side of the aisle flip-flopping on this issue. I'd also like to add a couple of more comments from this article. ``As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed Congress in mid 2003, shortly after Republicans retook the Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over 8 million net new jobs were created and real GDP grew almost 3 percent per year. At the same time, Federal revenues increased by 2.3 percent of GDP, $785 billion, putting revenues above the average level of 1960 to 2000, the 40 years before Bush. Unemployment fell to 4.4 percent and the deficit fell to 1.2 percent of GDP. Such was the catastrophe of 4 years of Bush's tax rates and Republican-written Federal budgets. ``You will hear that this or that group, the top 2 percent of those who inherit dad's farm, et cetera, does not `deserve' to have its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two alternatives for where that money goes: the family that earned it or the government. If the family doesn't `deserve' it, does the government?'' It appears from all the comments that our colleagues have made that they believe that the money that the hardworking Americans earn belongs to the government. As a member of the Rules Committee, I have seen up close how the ruling Democrats have violated every promise they made to run an open Congress but have shut out the opportunity to offer amendments. We should vote down this rule and allow any amendments to be offered. [From American Thinker, Dec. 14, 2010] Tax Cuts Clearly Explained (By Randall Hoven) If you go to the White House website, right at the top is a bar you can click on to see ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.'' If you click, you see a video of one of President Obama's economic advisors using a whiteboard to explain that Republicans are bad, that Obama is above politics, and that if Obama gets his way, jobs and growth and goodness will spring forth. The video starts out simply enough. Republicans want to extend the Bush tax rates for everyone; Obama wants to leave out the top 2% of income earners. It was all about the Bush tax rates and for how long, and to whom, to extend them. But then the video starts talking about a host of things unrelated to those tax rates. The economist even lists them on his whiteboard. Unemployment insurance, Earned income tax credit, American opportunity tax credit, Child tax credit, Payroll tax, Investment incentives. The ``clear'' explanation is that since the current tax rates for the top 2% would be extended another couple years, this list of unrelated ``targeted and temporary'' tax cuts must be added to the package to somehow offset them. The concern was that extending current tax rates for the top 2% would increase the deficit too much. So politicians compromised in a way that would increase the deficit more than either party's initial proposal. (King of like the way they compromised on TARP in 2008. Remember ``sweeteners''?) Since Congress got into the compromise act, tax credits for ethanol, alternative fuels, and who knows what else have also been added. In the spirit of clarity, what follows is my attempt to explain tax cuts. The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where they've been since 2003. 1. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious, since they've been saying for about ten years that the ``Bush tax cuts'' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats are arguing to keep something they said never existed. 2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire package, as currently proposed in the Senate, would add $858 billion to the 2011-2020 deficit. Without it, the 2011-2020 deficit would be $6,246 B. So this package theoretically increases the ten-year deficit by 14%. 3. Of that $858 B, about $544 B comes from keeping current tax rates; the rest comes from the new goodies unrelated to the Bush rates. So because Democrats said some part of that $544 B adds too much to the deficit, they added another $314 B to the deficit. That is how compromise and ``the middle way'' work in Washington. 4. The CBO calculates future revenues under the assumption that tax rates have zero effect on the behavior of investors, consumers, employers, etc. Congress forces the CBO to make that assumption. Every economist this side of Paul Krugman knows that that assumption is wrong. One such economist is Christina Romer, President Obama's first choice as chief of his economic advisors. She said a tax increase of 1% of GDP reduces GDP by about 1.84%. And she said that this year in a published, peer-reviewed academic paper. 5. Another top economic adviser to President Obama, Larry Summers, was more direct. ``If they do not pass this [tax cut agreement] in the next couple of weeks, it will materially increase the risk of the economy stalling out and that we would have a double-dip [recession].'' Bill Clinton advised that passing the tax cuts would ``minimize the chances that it [the economy] will slip back [into recession].'' Again, top Democrats say we must keep the Bush tax rates or the recession resumes. 6. President Obama's view is that not keeping the Bush tax rates on those making under $250,000 ``would be a grave injustice'' and ``would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.'' Again, this is curious because Democrats keep saying that Bush's tax cuts went only to the wealthiest Americans and caused all the harm we now see to the economy. But apparently, not continuing the Bush policy for 98% of taxpayers would be a ``serious blow'' to the economy. 7. President Obama believes that keeping the current tax rates for those making over $250,000 in a year ``would cost us $700 billion'' and do ``very little to actually grow our economy.'' He assures us that ``economists from all across the political spectrum agree'' on that. I believed he polled the same economists who said his stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. 8. As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed Congress in mid-2003, shortly after Republicans retook the Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over eight million net new jobs were created, and real GDP grew almost 3% per year. At that same time, federal revenues increased by 2.3% of GDP ($785 B), putting revenues above the average level of 1960-2000, the forty years before Bush. Unemployment fell to 4.4%, and the deficit fell to 1.2% of GDP. Such was the catastrophe of four years of Bush's tax rates and Republican- written federal budgets. 9. You will hear that this or that group (the top 2%, those who inherit dad's farm, etc.) does not ``deserve'' to have its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two alternatives for where that money goes: the family that earned it, or the government. If the family doesn't ``deserve'' it, does the government.? [In fact, it appears from spoken and written comments that our colleagues think that the money that Americans earn should all belong to the government.] As usual, this is not about anything the Democrats say it is about. If they are worried about the deficit, why did they add to the deficit to get this deal? Republicans would have compromised by simply extending the current rates for two years instead of permanently. Obama saw that bet and raised unemployment insurance, earned income tax credit, American opportunity tax credit, child tax credit, payroll tax, and investment incentives. Congressional Democrats saw that bet and raised it ethanol and alternative fuels subsidies. This is all about the Democrats rewarding their interest groups and blaming the certain deficit on Republicans. As usual, the Stupid Party will see that bet, holding a pair of deuces. I'll try to clarify it with another analogy. A 700-pound man goes to the doctor. The doctor says the man needs to diet, and in fact prescribes a certain salad as the man's meal for the next few months. The 700-pound man agrees to eat the salad each meal--along with three roasted chickens, two pounds of bacon, a large pizza, and four cheeseburgers with the works. In his view, he compromised with his doctor. Then when the man weighs 800 pounds after a few months, he blames his doctor. Now you play doctor. Would you make that compromise, given you'll be sued for malpractice if the man gains weight?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, during these difficult economic times, it is rare to find stories of business success as strong as that of Targacept, a pharmaceutical firm based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I recently attended a Targacept event on Alzheimer's that highlighted the breakthrough research Targacept is doing on this debilitating condition. Targacept is making great strides towards helping those who suffer with Alzheimer's and I am confident that their work will one day enable senior citizens with Alzheimer's to live with independence and great dignity. It is not just groundbreaking research that makes Targacept a standout company. It has been named one of the top 10 best employers in North Carolina and was ranked in the top 30 places to work in industry by ``The Scientist'' magazine. Targacept's innovation and strong leadership have made it one of the finest businesses in North Carolina and I am proud that they are investing their considerable human capital and research prowess in Winston-Salem. As this fine company continues to grow and expand, even in the midst of an economic downturn, I am sure that it will continue to bring great jobs to the Triad and make progress towards improving the lives of those who suffer with chronic diseases like Alzheimer's. Targacept is a real asset to Winston-Salem, our state and the scientific community-- their success reflects the entrepreneurial spirit that continues to make our nation great.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, the average American might have gotten the impression that partisan politics is the only force to be reckoned with in Washington, but that is not always the case. Members of Congress certainly often disagree on how to move our country forward. Nevertheless, I am confident that underscoring our divergent world views is a bedrock desire to see our country thrive, prosper and succeed. In fact, I've had conversations with outgoing Representatives from parts of the country like Wisconsin and New Jersey who lost elections last month. You know what? The thing they pressed home with me was not bitterness in defeat. No, it was their desire for me and others to lend our support to those who defeated them because they want them to be successful as Representatives of their districts and their country. Even in defeat, these Members were focused on the betterment of their communities and the success of America. They entreated me to help their replacements learn the ropes and excel in the House of Representatives. Such a perspective is not what makes headlines in the media, but it is one that will help us emerge from this difficult economic time stronger and more united. This perspective, the demonstration of deep character in the midst of defeat, serves our Nation well. While the national media pursued tired story lines about partisan battles and legislative gridlock, I challenge this dull, status quo reporting. The American people deserve to hear that, despite Congress' many flaws and shortcomings, there are people here from all across the political spectrum who love our country and want nothing more than to see us living in prosperity and security. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise my outgoing colleagues for their public service and their continuing desire for America to be great. We may vehemently disagree on public policy, but that does not keep us from remembering we are privileged to serve the people of the greatest Nation the world has ever known. And I hope no one who serves in the Congress ever forgets that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).