Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to my colleague from Massachusetts. What is sending jobs overseas are things like the government takeover of health care in this country, which is creating such uncertainty and which is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, as well as the rules and regulations established by the EPA and the programs that many of our colleagues across the aisle love so much. They constantly talk about tax cuts for the rich. Well, every American got a tax cut when the tax cuts went into effect. The tax rate for the lowest-income Americans went down from 15 percent to 10 percent. Now they are proposing to allow that to go back up on January 1 and to create the largest tax increase in the history of this country. It sounds to me like my colleague across the aisle is defending Federal employees from not paying their taxes. I find that really difficult to understand. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My colleagues across the aisle always want to talk about this wonderful surplus that President Clinton had. They always neglect to mention that Congress holds the purse strings and it was Republicans who were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of Mr. Clinton's administration. They were in terrible shape the first 2 years. Republicans took over and we, Republicans, brought the economy to a surplus. They also like to point out how bad it was when President Bush left office. They always neglect to say you were in charge, Mr. Speaker, and your party, when Mr. Bush left office. You drove the American economy into the ditch, not the Republicans. Every bill that comes up here is to create jobs, but the American people understand, again, everything you've done has failed, from the stimulus, February a year ago, to now. You want to continue to spend money to create jobs. But government only creates government jobs, not jobs in the private sector. So I can't let my colleague get by with that. I would like to point out that the item that our colleague from Massachusetts pointed out is such a narrow piece. We want to really do something about Federal employees paying their taxes, not just those who might apply for a loan under this program. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. What this bill does once again is bring up what is sort of a mini- stimulus bill. We were told when the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. It would create jobs. It would be the great boon for the country. We now have 9.6 percent unemployment. I am a member of an electric co-op. I know very well how electric co-ops work. If the electric co-ops wanted to do this, if it was such a great deal, they would do it. We don't need the Federal Government doing this because everything that our friends have promised has failed, failed, failed. They want to continue their failed programs. I don't have a problem with American jobs, but what this creates is not American jobs. They want to create more government jobs, which they have done, and we will talk about that in a little bit. Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Florida, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is going to talk about this immensely successful project that Republicans have started here called YouCut. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, and I appreciate very much and accept his comments, in particular about how we are concerned personally for each other's children and each other's family. I believe that is absolutely true. And I appreciate the comments that the gentleman made yesterday in Rules in that respect, and also here. Madam Speaker, Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines outrageous as ``going beyond all standards of what is right or decent,'' ``deficient in propriety or good taste.'' The outrageous rule before us today represents a sickening embarrassment for this institution that the American people have charged with the responsibility to provide effective solutions to their real problems. Unfortunately, the ruling liberal Democrat majority has taken this opportunity to devise a cynical plot to ram through this misguided, partisan legislation which has had no committee consideration, no CBO cost estimate, and was sprung on the minority party only 90 minutes before its consideration in the Rules Committee yesterday. Despite these atrocities, the ruling liberal Democrats couldn't bring themselves to allow for any amendments, choosing instead to present us with this closed rule containing same-day ``martial-law'' authority through Sunday. Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze us. This is a far cry from 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi promised regular order for legislation in her ``New Direction for America.'' At that time she pledged that bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee mark ups with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. 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. The third point she made, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' ``Should,'' I guess, is the operative word here, Madam Speaker. Speaker Pelosi could say she didn't promise, she just said ``should.'' How times have changed. With hypocrisy like this, it's no wonder the American people are shaking their heads watching the shenanigans of this most leftist, liberal, elitist, arrogant, and out of touch Democrat regime in the history of our great Nation. The liberals will undoubtedly excuse their shameful actions today by blaming George Bush, as they always do, and relate their actions to certain instances under Republican congressional leadership, but it makes no sense to criticize in one breath and emulate in another what they identify as the sins of the past. My friend across the aisle talked about tax cuts and how Republicans love tax cuts but don't want investments. I want to point out to my colleague that in the 2001 tax cuts which were passed, there were many Democrats who voted for those tax cuts, both on the House and Senate side. The same thing with the 2003 tax cuts. Democrats supported those. And we were very grateful for that. In the final consideration of the Iraq war authorization, many Democrats supported that also. So we do have revisionist history, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to insert into the Record the record of the votes on those various items. Let's be clear about what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. We are spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private- sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we need to stop this spending. Let me say to you again, there are four parts to this bill. Let me mention what they are in terms the American people can understand. Number one, it provides for up to $5 billion for the Welfare Emergency Fund, doubling a new welfare program that Democrats created in the 2009 stimulus. The bill has $31.8 billion in revenue increases that will hurt an already weakened economy and could threaten our international competitiveness. The bill spends $25.6 billion on State infrastructure programs while abandoning small businesses, and will not create the private-sector jobs that we need. Also, we know that this bill wouldn't be needed at all if the stimulus that our friends tout so much had not been the huge failure that it has been and had actually worked. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this bill so we can begin to restore a semblance of sanity in this noble institution. Initial Consideration of 2001 Tax Cuts H.R. 1836, 107th Congress Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA)--P.L. 107- 16, (16 May 2001) Question: On Passage: Yea-and-Nay. Bill title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yeas Nays Pres NV ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Republican.......................... 216 ....... ....... 4 Democratic.......................... 13 196 ....... 1 Independent......................... 1 ....... ....... .......

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you know, every time our colleagues come here and talk about the horrible unemployment in their districts, they condemn themselves. They condemn their own policies and the policies of their President because they promised, when President Obama came to office and pushed through the stimulus package, that unemployment would never go above 8 percent. It's been a failure. Everything they've done has been a failure, Mr. Speaker. But they keep trying. Again, I want to say Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what our colleagues across the aisle keep doing, the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This bill is not going to create private sector jobs. It is only going to put us deeper in debt and cause us to lose more jobs. My colleague from Texas also mentioned the loopholes, that this bill is going to close loopholes. Well, that is convenient language for our colleagues across the aisle. It's doublespeak. And language means something. When our colleagues across the aisle talk about a loophole, they're saying this is something that gives us an excuse to raise taxes. The loopholes that they talk about are legal entities in our tax structure that probably most of them voted for. But when it's convenient for them, they call it a loophole, and let me say also that my colleague from California was absolutely right. The staff from the Ways and Means Committee says this bill is definitely not the same as bills we've seen before. There are items in here that have not been in any other legislation in this session. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the rule before us, we might wonder what mystical legislation would prompt the ruling liberal Democrat regime to resort to such authoritarian tactics being proposed by this rule. Unfortunately, the answer isn't anything American job seekers want to hear but, rather, a rehash of the tired, old, failed destructive policies of this regime who are apparently scared to death that the American people are seeing through their partisan schemes. While this bill does contain some Federal taxpayer funds to bailout States for infrastructure, they are coupled with tax increases that will be added to the unconscionable liberal tax policy that will bleed the American economy of desperately needed private sector jobs. Not only does the bill write a blank check by authorizing such sums as necessary--and let me point out to the American people, ``such sums'' means a blank check. It means they can spend as much as they want to. Here we have the largest deficit in our history, and yet, they're writing another blank check to bureaucrats. But one of the most telling provisions in the bill simply assigns a more politically palatable title to an expensive Federal welfare fund. Indeed, title II, section 201(a)(1) of the bill changes the name of the Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs to the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance. And again, for those not versed in Washington double-speak, State Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Programs is Washington double-speak for welfare money. This was a welfare bill, part of it was, and it continues to be one, no matter the title. Apparently our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle are so motivated to create another permanent Federal welfare benefit they simply cannot tolerate the word ``temporary'' being in the title of their beloved welfare fund. The new title also highlights the misnomer of suggesting that increasing unemployment benefits will increase employment or, as Speaker Pelosi recently put it, growing unemployment benefits ``creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.'' Renowned economist Arthur Laffer wrote in the July 8, 2010, Wall Street Journal that: ``The Democratic argument also ignores the impact of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to redistribute wealth. That is what our colleagues across the aisle are so good at doing. And again, as Mr. Laffer pointed out, ``The government doesn't create resources.'' There's always a zero sum game. There's no stimulus given from unemployment benefits. ``To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may `buy' more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment benefits are taken will `buy' less. There is no stimulus for the economy.'' If unending expansion of Federal welfare benefits is the liberal plan for creating private sector jobs, I'm frightened to imagine what success looks like to them. It's my hope that this Election Day, or ideally before, that the ruling liberal Democrats learn the lesson that, ``When you're in a hole, stop digging.'' Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to say The Washington Times had it right on March 3, 2010. Every bill that comes before the House these days is called a jobs bill. The title was, ``Lawmakers cry `jobs' to push through bills.'' That's what we see happening over and over and over and over again by our colleagues. Again, they can't stand to say that they're increasing welfare in this country. They're trying to say this is creating jobs. It's not going to create jobs, Mr. Speaker. We can start today, though, by rejecting this rule, rejecting the underlying bill and doing something about real jobs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert The Washington Times article into the Record. [From The Washington Times, Mar. 3, 2010] Lawmakers Cry ``Jobs'' to Push Through Bills (By Stephen Dinan) It was a modest measure to designate several thousand beachfront acres of St. Croix as a National Historic Site, but in the hands of a skilled congressman such as Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, it became yet another jobs bill. Likewise the Travel Promotion Act, which would create a nonprofit group to push U.S. tourism, has been billed as a job-producing machine by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. It doesn't stop there--backers last week unveiled a bipartisan bill to create a visa category for entrepreneurs, predicting it ``will create jobs in America.'' From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new government programs in Washington nowadays than to declare them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and potential opposition crumble. When Mr. Reid dubbed as a jobs bill a simple $15 billion measure to offer payroll tax breaks and continued highway construction funding, it helped head off a potential Republican filibuster. Likewise, the Trade Promotion Act, which would tout the U.S. as an international tourist destination, sailed through the Senate after it was tagged with the almighty jobs-bill moniker. Given an unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, the focus on jobs is not surprising. House and Senate lawmakers raised the jobs issue on the chamber floors at least 154 times over the past week, and the jobs issue is more popular in Congress now than it has been in nearly two decades--since the 1991-92 recession. President Obama joined the jobs chorus Tuesday, touting a $6 billion plan to offer up to $3,000 rebates for energy- efficiency home upgrades as ``a common-sense approach that will help jump-start job creation.'' Mr. Obama, who used the word ``jobs'' 11 times in his 17- minute speech in Savannah, Ga., said the issue is dominating his time right now. ``When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important a job as president than seeing to it that every American who wants to work and is able to work can find a job--and a job that pays a living wage,'' he said. On Monday, Republicans fought back the ever-broadening definition of what creates jobs. They told Democrats to quit trumpeting a $104 billion bill on the Senate floor as a job creator and argued that it merely continues existing tax breaks and spending that are extended every year. ``The bill before us creates no new jobs, and I challenge my Democratic friends to show us how doing what we always do and what was done last year--extending the R&D tax credit, extending COBRA insurance, extending unemployment benefits-- creates jobs,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican. Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said saving jobs is just as important as creating them. If Congress allows tax cuts to expire, he said, jobs definitely would be lost. ``If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were not passed, it would be a job destroyer,'' Mr. Baucus said. Members of both sides of the aisle are joining the chorus. Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, offered an amendment to the $104 billion extenders bill that would redirect unspent money from last year's $862 billion stimulus bill to let small businesses write off more investments and give them a capital-gains tax cut. ``True job creation doesn't happen when the government adds jobs; it grows when small businesses are given the incentives to thrive,'' he said. Meanwhile, the top Democrat and top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are sponsoring the immigration bill to increase visas for entrepreneurs. It's sometimes tough to see how the jobs math adds up. The administration has estimated that the $862 billion stimulus act would create up to 3.5 million jobs, which would seem like a bad deal if a $15 billion highway funding extension could create 1 million jobs alone, as Mr. Reid has said on the Senate floor. Mr. Reid also has said a health care overhaul ``would create 400,000 jobs a year,'' and that his travel promotion bill ``will create tens of thousands of jobs in the service industry.'' ``It is a jobs bill, and that is an understatement,'' he said. Among the other job creators being touted, the beachfront historic site in the U.S. Virgin Islands stands out. Democrats, arguing for the bill in January, said designating the site and spending the $40 million or more to acquire the land will transform it into a popular tourist destination. ``It will create jobs and help ease unemployment on the island,'' said Mr. Rahall, the West Virginia Democrat who shepherded the bill through the House. Dubious Republicans pointed out that the cost of a ticket from the U.S. to the island and the travel time make it unlikely that the new historic site would be a major economic draw. ``Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of our assets, pay down our debt and let America find jobs again,'' said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my comment about welfare because I think the American people thought that welfare was done away with many years ago in this country, but that simply isn't the case. A document that was prepared by the Heritage Foundation and released September 16, 2009, provides a valuable perspective on the current state of welfare spending, and I'm going to be quoting from that document for several moments. ``Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product, the GDP, when President Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP . . . ``Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, taxpayers have given $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) to means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).'' My colleague across the aisle wants to blame our deficit on the war, and yet, we're spending much, much more on welfare than we are spending on war, and we have done that since the sixties. ``In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual Federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined 2-year increase will equal almost $263 billion . . . After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two- and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in Federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual Federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.'' Americans are already frightened to death of our deficit. Now they're going to see why a large part of that deficit is here. ``While campaigning for the Presidency, Obama lamented that `the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.' '' Let me say that again. ``The war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month,'' President Obama said. Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending means that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.'' Go on and make all your comparisons you want to about how much is being spent on the war. Keeping this Nation safe is the role of the Federal Government. ``Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined Federal and State spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.'' According to President Obama's budget projections, Federal and State welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, FY 2009 to FY 2018. This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a family of four. ``Over the next decade, Federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while State spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.'' This was written in 2009 before the health care bill was passed. ``In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for total inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.'' I am ending my quote of the Heritage article. Mr. Speaker, the American people are frightened to death. That's what I hear every weekend when I go home, frightened to death about the direction of this country. They can identify the fact that we are spending too much. It's helpful to show them where some of that money is going and to balance out the misinformation our colleagues are giving out across the aisle about this issue. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill need to be rejected. I could go on and on about the jobs situation. We know full well that our colleagues like to brag about how many jobs that they have created. I am only going to show a couple of posters because we talk about this a lot, but I think it's very, very important to do it. I would like to show the job increases and jobs lost across the Presidencies of President Bush and President Obama. If we look at this, we will see that from the time President Bush came in, there was a drop in job growth right after 9/11, but then there was a 46-month steady increase of jobs up to 8.1 million. If you look at President Obama's administration, there has been a loss of over 3 million jobs. Now, I know our friends can count this lots of different ways. Another way that Scott Hennessey has said we should do it is to look at the average unemployment rate during a President's time in office. This clearly shows that under President Obama our average unemployment rate has been 9.5 percent, under President Bush, 5.3 percent. I think that tells the tale. So they can talk about creating jobs; they can talk about all their wonderful policies. All their wonderful policies have created this hole that we are in. They should stop digging, Mr. Speaker, instead of continuing to dig. The evidence is here, Mr. Speaker. 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 the real problems of the American people. This isn't time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal regime seized control of Congress in 2007, or blame President Bush for everything bad that they have done. Mr. Speaker, I will point out again that this bill is a welfare emergency fund expansion. H.R. 5893 will add $5 billion to the welfare emergency fund, doubling this fund the Democrats created in their 2009 stimulus bill, again, an example of the fact that the stimulus has failed miserably. The Democrats' welfare emergency fund expansion would especially benefit States that have increased welfare case loads and spending on welfare most. The new welfare money will be paid to States in FY 2011, a third fiscal year since this welfare emergency fund started. Democrats are trying to re-brand this welfare emergency fund to seem to be all about jobs. It's not. After calling it the emergency contingency fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs for the last 2 years, Democrats now propose to rename this program the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance, but only 25 percent of the $4 billion in welfare emergency funds has been spent on jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, $6.1 trillion, that's how much money the Federal Government has spent in just the first 18 months of the Obama Presidency. Washington is spending $7 million every minute of every hour of every day. There is only one way to feed that kind of destructive habit: Washington needs more of your tax dollars. And that's exactly what Democrats here on Capitol Hill and in the White House are talking about, the largest tax increase in American history. And it's no surprise when this Democrat-controlled Congress is on the verge of a second straight year of creating a record annual deficit. Instead of working with Republicans to make the hard choices to cut spending, Democrats are going to keep right on with out-of-control spending, and they will send the American people the bill. At a time when American families are struggling and when nearly 15 million people are looking for work, Washington Democrats are poised to hit every single taxpayer with a tax increase to pay for their reckless spending. Madam Speaker, House Republicans will fight those tax increases and will work to stop Democrats' out-of-control spending.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I sat in the Rules Committee yesterday and heard from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about this bill. I was really struck by something, Madam Speaker. I was struck by the fact that many of our colleagues across the aisle have obviously been on the road to Damascus lately because all of a sudden, after running up the largest deficit in the history of this country, as my colleagues before me have said, we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend, we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. After helping to do that, suddenly we see Democrat amendments to cut spending. Obviously, some people on the other side of the aisle are paying attention to what most of the American people are saying. In fact, 95 percent of the people in my district think that spending is the biggest problem facing this country. There were 31 Democrat amendments offered, 12 of them cut spending. Five of those amendments to cut spending were made in order. Again, Madam Speaker, I think this is a very cynical, very cynical ploy, one of many practiced by colleagues across the aisle to make it look like they are doing something that they aren't, which is to pay attention to cutting spending. We need to vote down this rule. We need to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we need to bring back serious issues where we are cutting spending and listening to the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to give a little statistic from the Small Business Committee, which has put out a packet of material that I think is very useful. Since January of 2009, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have enacted into law gross tax increases totaling more than $670 billion, or more than $2,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The list of tax increases includes at least 14 violations of the President's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples. To back up what you were saying, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if we could have a full repeal of the death tax, we could create 1.5 million jobs and increase small business investment capital by more than $1.6 trillion each year. Now, you're talking about the fact that, again, our colleagues across the aisle don't really understand that people don't have to be wealthy to be paying these high taxes, and we know that, if they allow the tax cuts from 2001, 2003 to expire, it is going to be the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and that is where we are going to hurt the economy tremendously because of that, and these are the people actually paying taxes, as you said. The President wants to say he gave a tax cut to 95 percent of the American people. Well, it wasn't a cut. It was a little rebate, as I recall, and the tax rates were not cut at all. But people can be persuaded to think that they were given a tax cut when it was only a rebate, and it is their money to begin with. It also went to people who paid no taxes, as you said, and had no tax liability, and we have things that actually give people more money back than they have actually paid in taxes. Where is that coming from? From the people who pay the taxes.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Gohmert. I wasn't subjected to listening to the entire last hour, but I am responding to your email. We know for a long time that our colleagues who just preceded us have often been on the floor and made some really outrageous comments where they rewrite history and present things as facts that just can't be backed up with facts. And in response to your plea to come share some of the truth telling with you, I'm glad to join you this evening. I did bring a few facts with me that I want to share. But I heard the last 5 minutes or so of our colleagues, and I was really astounded at some of the words that they used, like their ``pro- growth agenda'' and how our tax-cutting policy was not paid for and how they did everything under PAYGO except very, very rare emergencies where they had to go outside of PAYGO and that we were so irresponsible that we would just not vote for the PAYGO bill. I find it really like the book ``1984.'' I would say to people, if you haven't read the book ``1984'' or if you haven't read it in a long time, take some time to read it, because what you're seeing here from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is ``1984'' being played out in the year 2010. I do want to bring some facts to it, and I'm glad, Madam Speaker, that Congressman Gohmert is explaining the fact that under the Clinton years, which we hear so much about and which I, on the Rules Committee, am often having to correct various chairmen, such as the chairman of the Budget Committee when he came to the Rules Committee who bragged about the surplus at the end of the Clinton years. And I asked him, well, who was in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of President Clinton's administration? And he really didn't want to have to say, but he had to finally admit it was Republicans. And then he talked about the terrible situation under the last 2 years of the Bush administration. I had to again say, Now, remind me again who was in charge of the Congress under the last 2 years of the Bush administration. And of course it was our colleagues across the aisle, the Democrats. And we have to constantly remind them, as my colleague from Texas has done, that the President is not able to spend money. The President doesn't set up the appropriations bills. It's the House of Representatives that's charged with that in the Constitution. The President can veto a bill, and the Congress can override the veto. But, you know, our colleagues across the aisle wouldn't even put in an appropriations bill in the last year of President Bush's administration because they were afraid that President Bush would veto those bills, and they wouldn't be able to override them. And they wouldn't be able to override them because I agree with Mr. Gohmert that Republicans did lose their way for a short period of time when President Bush was President and the Republicans were in control of Congress. They spent too much money. When I came here and Mr. Gohmert came here in 2005, we brought that message from our districts and our colleagues from all across the country brought that message, and actually what a lot of people don't know is that we actually cut spending in 2005 and 2006, but we get absolutely no credit for it. Let me say, contrary to what our colleagues were saying, I did hear them talk about what the deficit was when President Bush left office. The little piece of fact that they left out was they were in charge of the Congress the last 2 years of Mr. Bush's administration. When they took over the Congress in January 2007, the deficit happened to be $458 billion and was on a trajectory to go to zero again. That would have been wonderful. Now, let me say, that's more of a deficit than I wanted to see, but it was not the trillion dollar deficit that they talk about which they created in the last 2 years of President Bush's administration. At the end of 2008, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. In 2 years, the deficit quadrupled. It went from $458 billion to $1.4 trillion, the largest deficit ever. And what is it going to be this year? It's going to be the largest deficit ever again and be even larger than the deficit that they created in 2008. My colleague was talking about the health care bill that passed with only one Republican voting for it in the House, and we're all very proud of that. Republicans are very proud of the fact that we all voted against the health care bill the first time. The second time, no Republicans voted for it. And what does that health care bill do exactly? It's been extolled as such a virtuous thing but it imposes $569 billion in new and higher taxes on businesses and individuals, and the cost for this health care overall bill jumps to more than $1.2 trillion. The American people are very concerned about where these folks who are in control--I will not say anything about leadership on their side--but they're in control, they're in charge, and they are leading us down a path of ruin in this country. Mr. Gohmert talked about the education situation in Washington. Basically, the trend of these folks, the student loans, what to do about education in Washington, the health care bill, everything that has been done by our colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, has been to put the government in control of our lives. Republicans don't believe in that. That's not an American ideal. We're the freest country in the world. That's what's made us the greatest country in the world over the years, and we will remain the greatest country in the world as soon as we can replace our colleagues across the aisle and put this government on a sound footing economically. What's threatening our freedom is the control and the bills that have been passed that say government knows best. The government bureaucracy is what they believe in. We believe in the American people. We believe in government of, by, and for the American people, not government to control the American people. So we have to do something to stop this slide that is occurring, and I want to give just one little example, if my colleague from Texas would let me. There is a Web site called republicanwhip.house.gov which has many of these items on it, and I would invite people watching to go to this Web site. I'm just going to share with you something that our Republican whip has put out called Weekly Waste Watch; Week 52 is this one: ``$2 Million to Hire Goats (not people) and Fight Weeds. ``Benewah County, Idaho, recently received a $2 million Stimulus grant for weed control. Heyburn State Park, located within the county, will use a portion of the $2 million to fight weeds across Plummer Creek. Their solution? Renting 540 goats to graze on the weeds. ``The South African Boer goat is the `latest weapon' in Benewah County's fight against invasive weeds. The goats have already been put to work munching on weeds like knapweed, tansy, and St. John's wort. Each goat eats about 3\1/2\ pounds of weeds per day and should be finished pruning the creek shoreline within the next 2 weeks.'' Now, this is the cost of the dollar per goat per day, and with 2 weeks and the taxpayer expenditure on goat employment, it should come to roughly $7,560. ``Idaho's unemployment rate is currently at 8.8 percent. While invasive weeds on State park land may be a problem, it is unclear how fighting their growth by employing 540 goats and two foreign herders''--by the way, the herders are not Americans--``will get Americans back to work.'' This is the way they think you should spend money. They're out of touch with reality. Most of them have never worked a job in their lives. Many of them have been in Washington 40-plus years. They have no idea what the average American is doing out there. They don't go home. They won't hold town hall meetings. They're out of touch. And to provide this kind of money to take goats to eat weeds, when we have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate--it is probably closer to 16 percent--is really a shame. I'd be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed if I had voted for that stimulus package. I'd be embarrassed if I'd voted for the health care bill. I'd be embarrassed if I'd voted for the bailouts of the automobile companies. I'd be embarrassed if I'd done any of the things that our colleagues across the aisle have done in the last 3\1/2\ years, almost 4 years that they've been in control while our economy has been going in the ditch. Talk about things going in the ditch. They've taken the economy in the ditch, and they're totally out of touch with the American people.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I happen to have here a piece put out by the Joint Economic Committee. This is a committee made up of Democrats and Republicans, and I am sorry I don't have a chart to show it. I know there is one somewhere around here, but there is a figure here that Federal Government jobs from February 2009, when President Obama became President, to June 2010, the number of jobs in the Federal Government increased by 405,000. The number of private sector jobs decreased by 3,261. When the stimulus package was passed, Dr. Christina Romer, who is his economic adviser, chief economic adviser, promised that the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent and that a tremendous number of private sector jobs would be created. I do have this, and I want to try to show it if I can here, it shows that under a fully controlled Republican government, Federal Government, that is with Republicans in charge of Congress and a Republican President, 6,690,000 million jobs were created. Under a fully Democrat-controlled Congress, we have lost 6,403,000 jobs. You know, again, facts are stubborn things. These are coming from the Obama administration's own Labor Department. And what caused this to happen? It's cutting taxes and letting the American people keep more of the money they have earned. Our colleagues across the aisle believe that the money, all the money in the economy belongs to the government; and that if you have a tax cut, it is the government giving something to the citizens. The government does create money in the sense it prints money. However, the government doesn't create wealth. The government destroys wealth. Regulations and government spending destroy wealth. It's only when you allow the American people to keep their money do you see job growth, and we are talking about the lapsing of tax cuts that were passed in 2001, 2003, occurring January 1; and those tax increases are going to hit every American. They keep saying, oh, it's only going to hit the wealthiest; they are going to hit every American. It's going to destroy even more jobs. And as you have pointed out, and our friend Tom McClintock from California does so eloquently, he points out the similarities between what's happening now with this Democratic administration and what happened under Franklin Roosevelt in the Depression, how these policies made the Depression worse. What they are doing at every stage is making things worse.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you also today on this historic day, and also all those who have made this day possible by making the House much more accessible to everyone who serves in the House. But, Mr. Speaker, I must change the subject and say that in 5 months, the hardworking taxpayers of America will get hit with the largest tax increase in American history if this Congress doesn't act to forestall it. That's right. Unless Congress acts, taxpayers will see tax rates go up across the board. This is completely unacceptable. During this period of economic difficulty and high unemployment, these tax hikes will fall especially hard on the small businesses that have already borne the brunt of this bad economy. These are the same job-creating small businesses that represent our best hope for emerging with strength from this recession. Increasing their taxes now would be an economic poison pill that would kill economic growth and job creation. After all, Mr. Speaker, what tax increase ever created a job?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. You know, I've often said that being here in Washington is like being Alice in Wonderland. I didn't know that there are a lot of other people who feel the same way. I did want to ask my colleague from Massachusetts who made the contention that if we get $1.90 back for every dollar we spend, we don't understand why the Democrats are stopping at spending $34 billion for these unemployment benefits. But I do want to come back to the issue of being Alice in Wonderland. And recently, there have been several articles that have been published that have talked about this being Alice in Wonderland and the tea party, and I would like to quote from one of those articles from The Washington Times this Monday. ``A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population thinks the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or had no impact on the economy. Simply put, that means three-fourths of the American people think the stimulus package was a $1 trillion waste of money. The same poll reports that 2.5 times as many people think the health care reform bill signed into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent) rather than help them (13 percent).'' It goes on to say, ``Many Americans are seized with fear as what might normally be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in November.'' Another quote: ``In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a bizarre, nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning personas. More and more, many Americans view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the insane hosts of an ongoing Washington-style mad tea party.'' I think that's what many Americans feel. I agree with them. That is what we are hearing when we go home to our districts and talk to the people there. They're seeing Washington as Wonderland and that there is a mad tea party going on. I would like to also point out that there's another article which came out in Bloomberg Opinion which talks about the discrepancy in the job numbers that have come out. Mr. Speaker, we know Americans are hurting. We know there's a lot of unemployment and we're sympathetic, but this is not the right way to go. [From the Washington Times, July 19, 2010] A Tale of Two Tea Parties (By Doug Mainwaring) Two Tea Parties grip the nation in two very different ways. The first is the Tea Party movement, which traces its origins to a watershed historic event as its members attempt to bring sanity and sustainability back to government. The second finds its origins in literature--Lewis Carroll's ``The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland''--and is descriptive of the surreal governance of the progressives in the White House and Congress as they continue their push toward governmental insanity and unsustainability. Like matter and antimatter, positive and negative charges, they are set in polar opposition to each other. In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a bizarre, nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning personas. More and more, many Americans view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as the insane hosts of an ongoing Washington-style mad tea party. Those leaders act not just counterintuitively, they act outside the bounds of logic, reason and historic precedent that normally tether this country to safety. They behave as political elites who think they know better than the American public what's best. They are ludicrously out of touch. The madness of this Washington tea party is displayed in myriad ways, but most profoundly in the nearly limitless demonstrations of stunning disconnect between the political elites and the American people. Congressional approval hovers around 20 percent, while disapproval is around 70 percent. The president's approval rating has been in decline for a long time, now at about 45 percent and sinking. Despite the fact that a majority in this country disapprove of the work being done by the political class, the political elites continue to pass gigantic, overreaching, outrageously expensive legislation. A Rasmussen survey released on Friday finds that 59 percent of likely voters are embarrassed by the nation's political class and its behavior while just 23 percent are not. A stunning 64 percent see the political class as a bigger threat to our nation than legislation such as Arizona's new immigration law. Just 20 percent say the opposite. In general, the nation sees the political class as both an embarrassment and, in some ways, a threat by about a 3-1 margin. From the point of view of the ruling political class, it has racked up tremendous achievements: the stimulus package, health care reform, education reform, Wall Street reform and so on. While the elites lift their champagne glasses to toast themselves, outside the Beltway, no one is popping corks. Most of the country looks on with jaws dropped, wondering: What are you folks on Capitol Hill thinking? Twenty-four- hundred pages of unintelligible health care reform and another 2,300 pages of unintelligible financial reform signed into law. Stacked together, they create a legislative Tower of Babel. How dare you pass this massive legislation while you lack the confidence of the American people by a 7-2 margin? Undaunted, their mad tea party continues. A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population thinks the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or had no impact on the economy. Simply put, that means three- fourths of the American people think the stimulus package was a $1 trillion waste of money. The same poll reports that 2.5 times as many people think the health care reform bill signed into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent) rather than help them (13 percent). Many Americans are seized with fear as what might normally be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in November. Will this be used as a window of opportunity for progressives to pass more unwanted legislation? ``Cap and trade''? Card check? This could be their intention. Our progressive leaders don't get it, and what's more, they don't care. They don't understand how starkly different, how irrational and just how unhinged they appear to folks outside the Beltway. While Lewis Carroll's mad tea party is literary fantasy, sadly, the progressives' mad tea party in Washington is very real. Robert Weissberg offered his view in the American Thinker on April 29: ``I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections.'' Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks later on June 9, shares a similar sentiment: ``A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House. . . .'' Interestingly, the progressives' mad tea party in Washington is what has given rise to the august Tea Party movement. Washington leadership has abandoned the venerable, common-sense, salt-of-the-earth center and right of our nation. The movement has emerged to fill the gaping void in center-right leadership to stem the tide of this Washington madness. Republican leaders have been either clueless or unwilling to lead bravely and skillfully. When Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they also spent profligately. With such a huge vacuum of leadership in Washington, the Tea Party movement has burst forth to lead the way. The people at this country's admirable, sustaining center have been ignored, trampled and tyrannized for too long. They have been marginalized through political correctness and the constant motion of the dividing line between progressivism and conservatism far to the left. We now live in an upside- down, Alice-in-Wonderland, house-of-mirrors world where the most basic of mainstream American sensibilities are considered to be radical right-wing thought. This has led Americans from sea to shining sea to announce: Enough is enough. Tea Partiers seek to end the madness in Washington and establish fiscal sanity and sound, reasonable, constitutionally limited government.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to my colleagues once more that when the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007, the deficit was about $200 billion. There was a wonderful situation under Mr. Clinton, they like to point out, but that was because Republicans were in control of Congress and were controlling spending. When the Democrats took control of Congress, that's when things started going downhill for this country. It's when unemployment started going up and bad things happened. Let me say, Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent stimulus spending to offset spending, but we're not alone. The majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there's spending fatigue across the country and that, if we have dollars not yet expended in the Recovery Act, they should be redirected to pay for new spending like this. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus bill. In the other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same, pay for new spending by cutting stimulus. Mr. Speaker, I enter the sources for my comments in my remarks for the Record. Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent stimulus spending to offset this spending. We are not alone. The Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there is ``spending fatigue'' across the country and that ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected to pay for new spending like this. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. In the other body, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same--pay for new spending by cutting stimulus. [From the Hill's On The Money, June 13, 2010] Hoyer: White House Should Look to Redirect Stimulus Money (By Silla Brush) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) wants the White House to look at unspent money from the 2009 stimulus package instead of asking Congress for a new fiscal package. President Barack Obama on Saturday night wrote to congressional leaders urging them to pass legislation extending tax cuts and add new spending to prevent ``hundreds of thousands'' of teacher layoffs, among other cuts. Obama said that without such measures the economy could ``slide backwards.'' Hoyer said on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday that there is ``spending fatigue'' across the country and that he is encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected. ``I have asked the White House to look at the package we already passed,'' Hoyer said. ``I personally believe if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act we could apply to this immediate need.'' Centrist Democrats in recent weeks have been more vocal about their concerns that new spending would lead to higher deficits and debt. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: ``To move without finding other offsets is irresponsible.''

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

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

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4213, a bill extending unemployment insurance. Republicans know that we must reduce the deficit, and if the underlying bill had been paid for, Republicans would have gladly supported it, but it is not. Undoubtedly, the American people are suffering from the actions of this Democrat-controlled Congress. We go home every weekend and our constituents tell us that their concerns are both jobs and the debt. In fact, they tell us every weekend they are frightened to death for the future of this country. I've never had constituents tell me that before this year. The simple truth is that while the liberals have repeatedly claimed their $1 trillion 2009 stimulus plan was the right thing to do, it's hard to tell that from looking at the job situation across the U.S. The American people are facing high unemployment rates and economic uncertainty. In fact, we have a quote from our distinguished Chair of the Federal Reserve, ``Economic future unusually uncertain'' is the headline in The Washington Times today. But we need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real, commonsense solutions to their real problems that we must be willing to pay for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to remind my colleagues across the aisle again that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since January 2007, and we have had a Democrat in the White House for almost 2 years. So the Democrats have been in control and Republicans are in the minority, and the Democrats can do what they want to because of their numbers in Congress. While the Obama administration continues its so-called summer of recovery, Mr. Speaker, claiming the Democrats' stimulus bill saved or created 3 million jobs, the facts are 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee released a report on Tuesday that showed this data, and I would like to insert this report into the Record. Mr. Speaker, this report compares the number of jobs created in each State that the administration currently claims in a White House report issued July 14 with the actual change in jobs since the stimulus became law as documented by the administration's own Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky, and North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since the stimulus passed. And even in those States, the official job creation has fallen far short of administration claims. The administration claims that every State and the District of Columbia have seen a positive job growth. This is simply not true when you look at the actual numbers from the Department of Labor. And let me say that in Alaska, only 2,200 jobs have been created since the stimulus passed. In Kentucky, 2,400 jobs; and in North Dakota, only 5,100 jobs. And most of us know that in North Dakota it's because of the discovery of energy. And that compares with what the administration has said they created 8,000 in North Dakota, they claim 41,000 in Kentucky, they claim 7,000 in Alaska. So the numbers are quite different. But let me point out that in the District of Columbia where there are government jobs that have been created and lobbyist jobs that have been created as a result of this administration's policies, there are 7,800 jobs. So the bulk of the jobs that have been created are government jobs. Republicans don't think this is right, neither do the American people think this is right. We need real jobs in the private sector. 47 Out of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Since Democrats' Stimulus Law-- Tuesday, July 20, 2010 While the Obama Administration continues their so-called ``Recovery Summer'' tour claiming the Democrats' stimulus bill ``saved or created'' three millions jobs, the facts show 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since stimulus passed. The table below compares the number of jobs the Administration currently claims its stimulus has somehow created in each State (center column) with the actual change in jobs since stimulus became law (right hand column), as documented by the Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky and North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since stimulus passed and even in those States the official job creation has fallen far short of Administration claims. ``Americans are asking where are the jobs, but all Washington Democrats are showing them is more unemployment, debt and higher deficits,'' said Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administration claims of change Actual change in State in jobs through jobs through June June 2010 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama........................... +42,000 -45,500 Alaska............................ +7,000 +2,200 Arizona........................... +64,000 -80,300 Arkansas.......................... +26,000 -12,600 California........................ +357,000 -520,200 Colorado.......................... +50,000 -84,600 Connecticut....................... +38,000 -34,000 Delaware.......................... +9,000 -5,500 DC................................ +16,000 +7,800 Florida........................... +167,000 -152,200 Georgia........................... +91,000 -124,600 Hawaii............................ +13,000 -12,700 Idaho............................. +15,000 -14,600 Illinois.......................... +140,000 -155,000 Indiana........................... +68,000 -29,800 Iowa.............................. +34,000 -23,700 Kansas............................ +28,000 -34,200 Kentucky.......................... +41,000 +2,400 Louisiana......................... +39,000 -17,300 Maine............................. +14,000 -11,400 Maryland.......................... +53,000 -14,300 Massachusetts..................... +79,000 -36,700 Michigan.......................... +102,000 -91,400 Minnesota......................... +60,000 -47,900 Mississippi....................... +26,000 -25,400 Missouri.......................... +59,000 -48,300 Montana........................... +10,000 -3,100 Nebraska.......................... +17,000 -10,300 Nevada............................ +29,000 -64,300 New Hampshire..................... +13,000 -100 New Jersey........................ +94,000 -68,300 New Mexico........................ +19,000 -30,900 New York.......................... +206,000 -115,400 North Carolina.................... +90,000 -49,700 North Dakota...................... +8,000 +5,100 Ohio.............................. +117,000 -131,500 Oklahoma.......................... +35,000 -33,500 Oregon............................ +41,000 -49,000 Pennsylvania...................... +130,000 -71,600 Rhode Island...................... +11,000 -15,200 South Carolina.................... +41,000 -15,100 South Dakota...................... +8,000 -4,100 Tennessee......................... +60,000 -69,400 Texas............................. +225,000 -57,700 Utah.............................. +27,000 -11,000 Vermont........................... +7,000 -7,300 Virginia.......................... +73,000 -39,500 Washington........................ +67,000 -68,600 West Virginia..................... +16,000 -10,200 Wisconsin......................... +63,000 -82,000 Wyoming........................... +6,000 -9,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: July 14, 2010, White House. Council of Economic Advisors report and Ways and Means Republican Staff calculations based on Department of Labor data. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the President's own Democrat co-chair of the debt commission, Erskine Bowles, said ``This debt is like a cancer.'' And he's right. This debt cancer is spreading rapidly. Democrat spending is out of control and adding to the already staggering deficit. House Democrats canceled the 2011 budget and failed to propose and pass an annual budget resolution for the first time since 1974. More and more tax dollars are being wasted. Job creation in the private sector remains at a virtual standstill. A trillion dollars was spent on the President's stimulus, and there are still more than 14 million people out of work. This cancerous debt, a symptom of the failed stimulus and increasing government control, needs to be stopped immediately. Washington needs to start letting taxpayers spend their own money and start putting Americans back to work.