Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. You know, my colleagues across the aisle talk about trying to create jobs. I will point out to my colleague that trying isn't doing it. What happens is you pass the stimulus to create jobs, omnibus appropriations to create jobs, auto bailouts to create jobs, health care, cap-and- trade, all of those things to create jobs. You are trying, but you are not doing. What you are doing is you are creating government jobs. This is the chart that the American people want to look at: how many government jobs you are creating. You have also created a deficit in 2 years three times the size of the deficit that Republicans created in 12 years. You are so selective in how you talk about history. Clinton was President for part of that time. You say he had a surplus at the end of his term; but you never give Republicans credit for that. But then you talk about our being in charge of the Congress. You know, you are very selective with your statistics. But you have tried and you've failed. You have not created jobs. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on this bill, and I believe that my colleagues and I will be able to explain why. In case there are some folks still listening to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking about in the last of the 1- minutes that were spoken a while ago, I need to say that they have very selective memories. They talked about what the economy was like when President Obama took office, and they blame everything on our former President Bush. But they failed to mention ever, ever, ever that they were in charge of the Congress the last 2 years of President Bush's administration, and they were the ones in charge of what was happening in terms of spending money and why our economy was in such an unfortunate situation. It's very easy to blame President Bush because he was President, but they were in charge of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that I, again, find myself before this body amazed by the stunning arrogance of the liberal Democrats responsible for bringing this rule before us today which provides for consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Act, and accompanying legislation, H.R. 5486, a bill intended to offset the immense cost of H.R. 5297. Consideration of this legislation, which will cost taxpayers another $32 billion, comes at a time when the Democrats have demonstrated a complete paralysis in presenting the annual budget resolution necessary for guiding congressional spending decisions. We all know that many small businesses have not been able to get available credit. However, the Democrat response is, unfortunately, too predictable: Borrow more money from foreign lenders in future generations and spend it on yet another in a long string of bailouts; create a lot of Federal Government jobs; and do nothing to really help small businesses. The way we can help all businesses in this country is to lower taxes across the board and not continue to create unnecessary, inefficient government programs which don't deliver what they need to deliver. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, there are lots of different perspectives from our folks on the other side of the aisle. They change the line of talking to depend on what it is they want to point out. I want to say again that we have major problems with our economy. We have a problem with spending. Not a problem with revenue, but a problem with spending. And I want to point out some comments and contrast positions from when our colleagues were in the minority to now. In May of 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi declared, quote, ``Our national debt is a national security issue. Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes, and our computers, pretty soon they will be making our foreign policy. They have far too much leverage over us.'' Keep in mind that, at the time she said this, the total public debt outstanding was $8.351 trillion. Now, when they have created a debt of over $13 trillion, suddenly it's not a problem. Or in December 2005 when she declared, quote, ``Democrats support pay-as-you-go. No deficit spending. If something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not make my grandchildren and children have to pay for it, or anybody's children and grandchildren have to pay for it.'' Again, keep in mind that, at the time she said this, the debt was $8.107 trillion. Now, when they've created a debt of over $13 trillion, they seem not to be concerned about their children and grandchildren. The ruling liberal Democrats' pride in their fiscal irresponsibility is also a far cry from March 2005, when Minority Whip Hoyer expressed outrage, declaring that, quote, ``On the Republican Party's watch, the Federal Government recorded the worst budget deficit in American history, $412 billion in fiscal year 2004. $412 billion of deficit spending . . . We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought to be ashamed to tell our children that that's what we have done to them. We ought to be ashamed to tell our grandchildren, of which I have three, that that is what we have done to them and their generation. That is the height of fiscal irresponsibility, and I suggest it is also a fiscally immoral act and is the abuse of our children and grandchildren and generations yet to come, who in their time will face a challenge perhaps like Iraq, perhaps like AIDS, perhaps a tsunami or other natural disaster, and they will look around for resources to respond to their crisis in their time and say, oh, my goodness, the resources were spent by this Congress and by the previous Congress. What a shame.'' So, apparently under Republican rule, a $412 billion deficit was considered a threat to our descendants, but a $1.42 trillion deficit under Democrats is somehow excused for some reason. What a shame indeed. Mr. Speaker, when the liberal Democrats seized control of Congress in January of 2007, the number of unemployed persons stood at 7 million and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Oh, how times have changed. Today, the numbers are more than double. Fifteen million Americans unemployed, resulting in a staggering 9.7 percent unemployment rate. Strange how these immutable numbers from the same nonpartisan official government source tell a different story than the liberal Democrats in desperate search of a scapegoat would have you to believe. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to continue to borrow money and put our children and grandchildren into greater debt. 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. And do we hear from small business people? Do we hear from people who are out of work? Absolutely. Every weekend. This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we've seen since the liberal majority seized control in 2007. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why this rule and this bill deserve ``no'' votes. The bill lacks proper oversight for the TARP III program because it would not be subject to the effective oversight of the Special Inspector General for TARP, otherwise known as SIGTARP. I believe my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), pointed out some of these concerns in his remarks. On February 19 of this year, SIGTARP's watchdog, Neil Barofsky, sent a letter to Treasury's Assistant Secretary For Financial Stability, Herb Allison. In the letter, Barofsky expressed concern regarding Treasury's decision to remove TARP III from SIGTARP's oversight and warned that such a move would be terribly wasteful and could lead to a significant exposure to waste, fraud and abuse. If all of this weren't enough, Americans should know that TARP III creates more uncertainty. Like the original TARP megabank bailout, the Federal Government will once again, at its discretion, be able to reach into the board rooms and pocketbooks of private sectors firms and employees. The use of the original TARP by some banks begets the use of the Obama administration's pay czar and auto task force, which closed thousands of dealerships. Also, the use of the original TARP inspired the Democrats to pursue a ``responsibility fee,'' another tax on financial firms. Through TARP III, many small and mid-sized banks may soon find the Federal Government as their new senior partner. This approach is particularly disturbing given availability of sensible, cost-free alternatives, some of them offered by our Democratic colleagues such as Mr. Kanjorski's bill, H.R. 3380, the Promoting Lending to America's Small Business Act which hosts a bipartisan list of 123 cosponsors, including myself. Fortunately, the American people have a choice between the same old, tired liberal agenda or new, innovative solutions being offered by members of the GOP. Some of the no-cost proposals offered by House Republican leadership to President Obama last December include: halting any proposed mandate or regulation expected to have an economic cost, result in job loss, or have a disparate impact on small business; eliminating job killing Federal tax increases; freezing domestic discretionary spending at last year's levels; removing unnecessary barriers to domestic energy production; providing an incentive for companies to repatriate earnings back to the United States; and increasing exports through trade agreements beneficial to domestic job creation. To that list I would add a few more items such as rescinding unspent stimulus funds, reforming the tort system to lower cost and uncertainties facing small businesses, suspending the job killing Davis-Bacon Act, and shrinking the cost of the Federal minimum wage, particularly for young and inexperienced workers seeking entry-level jobs. Basically, Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives to the bad legislation being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, what we need, again, are across-the-board tax cuts. We don't need more government control. It's interesting to me that our colleagues have two different tacks. One is blame everything on the previous administration. But the next to the last Democrat who spoke during 1-minutes made a speech telling us about how everything was great and how much better everything is going. So it's a little hard, I am sure, for the American people to wonder what is the policy of this group that's in charge of the Congress. I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sometimes can't understand why Republicans vote against their ill-conceived legislation, but it is really because we have a very different philosophy about what makes this country successful. We believe that we should adhere to the capitalistic society that has always made us successful. It isn't the government that makes us successful. It isn't taking money from hardworking taxpayers, sending it through government bureaucracies, and then giving a small portion of that money back to the taxpayers that has made this country successful. And this bill is very misnamed. It isn't a small business bill, it is a bailout of banks, smaller banks than the megabanks that were bailed out by the Democrats primarily, with the help of President Bush. This is not a small business bill but a bank bailout bill. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, this bill is being promoted as necessary to increase the availability for small businesses. But as my colleague from California so eloquently pointed out, it's really a bailout for banks that are in shaky positions. And what nobody has pointed out yet is, incredibly, this money doesn't have to be available for 2 years and probably will not be available for 2 years. So what is that going to do, again, to help small businesses that need help right now? Again, as my colleague pointed out, it creates a $30 billion lending fund for banks with less than $10 billion in assets. It also is going to appropriate $2 billion to States to shore up their small business lending and guarantee programs. But we shouldn't be doing that either. We have no business going in and shoring up programs that the States have when they haven't been responsible with the use of their money. But what this bill is going to do is deepen our debt problems, duplicate the goal of the original $700 billion TARP program, as Mr. McClintock pointed out. We have nearly 10 percent unemployment, and the so-called economic leadership of the ruling liberal Democrats has proven to be a failure. This is TARP III, and its $32 billion price tag is not going to be any different from the previous mechanisms that they've used to try to stimulate the economy. Rather than proposing sound economic policies, like lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase the Nation's debt. The simple truth is that taxpayers can't afford another bank bailout. The original bailout bill, TARP I, was $700 billion. In 2009, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle rammed through a so-called stimulus bill costing $1.138 trillion--part of that is the cost of the interest--a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill for FY09, a $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget. They increased the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. The national debt now stands above $13 trillion. The taxpayers lost $145 billion by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, and the CBO expects that to approach $400 billion overall. Recently, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund pledged $145 billion to bail out the bankrupt nation of Greece. American taxpayers are on the hook for $6.8 billion in loan guarantees for the IMF. The European Union and the IMF have also announced a $1 trillion bailout plan that could put American taxpayers on the hook for $50 billion in additional loan guarantees to bail out other financially irresponsible members of the European Union. And the news today is that Spain is almost ready to go bankrupt and expects our support. Yet the ruling liberal Democrats continue to spend our Nation into a financial abyss. I've just gone over a lot of numbers, and I want to go over them one more time to make sure the American people fully understand what these people in charge of the agenda of this Congress are doing. They have been in charge, by the way, Mr. Speaker, since January 2007, which is when most of our problems began happening. So let me go over it again: a $700 billion bailout for the megabanks, a $1.138 trillion spending bill, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, a $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget, a $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase, $6.8 billion to the International Monetary Fund loan guarantee program for countries in Europe--not even helping people in the United States--and an additional $50 billion in loan guarantees for bailing out other financially irresponsible members of the European Union. Again, this bill is going to create unnecessary programs. Already under TARP I, the megabank bailout, Treasury created these programs, as Mr. McClintock pointed out. So it's a clear indication that TARP I was a failure if the Democrats have to bring this back and create $32 billion more to do what the $700 billion TARP wasn't able to do. So what we're seeing is our friends on the other side of the aisle creating more taxpayer-funded jobs at the Federal level, not jobs for average Americans, and not money for small businesses. And yet our unemployment rate continues to stay almost at 10 percent when they have promised with the first stimulus bill that it would never go above 8 percent. Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The American people have a right to question why our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results from what they've gotten in the past. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McClintock).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, someone once said, If you can't budget, you can't govern. Those words came from my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, the current chairman of the Budget Committee. He uttered them in 2006 as ranking member of the committee. The question is, What does that mean for this Congress? Today, we face a budget deficit five times larger than the one that Congress faced in 2006 of $1.4 trillion, and here we are 2 months past the budget deadline and there is no budget. Unprecedented spending, unprecedented debt, and no budget. It is only 8 months into the current fiscal year and the Federal Government has racked up close to $1 trillion in new debt. Mr. Speaker, it's time for this Congress to prove it can govern and debate a budget. If today's record-breaking deficits aren't reason enough to debate a budget, then I don't know what is.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the 2010 Federal budget deficit will hit $1 trillion this month, and we've also recently learned that the Federal debt will reach $19.5 trillion by 2015. You'd think this would be a case for some real careful examination of the Federal budget. You'd think Congress would be looking everywhere for areas to trim and programs to cut. But that is not the case. It's been almost 2 months since the deadline to introduce a budget resolution passed, and House Democrats still haven't produced a budget. How are we going to get spending under control and bring down the deficit if Congress won't even consider a budget? Madam Speaker, it's time for Congress to consider a budget, one that puts taxpayers, not big government, first.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, here's one way the American people can tell that it's an election year. After racking up record deficits, congressional Democrats are now trying to run away from the truth about their out-of-control spending. Last fiscal year, Democrats in Congress tallied a record $1.4 trillion of deficit spending. Through the first 7 months of this year, they've already overspent by $800 billion. So it's no wonder, with elections coming up in just a few months, that they don't want you to know how much deficit spending they plan to do next year. That's why we have no budget. House Democrats are not putting a budget on the table. They don't want to own up to their numbers. They don't want you to see another trillion dollars added to the deficit. So they'll just leave the books open without a plan and spend without restraint. About the only thing that will stop them is if the American people speak up and say this is not acceptable. We sent you to Congress to lead; so write a budget.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Utah, for being in charge of this Special Order tonight and bringing to the American people what I think is one of the most critical issues facing us in this country, and that is the issue of federalism and the need for us to adhere to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Too few people really understand the role of the Federal Government in our country. We've gotten away from the teaching of the Constitution. We've gotten away from the teaching of the role of government in our country. People have this notion that they have this right and that right, and if you press them to tell you whether they've read the Constitution or not, most of them will tell you they have not. And they really do not understand, again, what the roles of our respective governments are. In the last week, while we had a little bit of time away from Washington and I managed to squeeze out some quiet time, I had the chance to read a Joseph Ellis book called ``American Creation,'' which talks about the triumphs and the tragedies of the beginning of our country. And it's really important that we understand that there were a lot of conflicts that came about in the founding of the United States. It wasn't as smooth a thing as many of us think that it was. But one thing that was very clear to all of the Founders was the issue of federalism. The idea of the United States of America was a radical idea to begin with. Never before had people believed that they had freedoms and that they had inalienable rights given to them by God. So it was a totally radical idea. But add to that the idea that you shouldn't have a Federal Government that would control everything from Washington, and it was absolutely radical. And we owe a great deal to George Washington, our first President, for not trying to be king and understanding that we needed to send power, delegate power, let power be held at the State and local levels. We can see the unhealthiness of the growing role of the Federal Government fairly easy in numbers, and I'm going to quote a couple of numbers for you. Since 1995 alone, the Federal Government has issued nearly 60,000 new rules governing everything from the size of the holes in Swiss cheese to what colors are allowed for surgical stitches. Federal spending surpassed a hundred billion dollars only in 1962 for the first time. That was a huge amount of money in 1962. And back then, people were saying a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. In 2010, the Federal spending will surpass $3.5 trillion. I think there are very few people in the country who really believe that the best way to do things is to have them done by the Federal Government. I'm a very, very strong 10th Amendment person, as are my colleagues here, and I'm really pleased to be a part of the 10th Amendment Task Force. And perhaps my colleagues went over these earlier, but I'm going to mention them very quickly, what our mission is and what our goals are. Our mission is to disperse power from Washington and restore the constitutional balance of power through liberty-enhancing federalism. And we have five goals: Educate Congress and the public about federalism. You might wonder why Congress needs to be educated, but many Members of Congress really don't understand the concept of federalism; Number two, develop proposals to disperse power to regional entities, States, local governments, private institutions, community groups, families, and individuals; Three, elevate federalism as a core Republican focus; Four, monitor threats to the 10th Amendment principles; and Five, help build and foster a federalist constituency. So we know what it is we need to be doing. We have worked as a Constitutional Caucus in the past to do our best to educate people, but focusing, I think, on the 10th Amendment is very, very important. And again, I'm very pleased to be a part of this. Let me say some more about federalism. The term is foreign to many people, but most Americans care about the things that federalism brings without even knowing it. Federalism brings choice, options, flexibility, and freedom. Federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left. It is neither a Republican nor a Democrat idea. Decentralization and community empowerment can be a worthy goal of both the left and the right. Both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival. And this is not yesterday's States rights arguments. It's much bigger than that. This is about better governance. This is about adjusting modern politics to modern life. This is about breaking up big, inefficient, unresponsive government and returning power to the people. As my colleague was using some illustrations a little bit ago about education, as one who was involved with education a great deal before coming to Congress, I wholly subscribe to the concepts which he presented. Let me give a couple of other things about federalism, and then I'm going to turn it back to my colleague from Utah or to my colleague from Texas, both of whom who are extremely eloquent on this issue. In a nutshell, federalism is the best system, because it brings government closer to the people. It nurtures civic virtue. It protects liberty. It takes advantage of local information. It stimulates policy innovation, and it alleviates political tensions. In other words, federalism was the Founders' original formula for freedom and good government. It's time to reinvigorate this freedom- enhancing principle of government. Again, I know very few people who believe that we should go to the Federal Government to solve all of our problems. We should first solve the problems that government needs to solve at the local level, then at the State level, and as a last resort, go to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, too many people think of the Federal Government first, and that complicates our lives. We have a huge deficit and a huge debt right now because too many people have looked to the Federal Government to solve problems that could have been solved at the local and State levels for much less money and in a much more efficient way. I'll just give one example. The problem that we're having in the gulf right now, that is a problem that does need to be solved by the Federal Government. But is the Federal Government prepared to do that? No. Why? Because the Federal Government's involved with way too many other things. The Federal Government should be looking after national security, I think national parks, our interstate highways, maybe the Federal Aviation Administration. But we're doing too much or attempting to do too much at the Federal level and not doing those things that we should be doing as well as we should be doing. So, again, I want to thank my colleague from Utah for being in charge of this Special Order tonight and giving us a chance to do all that we can to educate others. I'm Virginia Foxx from the Fifth District of North Carolina, and if you'd like more information about this issue, please go to my Web site or contact me and I'll be more than happy to share information about this, because, as Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we must help educate our fellow Americans on this issue if we want to maintain the wonderful country that we have. And with that, I'll yield to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we've got a debt problem in America. The Federal Government keeps spending money and running up the national credit card at a record clip: $8.5 trillion over 10 years. Congress can't just cross its fingers and hope everything works out. That will only make the debt crisis that much more severe for our children and grandchildren. We must start cutting spending and reducing the deficit now. To do otherwise and watch as our national debt prepares to overtake us is reckless. It is as if we are on the Titanic; we know there is an iceberg ahead of us in the darkness, but we refuse to change course. No amount of denying our debt crisis will change the fact that this iceberg exists. We can avert disaster, but we must act quickly to restore fiscal responsibility before it is too late.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are refusing to do one of the most basic jobs that the American people have sent their Representatives to Washington to do: Make a budget. We are in the midst of a spending crisis. Seven months into this fiscal year, and the Federal Government has already spent $800 billion that it doesn't have, and that number is skyrocketing. House Democrats are ready to add another $134 billion to the deficit this week. So how do we fix this problem? How do we stop taxing and borrowing and spending without restraint? One of the most obvious ways is by having a budget. That's our job, to pass a budget that makes hard choices and sets priorities and brings government spending under control. But the Democrat majority in this House is afraid to let the American people see more of its deficit spending. They don't want to put a budget on paper because then they'll have to debate it, and they'll have to explain to the American people why they want to keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time and for handling this rule on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things to refute from our friends on the other side that there is simply not enough time to do it. But what we need to say over and over and over again, that instead of addressing the staggering deficits and debt that the Democrats, who were totally in control of the Congress--and that needs to be repeated over and over and over again--what they are running up in Washington, $714 billion in deficit spending in the first half of fiscal year 2010 alone. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are trying to shield their Members from taking any more ``tough votes'' during an election year. Or, as one Washington newspaper put it, without much else on the House agenda, they simply don't have any excuses not to do a budget beyond cowardice. Economists say that Washington needs to cut spending now to create jobs, but Democrats aren't listening. Out of touch Washington Democrats may think that by skipping the budget process this year, they can avoid the tough choices that come from governing. But they can't hide from our Nation's problems, especially when their job-killing agenda is making things worse. They could come to the floor and will say they are creating jobs, but the numbers prove otherwise. The simple truth is while the liberals have repeatedly claimed their trillion-dollar 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. According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Labor, by April 2010 a total of 48 out of 50 States had seen net job losses since the President signed the Democrat stimulus plan into law in February 2009. The data show that only Alaska, North Dakota, and the District of Colombia have seen net job creation since then. Other than perhaps the predictable exception in D.C., even those States that have seen some increases in jobs are still well short of the growth the White House originally forecast. What is clear is that 2.7 million more jobs have been eliminated-- eliminated, Mr. Speaker--since the Democrat stimulus was passed. Unemployment rose to 9.9 percent instead of falling to 7.4 percent, as Democrats predicted, and 15 million Americans--an all-time record for the month of April--are currently unemployed. It's baffling that grown people charged with leading Congress cannot learn from their failed attempts at addressing the problems facing everyday Americans. And as my colleague from Texas has said, they like to bash corporations, but what they're bashing are employers. They love to brag about how effective they've been in providing jobs, but I want to tell you, government jobs don't provide the viable solution to help get the economy back on its feet. According to a May 25, 2010 article in USA Today, ``Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year. At the same time, government-provided benefits--Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs--rose to a record high during the first 3 months of 2010. ``Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the Federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.'' The American people know we don't need more government programs and more government spending. We need to spur on the private economy; and this rule, this bill will not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding again. I had to come back after I heard our colleague just speaking because I think that it is time that we create a new dictionary that explains the language being used in Washington. As my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier, our colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, constantly bash corporations, but we prefer to call them ``employers.'' Our colleagues across the aisle talk about revenue all the time, but revenue in Washington means taxes on American workers. Yet the word, the phrase, that really got my attention this morning was the comment that my colleague said: We pay for these. Ladies and gentlemen, the Congress has no money other than what it confiscates from the American taxpayers. I am really getting tired of our colleagues across the aisle pretending that we in Congress somehow or another use largess that comes like manna from Heaven to do things for the American people. They're doing their best to get the American people to think of dependency on the Federal Government. That is the wrong way to go. They aren't paying for anything. You, the American people, are paying for every one of their ridiculous, wasteful products. It is time we stop it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, As co-chair of the Turkish Study Group in the House, I was invited to a celebration of the birthday of Ataturk, revered as the father of modern Turkey. At the event 16 year old Selin Odabas-Geldiay was asked to speak about the occasion. This very poised young woman gave extremely articulate and pertinent remarks which I felt were worthy of being shared with a much larger audience and am including them here.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is no coincidence that the greatest country in the history of civilization also happens to have the world's finest military. The strength and caliber of our military results from a variety of factors, not the least of which is the way in which our government provides for the veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much. Indeed, my love and passion for supporting America's veterans is second-to-none. Wednesday, May 19, the House passed H.R. 2546, the Blue Star/Gold Star Flag Act of 2009 by voice vote. This legislation would impose a federal prohibition against a homeowners' association policy preventing residents from displaying a Service flag on or around their homes. This proposal is a response to an incident in which a homeowners' association prevented an Ohio woman from displaying a Service flag honoring her son who served in Operation Desert Storm and again in 2003 in Iraq. Although the homeowners' association ultimately made an exception in this circumstance, such policies are offensive to many Americans, such as myself, who hold such great affection for our country's cherished service members and veterans. In this respect, I can certainly appreciate the support for legislation such as H.R. 2546. However, I take exception with this matter coming before Congress, since this body has no Constitutional authority to impose such a mandate on the private sector. Indeed, matters such as this are best left to the discretion of local governments or civic associations. Allowing Congress to possess this type of authority could ultimately lead to more controversial proposals. Certainly there would be great objections raised if Congress sought to prohibit homeowners' association policies preventing the display of the Confederate flag or nativity scenes. On the other hand, one must wonder whether Congress could one day prohibit speech of the minority which our Founding Fathers so vehemently sought to protect. Our Constitution established a set of enumerated powers to prevent Congress from seizing illegitimate powers. Despite the best of intentions, the rule of law rightly supersedes congressional desires to respond to the passions of the moment. Doing otherwise would set a precedent, opening the flood gates to future policies considerably more problematic than the one before us today. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a nation composed of states empowered to govern according to the will of the people, with a Federal Government tasked with limited responsibilities and powers. As the 10th amendment states so clearly, ``the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Each time the Federal Government, even with the finest motivations, intrudes into the jurisdiction of the States and the people of America, the Constitution is further undermined and the erosion of liberty continues apace. Good intentions were never meant to stand in for constitutional governance. Congress must rein in its tendency to legislate solutions to even the smallest of ``problems'' that would be better left to local problem-solvers in either local government or private citizen associations. With each passing usurpation of the rights of State and local governments and with each imposition of a federal one-size-fits- all ``solution,'' Congress dilutes the strength of federalism and pushes our nation closer to dependency upon a power-hungry central government.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a record-breaking budget deficit this year, most likely more than $1.5 trillion, and next year, well, we're not sure since our Democrat colleagues haven't passed a budget. Not since modern budget rules were adopted with the 1974 Budget Act has the House failed to pass a budget. American families have made tough choices to balance their budgets, so why not Congress? Republicans think the government should also live within its means, so we have created an online tool called YouCut to involve every American in the budget process. Americans have already cast nearly half a million votes in the YouCut program, voting for their topics to reduce spending and to cut the deficit. We'll have a chance to vote this week on spending cuts approved by the American people. I hope my colleagues will join us in listening to the American people and in getting serious about our record budget deficit.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we learned last week that the Federal Government ran up an $82.7 billion deficit in April. That's the largest April deficit in our Nation's history. The Federal Government is spending Americans' tax dollars at a record clip, so it's no surprise we're facing this mountain of debt. But we can fix this problem. House Republicans have engaged the American people with an innovative online tool called YouCut. It's simple. Each week, we're giving Americans an opportunity to vote on a slate of wasteful, outdated, or duplicative Federal programs to cut from the budget. The top vote-getter will be offered up by Republicans for a vote in the House. So far, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens from across the country have voted on the YouCut Web site and made it clear they're tired of Washington's one-track spending mentality. YouCut is a first step toward changing the culture of always spending and never saving here in Washington. By itself, it won't solve the problem. But it is engaging our constituents in an important, larger discussion about reining in our skyrocketing debt and out-of-control spending.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. After being engaged in the spirited debate surrounding this bill, I am pleased to report that both supporters and opponents of the underlying bill, regardless of partisanship, can support the amendment I am offering. It's my belief that Congress has no business considering this bill at this time. Puerto Ricans have voted on statehood three times without congressional action. Although congressional action is not needed, statehood advocates have defined this bill as necessary to providing a ``congressionally sanctioned'' vote process for Puerto Rico to determine its political status. However, if we are going to do this, we need to pass a bill that ensures fair consideration of all points of view. Although the bill is being touted as one to allow Puerto Ricans the opportunity to exercise political self-determination, as it's currently written it denies commonwealth status quo supporters freedom to vote for their preferred option in the second stage of the plebiscite. In the first stage of the plebiscite, Puerto Ricans are given two choices: the status quo or change. It's easy to see how anyone, even Commonwealth status quo supporters, would support some sort of change in their political processes. However, consensus on this question would move to a second stage, where Puerto Ricans choose only from three options: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in association with the United States. These three options deny supporters of continuing the Commonwealth status quo the freedom to vote for their preferred political status. Whether they support statehood, independence, or the Commonwealth status quo, Puerto Ricans' views should be given equal and fair consideration. My amendment very simply adds a fourth option: ``Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status to the available voting options for the second stage of the plebiscite.'' This amendment takes nothing from the bill, but adds an option to reflect the views held by a significant portion of Puerto Ricans who should not be disenfranchised by this bill. This is an amendment Members of all persuasions can support. Opponents of the bill can remain opposed, but take comfort in knowing the bill was made a little better. Supporters, or even cosponsors, can take comfort in knowing their bill was made even better. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.