Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say that I think the Congress of the United States is being used unfairly in this process. We do not need to be doing this. What the proponents of statehood are doing is rigging the process in favor of a vote for statehood and they're using the Congress of the United States to establish the process for them. We don't need to be passing this bill. The people of Puerto Rico can vote without this bill.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill as it is crafted is not the right way to go for the people of Puerto Rico. I don't have a dog in this fight. I have not taken a position on whether they should have statehood or not have statehood, but I don't like the Congress of the United States being used to create a situation that disenfranchises people. And that's what's happening. We are wasting our time doing this. We don't need to do it. The people of Puerto Rico can vote on this without our doing this. We should be dealing with what is important to the American people--jobs and other issues. This is not necessary for us to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Ms. FOXX. Could I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time I have left.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, my colleague says this bill has been carefully crafted. Yes, it's been carefully crafted to keep the people who want the present status from being a choice. That is wrong. That should not be the way this bill is done. If they want to keep the present status, they should be able to vote for it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire again as to how much time is left on my side.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the bill passed out of committee unanimously, and I am sure it is going to receive strong support on the floor. Yet we know that providing protection for our Nation is one of the few jobs specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only level of government that can provide for the defense of this Nation. However, based on the policies of this administration and the Democrats in charge, who have slashed defense spending even in the midst of ongoing terror threats, only to increase domestic spending and our national debt, you would never know this was true. I am very concerned about the backward spending priorities of this administration and of the Democrats in charge. While the defense budget proposed by the administration is flat, growing only by 1 percent last year, automatic spending grew by $77 billion, or 5 percent. Military spending represents less than one-fifth of the Federal budget and approximately half of the average level of defense spending during the Cold War as a percentage of our economy. Meanwhile, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the President's new health care takeover are on course to consume the entire Federal budget, including defense. According to the Heritage Foundation, under current projections, it is expected that the Federal Government will spend more on interest payments for the national debt than on defense by the year 2015, if not sooner. The Obama administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review and New START agreement will weaken national security, and it will make our Nation less safe. It will cause the U.S. to fall dangerously behind at a time when other countries are seeking to strengthen and to develop their own nuclear weapons. The President seems to believe that the power of New START's example will somehow encourage Iran and North Korea to surrender their ambitions, but there is no evidence to believe this is the case. Since the end of the Cold War, these countries have only increased their attempts to gain nuclear weapons even as the U.S. and Russia have been reducing their supplies. What would do far more good is a loud and clear declaration that the U.S. and Russia will stop Iran from gaining a nuclear military capability by whatever means necessary. The NPR references existing treaties that our enemies disregard and treaties that have yet to be negotiated, which will take years of diplomatic effort to achieve but will do little to make America more secure. The threat to international nonproliferation is a nuclear Iran, not the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons are an inevitable truth in our modern-day world, so, unfortunately, they are essential to our national survival. As long as they exist, we must have the world's most effective nuclear arsenal and possess a missile defense system to protect ourselves against any actor that employs nuclear weapons. This is necessary in order to comply with the Constitution's requirements to provide for our common defense. The NPR signifies that the Obama administration plans to neglect this responsibility. The administration's NPR provides many carrots but few sticks. It commits the U.S. to unilateral disarmament while hoping that this will give incentives to other nations to do the same, which it will not. It leaves the U.S. with no deterrent against rogue nations, such as North Korea and Iran, which continue to develop nuclear arsenals and to assert they will use nuclear weapons if they so much as feel threatened by the U.S. A ``nuclear zero,'' which the Obama administration talks eloquently about, cannot be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally. It will require many countries to make the strategic decision that nuclear weapons are unnecessary for their security. Yet the rest of the world, including our allies, friends and foes, see the continuing value in nuclear weapons. Winston Churchill once warned the U.S. to ``be careful, above all things, not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.'' We are not even close to meeting Churchill's requirement, because we have not yet found an alternative basis for preventing war. Weakening our nuclear arsenal will stop us from being able to follow through on our commitments to our allies. Many of our closest allies see U.S. nuclear weapons as a large component of their security and the reason they remain nonnuclear. Without the U.S. nuclear umbrella, they may fear that they lack security and, thus, will develop their own alternative nuclear deterrent capabilities. As the late British nuclear expert, Sir Michael Quinlan, stated, ``Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war than one with major war but no nuclear weapons.'' Nuclear weapons have served our Nation as a primary deterrent and are the reason we have not had a world war since their inception. Without them, we will lose our ability to deter rogue nations from attacking us or our allies. Thus, we will lose the ability to lead our world towards peace. Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Democrats in charge were outspoken critics of the Bush administration's spending. However, it is clear that these same Democrats either have very short memories or their criticism was all for show because, since being in charge, they have not only failed to improve our current economic situation but have undeniably made it worse. While both Republicans and Democrats need to work to hold the line on spending, it is only appropriate that the Democrats in charge be reminded of their criticisms of deficit spending under a Republican Congress, which their own spending under their Democrat Congress now dwarfs. In 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi stated, ``When Republicans spend the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money from foreign countries. 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.'' Actions speak louder than words. If only Speaker Pelosi still held these beliefs today, maybe our fiscal situation would look quite different. Again in 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi is quoted as saying, ``If something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not make my children and grandchildren have to pay for it or anybody's children or grandchildren have to pay for it. It is immoral for us to heap these deficits on our children.'' How ironic, Mr. Speaker, to have had those words spoken by now Speaker Pelosi. In 2006, then-Minority Whip Hoyer told Republicans, ``You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. You are in charge of the House; you are in charge of the Senate, and you have the Presidency.'' I would tell the majority leader today to heed his own words and to ask himself if his Democrat Congress is doing the right thing by the American people, by our children, and by our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the underlying bill we have before us today is being brought forward under a structured rule, adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority. Today, the Democrats in charge have rejected nine amendments offered by their colleagues, and they have refused to allow these amendments to be debated and for their colleagues' voices to be heard. Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today, presenting the Congress with another structured rule, eliminating the ability of both the Republicans and the Democrats to offer important amendments affecting their constituents. After promising to have the most honest and open Congress in history, why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues on both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow their Representatives to offer their amendments on the floor of the people's House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this structured rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we got some interesting news from the Obama administration's own number crunchers last week. Though it comes as no surprise to those who opposed the government takeover of health care, which became law last month, we learned that this takeover increases national health care spending by $311 billion. Plus, the Federal actuaries reported that 18 million taxpayers will be socked with $33 billion in fines for not purchasing government-approved health care. In direct contradiction to President Obama's promise of, if you like your plan, you can keep it, the report stated that half of the 14.8 million seniors who enjoy Medicare Advantage will be forced to leave the program due to lower benefits. That means about 20,000 in my district alone will likely lose their plans. Too bad we didn't have this detailed report before the government takeover became law, but as the saying goes: Better late than never.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. What's the difference between an ``orderly liquidation fund'' and a taxpayer-funded bailout? There is no difference. Senate Democrats say they need $50 billion to create a new fund so the government can ``wind down'' failing financial firms. House Democrats want $100 billion more. Both bills increase taxes on consumers at a time when they can least afford it. Once the bailout fund is in place, government bureaucrats will decide which Wall Street firms are too big to fail, and then they'll use your hard-earned dollars to pay off the firm's creditors. Sound familiar? It's what they did for companies like AIG with the $700 billion TARP bailout. Now Democrats are pushing ``TARP Two.'' They want to give the government the power of a permanent bailout fund to get back in the game of deciding which of their Wall Street friends to rescue. And their bill does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the two enterprises at the heart of the economic meltdown. Republicans have better solutions. Our measure deals with Fannie and Freddie and places failed firms into bankruptcy. It also provides better and smarter regulatory reform, stops the policy of ``too big to fail,'' and protects taxpayers by ending bailouts once and for all.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am tempted to say, so much to say, so little time. I was going to ask my colleague to yield so she could clarify to me her comment that we are cutting the deficit. You know, this is a classic example of the Democrats saying one thing and doing another. It just happens over and over and over again. The American people, Mr. Speaker, are waking up to this issue. My colleague wants to talk about how, when President Obama came to office, what a sorry state the economy was in. She never, along with her other colleagues, ever acknowledged the fact that Democrats were in charge of the Congress for 2 years before President Obama came into office and put this economy on the skids. It's the Democrats who are in charge of Congress who have the fault laid directly at their feet. Before the Democrats took over the Congress, we had 54 straight months of job growth in this country under President Bush and with a Republican-led Congress. They bash. They talk about unpaid bills. They created the unpaid bills when they came in in January of 2007. They have increased spending in the past 2 years 84 percent. And what has it accomplished? More government jobs. Tout the 162,000 jobs all you want. Those are primarily government jobs, short-term jobs with the Census. My colleagues call things something that they are not. The Recovery Act? That is the bailout that occurred in February last year that was supposed to keep the trillion dollar spending, that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, that was supposed to create 3 trillion jobs? Please. The American people aren't buying it anymore. They know that the Democrats are the ones who are in control, and they know that the Democrats are the ones who are responsible for the disaster that we are seeing in this economy. Unemployment is over 11 percent in my State. Yes, we want the estuaries to be protected. They are vital to many jobs in North Carolina. But spending more money is not the answer. Having the Federal Government live beyond its means is simply not the answer. This year, the Federal budget deficit is projected to be between $1.3 and $1.5 trillion. And, again, my colleague mentioned cutting the deficit, when we hear even from President Obama's own appointees at the CBO and Chairman Bernanke that we cannot maintain our status as the greatest country in the world with this horrible debt and deficit that the Democrats are placing on our backs, on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. And I love the way my colleagues talk about this prescription drug program that was passed under a Republican President and the Republican Congress that was not ``paid for.'' They hate it. And yet what they are going to do in their health care bill, they are going to close the doughnut hole. Sure, they are going to add to the spending on the prescription drug plan, the one that they hate so much. They hate it on the floor here when they want to use it as an excuse, but then they love it when they want to put more money into it. Come on, folks, let's have a little consistency here in the approach that you take. Most of your consistency does involve putting the government in control of our lives and spending, spending, spending. The American people know that in these tough times they should save, not spend money. And last but not least, let me say my colleagues always say this is not spending, this is only authorizing. And then when it comes to the appropriations, they will say, well, we have to appropriate because this was already authorized. This is another gimmick that they put in place simply to spend more money. And, again, the American people are waking up. They understand it, and they don't like it anymore. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I understand the need, again, to protect water and to protect estuaries. We all understand that. I grew up carrying water to my home, so I understand the value of water about as much as anybody here. But while we're increasing spending to protect estuaries, my constituents can't afford the bait and tackle to go fishing because they are out of work, they have lost their jobs, and there's no prospect for them to get jobs. I can't be responsible for ill-informed Republicans who have said things that my colleagues have quoted. And I want to say I don't vote against tax cuts, but every bill that they have put in that has had tax cuts have had tax increases in them. Republicans are voting against tax increases. What we have to be aware of here is that we should be dealing with the real problems that the American people are facing, and they have to do with the economy. In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first time in history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion and the first time the deficit exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World War II. The consequences of this reckless spending are worth highlighting. But today the cost of the national debt is $41,398 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. According to the March, 2010, monthly Treasure report, the Federal Government is projected to spend $425.127 billion paying interest alone on the national debt. We should be dealing with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand here very troubled with the legislation the Democrats in charge have chosen to bring forward today. While the goal of having good water quality in our Nation's estuaries indeed has its merits, I'm distraught that we are not debating something today which will address the dire challenges that are keeping my constituents up every night wondering how they will continue to feed their children and find work. I'm concerned that this legislation does not reflect the economic challenges confronting our Nation. Our national debt stands at $12.8 trillion and is growing every day; yet this bill increases funding levels for the National Estuary Program under the EPA to $50 million per year, a 43 percent increase. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and this action suggests the Democrats in charge, at best, are in denial or, at worst, are simply indifferent to the economic situation our country is facing. At a time of record budget deficits, it's crucial that we hold the line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal restraint, but we have yet to see these words put into action. This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing them, but the Democrats refuse to allow such restraints and instead continue to appear to be oblivious of the fact that our Federal deficit is growing each day. This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule, adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the Democrats have arbitrarily used since they've been in the majority. Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today presenting the Congress with another structured rule, eliminating both Republicans' and Democrats' ability to offer important amendments affecting their constituents. After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history, why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues from both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their members from tough votes? Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow their Representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's House. Finally, Mr. Speaker, according to ExpectMore.gov, a watchdog for Federal Government program performance, the National Estuary Program is only performing adequately. This performance rating indicates that the program needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability, and/or strengthen its management practices. As usual, the Democrats in charge have decided that the best way to fix a problem is simply to throw more money at it--money which we do not have, money which we have to borrow--and hope the program performs more effectively. This is a wrongheaded, fiscally irresponsible policy, and I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and vote ``no.'' And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this bill is a bill that's important because it creates jobs. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, along with the President, have done such a poor job of creating jobs in the past with all the spending that they have done, and yet everything that comes up is a jobs bill. I now want to quote from a March 3 Washington Times editorial: ``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.'' Mr. Speaker, when I was home in North Carolina the past 2 weeks for our Easter break, numerous constituents shared with me their concerns that the Federal Government is borrowing and spending too much. The American people know that in these tough economic times they should save, not spend money. But the Federal Government doesn't reflect the common sense that I see throughout the Fifth District of North Carolina. Instead, the Democrats in charge continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our Federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren. My colleagues can no long blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration, although they continue to try. The Democrats in charge have shown they don't care about the deficit by continuing to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless spending. All of this borrowed money is being spent by the ruling Democrats, while the unemployment rate continues to rise and the deficit continues to grow. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so in love with their power that they believe that they can overrule the laws of economics. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, in January of 2007, they have raised the debt limit five times and the national debt has increased by 42.4 percent, or $3.68 trillion. Democrats enacted a debt increase in February 2009, promising that borrowing another trillion dollars would create jobs immediately and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. However, there were still 85,000 job losses this past January, and unemployment has consistently been hovering around 10 percent in the country and much higher than that in many of our States. I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit. According to the analysis by The Heritage Foundation, the White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits over the next decade. This is nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing. It's beyond time to stop digging. The new budget estimates, including an estimated total national debt of $24.5 trillion in 2019 under President Obama's budget, are alarming and unsustainable. The result would be the highest level of spending and debt in American history. We hear now also that our colleagues across the aisle don't even want to present a new budget. And why don't they want to present a new budget? Because they would have to reveal again these really distressing numbers to the American people and have to respond to them. This is an irresponsible lack of fiscal restraint carried on the backs of our children and grandchildren. My constituents at home and Americans across the Nation are not operating their family budgets as recklessly as this Congress is spending taxpayer dollars. We have to point out all the time, this is not government money. This is money earned by hard-working taxpayers, more and more of whom are losing their jobs every day and losing the opportunity to work and pay their taxes, not money that's created by the government, except, of course, when they print it, which is going to result in inflation. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Maine failed to mention her own State and what it is doing, and I find it very interesting. I have an article from June 24, 2009, from The Wall Street Journal, entitled ``Maine Miracle.'' I will just quote a couple of things from the article. ``At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to promote growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would have thought it would be Maine? ``This month, the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax.'' This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many other States in the Northeast have been increasing rates. At the end, it says, ``One question is how Democrats in Augusta were able to withstand the cries by interest groups of `tax cuts for the rich?' Mr. Baldacci's snappy reply: `Without employers, you don't have employees.' He adds: `The best social services program is a job.' Wise and timely advice for both Democrats and Republicans as the recession rolls on and budgets get squeezed.'' My colleague leaves out so cleverly the fact that her own State has gone against the grain of the Federal Government. I want to say that I am quite, quite interested in hearing her list all of these supposed tax cuts that are being made, but she never mentions the tax increases that are going into effect which offset these tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, there is an arrogance across the aisle that is almost palpable. It is that the Federal Government should be picking winners and losers in this country. What I was struck by was the very targeted tax cuts that my colleague has been bragging about. As my colleague from Indiana said, what we should be having in this country is an across-the-board tax cut. That's what Republicans believe in. We believe the money that hardworking Americans earn is their money, not the government's money. It is not our right to decide how they spend their money. As to what Republicans did, yes, we cut taxes for wealthy individuals, but we cut taxes for everyone. What the Democrats do over and over and over again--and again, it comes from an arrogance, a hubris, which says we are smarter than the American people, which says we know how to spend your money better than you know how to spend your money. Therefore, we are going to tell you where you can get tax cuts. If these tax cuts by George Bush were so horrible, why is it that President Obama is going to continue some of those? He is going to let some expire, but he is going to continue some. So my colleagues across the aisle obviously are bashing their own President when they say these were horrible, horrible tax cuts that were put into effect by the Bush administration. The motto of the State of North Carolina is to be rather than to seem, and that hits me so often when we are on the floor, when I'm listening to my colleagues across the aisle, because they are always trying to seem rather than to be. They are trying to say to the American people, Look at the wonderful things we're doing for you. The American people have had about all they can stand of the good things that the Democrats are trying to do for them, and I think today is a great example of that. It is ironic that this is Tax Day. There are probably going to be a million or so people out on The Mall this afternoon near the Washington Monument. These are folks who have said, I've had it up to here with the Federal Government. These people are involved with the tea party movement. I welcome them to Washington, and I welcome the fact that they are everywhere today, all over the country, having these meetings where they're saying, It's time for us to take back our country. It's time for us to tell the Federal Government, We've just about had enough of you in terms of your taking away our money and deciding where to spend it. I think it's a wonderful movement and that we should encourage it at every opportunity, because this is what this country is about. The first three words of the Constitution are written larger than the rest of the words, and they are ``We the People.'' We need to be honoring those people who are coming here and who are demonstrating all over the country that they've had it with the Democratic Party, that they've had it with government spending, that they've had it with debt. I want to encourage them to do more and more and more and to send the message to our colleagues that they don't care for the way they're being treated by the Democrats in charge of this government right now. They've had enough of it, and they want us to cut spending and to cut taxes across the board, not to decide who are the winners and the losers. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009] Maine Miracle At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to promote growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would have thought it would be Maine? This month the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax. The new law junks the state's graduated income tax structure with a top rate of 8.5% and replaces it with a simple 6.5% flat rate tax on almost everyone. Those with earnings above $250,000 will pay a surtax rate of 0.35%, for a 6.85% rate. Maine's tax rate will fall to 20th from seventh highest among the states. To offset the lower rates and a larger family deduction, the plan cuts the state budget by some $300 million to $5.8 billion, closes tax loopholes and expands the 5% state sales tax to services that have been exempt, such as ski lift tickets. This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many other states in the Northeast and East--Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York--have been increasing rates. ``We're definitely going against the grain here,'' Mr. Baldacci tells us. ``We hope these lower tax rates will encourage and reward work, and that the lower capital gains tax [of 6.85%] brings more investment into the state.'' These changes alone are hardly going to earn the Pine Tree State the reputation of ``pro-business.'' Neighboring New Hampshire still has no income or sales tax. And last year Maine was ranked as having the third worst business climate for states by the Small Business Survival Committee. Still, no state has improved its economic attractiveness more than Maine has this year. One question is how Democrats in Augusta were able to withstand the cries by interest groups of ``tax cuts for the rich?'' Mr. Baldacci's snappy reply: ``Without employers, you don't have employees.'' He adds: ``The best social services program is a job.'' Wise and timely advice for both Democrats and Republicans as the recession rolls on and budgets get squeezed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I constantly find it amazing how our colleagues want to rewrite history and how they assume that nobody is going to check up on what they are saying. That's not happening these days. I want to remind my colleagues that, when the Democrats took over the Congress in January 2007, President Bush was still in office. The deficit was less than $400 billion. Since President Obama's inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of $122.6 billion. By comparison from the year 2000 to 2008, the average annual deficit was $196 billion. Again, they can try to rewrite history, but the numbers are out there. I also want to point out that my colleague was talking about the child tax credit. I was really confused about that, so I double- checked. The child tax credit is going to drop from $1,000 to $500 in January 2011 as a result of the Bush tax cuts being changed by our Democrat friends. It seems they don't have quite the concern for children and married couples that Republicans have. In an article today in Congress Daily, entitled ``Credit Check'' by Peter Cohn, I read, ``In a quirk of the law's drafting--'' this is about the tax credit for first-time home buyers ``--each spouse must meet the same test. A married couple would have had to have lived in the same home for 5 years to get the long-time resident credit or each would have to be a first-time buyer to get the higher credit.'' There is a real antipathy towards married couples in the policies that our Democratic colleagues continue to pass. Again, they are always picking winners and losers instead of allowing the American people to do with their money what they would like to do. My colleagues talk about these rich people all the time. It appears that they simply never want to see another rich person in this country. They have such antipathy for the rich. What Republicans want is for every American to be able to be rich. Why is that not a wonderful goal to have? [From CongressDaily, Apr. 15, 2010] Credit Check (By Peter Cohn) Democrats this week have been touting the middle-class tax cuts they've doled out, such as a new credit for home purchases, as Americans face today's filing deadline. But they haven't mentioned an unhappy little accident of the November law that extended and expanded the credit In many cases newlyweds are out of luck, even if they would have qualified before they were married. (Full disclosure: This column's author recently discovered this ``marriage penalty'' applied to him and his wife.) The November law extended an $8,000 tax credit for first- time buyers--defined as someone who had not owned a home in the last three years--through April 30, provided the settlement occurs before June 30. The law also created a $6,500 credit for buyers who had owned their previous home for five of the past eight years. In a quirk of the law's drafting, each spouse must meet the same test. A married couple would have to have lived in the same home for five years to get the long-time resident credit, or each would have to be a first-time buyer to get the higher credit. That freezes out married couples who would have met the different requirements individually (as in the author's case), but now don't get a penny. The same goes for newlyweds who had previously been longtime owners of separate homes. Now take unmarried couples purchasing a home: say one is a first-time buyer and the other a long-time homeowner, according to the IRS, they get to split the more generous credit of $8,000. Despite protests, the Treasury Department and IRS had to interpret the law based on its wording, a Treasury spokeswoman said. Even as they trumpeted the credits' benefit this week, lawmakers have no plans to extend them. They are expensive-- $12.6 billion worth had been approved for 1.8 million taxpayers as of Feb. 20, according to Treasury. And fatigue has set in after relentless lobbying by groups like the National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders, who have promised to hold their powder this time. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., a lead sponsor of the credit, said he pledged ``to not come back to the well, and I'm not going to.'' He said he hadn't heard of the marriage penalty, however, and few lawmakers have been stirred to action as the credit eligibility period winds down. Tonya Rutherford, a nurse in Milwaukee, brought the issue to the attention of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis. Rutherford had owned her home for 11 years, thus on her own would have qualified for the $6,500 credit. But since she recently got married to a man who had not lived with her for at least five years, the couple is ineligible. Moore has introduced legislation to change the law so that only one spouse has to qualify. She has three co-sponsors: Reps. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Joe Sestak, D-Pa., who is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter, D- Pa., for his party's nomination this fall. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., introduced separate legislation to allow a couple to claim the reduced credit if both would have qualified before they were married, or if one spouse would have qualified for the first-time buyer credit and the other would ordinarily get the longtime resident credit. Engel also has three co-sponsors: Reps. John Hall, D-N.Y., Steve Kagen, D-Wis., and Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, who signed on Tuesday. ``I do not believe Congress wanted to exclude couples based on technicalities: Engel said. ``By fixing this so-called `marriage penalty,' Congress will provide a further boost to the recovering real estate economy and reflect the importance of marriage as a cornerstone to our society.'' Joseph Rand, managing partner of Better Homes & Gardens Rand Realty in New York's Hudson Valley, brought the problem up with Engel after coming across it when putting together an eligibility calculator for clients in December. Rand began blogging on the subject and set up a Web site where homebuyers could share stories about being locked out of the credit because of marital status. ``This is the kind of thing that should pass 400-5. People should be lining up in front of microphones to stand up for marriage,'' Rand said. ``But I've been mostly shouting in the dark about it.'' Engel's bill has been endorsed by a small Realtors' group that only represents buyers, the National Association of Exclusive Buyers Agents. But the larger and more powerful Realtors' lobby has stayed away from the issue. A spokesman could not be reached for comment by presstime. The homebuilders' lobby noticed the problem early on, said NAHB economist Robert Dietz, raising the issue with Treasury. They argued for a more liberal reading of the law allowing married couples to benefit. ``Unfortunately, we lost in making that argument,'' Dietz said. ``I can tell you that I've fielded a number of angry e-mails and phone calls about this,'' he said. Rand said he thought part of the reason there has been so little attention is because Congress has been swamped with other issues and because many taxpayers have waited until the last minute to file their returns and are only now discovering the problem. ``You're going to see so many angry people popping up this week'' he said. (Full disclosure: The author was planning on a new home purchase anyway, but that tax credit wouldn't have hurt. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and dedication of a young woman I recently met back home in North Carolina. Tara Schiphof was crowned the 2009/2010 Junior Miss North Carolina last summer at the age of 11. When I met Tara over the Easter break, I was impressed by her poise, intelligence, and talent. Tara's a sixth-grader at Chestnut Grove Middle School in Stokes County and a student at the University of the North Carolina School of the Arts in the preparatory dance program. What impressed me most about Tara was that in the midst of her busy life of dancing festivals, volunteering and giving back to her community, she remains dedicated to her studies and being a strong positive role model to her classmates. So not only is Tara an award-winning competitive dancer; this sixth- grade girl is a real North Carolina role model. She's very committed to her studies and is an honor student at Chestnut Grove. She's also raised money and volunteered for many organizations, including the Masonic Home for Children in Oxford, North Carolina, the Stokes County Arts Council, and the American Heart Association. I'm proud to represent a fine citizen like Tara. Tara's family and friends should be proud of her hard work and accomplishments. I salute her today for working so hard at making her life about serving others and working in her community.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time. I want to say that it has been said over and over again that Republicans want to block health care reform. We don't want to block health care reform. We want commonsense health care reform--not an overhaul of the system that is a government takeover of health insurance and health care in our country. One of the things that people tell me they dislike the most about the way the Congress operates is when the Democrats put together two bills that are totally unrelated because one of those bills cannot get passed on its own. That is what happened in the reconciliation bill, a bill totally unrelated to health care where the government is going to take over the student loan program in this country making the Federal Government the fifth largest bank. That is reprehensible to the people of this country. We shouldn't have done that. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to separate those two. The bill on student loans should have stood on its own but it can't and so it got attached to this bill. These are minor technical amendments, but we were denied major amendments. One hundred nine amendments were offered in the Rules Committee on Saturday. We had 13 hours of debate. Some of our amendments were excellent amendments and should have been accepted. We want reform. Republicans want to change many things. We want to take care of preexisting conditions; we want to lower the cost. The problem with this bill is it doesn't lower costs; it makes them larger.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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