Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to praise the citizens of Alleghany County for recently winning a number of awards from the North Carolina Historical Society for the promotion and production of the celebration of Alleghany's Sesquicentennial. The Alleghany Historical Genealogical Society and a local business, Imaging Specialists, took home awards for a number of multimedia productions that were used to promote Alleghany's 150th anniversary. Imaging Specialists also took home the coveted President's Award for the leading role the business took in designing and producing historical projects over the past year. Local residents Ernest Joines, Janice Alexander, Avin Joines and Jane Furlow each received honors from the state historical society for work ranging from a compilation of local music to a quilt design depicting area scenery. All told the state Historical Society handed out a dozen different awards to these groups and individuals for the excellence demonstrated in the promotion of Alleghany County's Sesquicentennial events earlier this year. These much-deserved awards were the product of long hours of hard work. I applaud each winner for their dedication to their community and for their vision to produce such a fine celebration of Alleghany County's history.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it came to my attention this week that North Carolina Granite Corporation, a small business in Mt. Airy, North Carolina, was recently informed that it lost a bid to supply cut granite for the National September 11 Memorial in New York City. Unfortunately, news outlets reported that this business, which employs 135 people in the Fifth Congressional District, lost the contract to bidders in Italy and Africa. Mr. Speaker, this is very disturbing. I hope that the decision-makers at the memorial will reconsider their decision to ship this important work overseas. The people of North Carolina Granite are highly talented workers with experience on projects such as the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. who are eager to help complete the National September 11 Memorial. In the midst of an economic downturn, it makes more sense than ever to use American craftsmen to help build a memorial in honor of those who sacrificed so much on that day 8 years ago.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, earlier this week the EPA declared that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health. As a result government bureaucrats will now have the power to create burdensome new regulations on businesses in almost every sector of our economy. This is an important distinction. Bureaucrats, not elected officials, will be in control of one of the most significant shifts in economic policy in recent memory. This so-called ``endangerment finding'' is a dramatic step in the wrong direction. If the EPA regulates the emission of carbon dioxide-- the same gas emitted by every person in American with each breath--the end result will be job losses and harm to our economy. But as if this development were not enough to raise serious concerns, yesterday media reports quoted an Obama administration official saying that if Congress doesn't pass a cap and tax law ``the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.'' It is unclear whether this is meant as a threat to Congress to ram through the economically harmful cap and tax legislation--which is essentially a national energy tax--or if it is a prediction of the EPA's upcoming heavy-handed interference in almost every aspect of our economy. Here's a news flash for the Obama administration: this is America. We are not a command and control economy and the American people will not stand for control by bureaucrats. Regardless, the bottom line is crystal clear: the EPA's endangerment finding on carbon dioxide endangers the jobs of hard-working Americans and endangers a strong economic recovery.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in January, President Obama and congressional Democrats promised spending another trillion dollars would create jobs immediately and that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. Almost 1 year later, millions of Americans are still plagued by unemployment and many are struggling to make ends meet. In October, 190,000 jobs were lost and more than 2.8 million jobs have been lost since the so-called stimulus was signed by President Obama. The American people continue to ask, Where are the jobs? I can safely say the answer lies in the House Republican economic recovery plan. Our plan provides targeted tax relief for working families and small businesses. Just as American families must improve their economic situations through fiscal discipline, so, too, must this Congress. House Republicans are passionately committed to creating jobs and getting the American people back to work.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this rule and the bill exemplify the arrogance of the majority party. Once again, they show their bias to government control of our lives as opposed to support of the American family. They also show their arrogance in bringing a closed rule because they indicate that this is a perfect bill. It hasn't been through committee. They allow no amendments, so they must consider it a perfect bill. We know there is at least one flaw, as my colleague from Georgia just indicated, and that is the problem with indexing. Just as we have had to fix the AMT every year, we will have to do that with this or else more and more people will be caught with this bill as it is proposed. They continue to assault those who create jobs on the very day that the President is having a conference on jobs. They want to seem to be doing something positive while really doing great damage to our economy and hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an article from The Wall Street Journal of 31 March 2009 and place it in the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2009] Night of the Living Death Tax Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, declared recently that ``Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year.'' Oh yes, yes, there are. The President's budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010. The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: ``The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.'' This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). Better not plan on dying next year after all. This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax cut in 2001 that phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% this year and then to zero next year. Although that 10-year tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that the death tax rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political expectation was that once the estate tax was gone for even one year, it would never return. And that is no doubt why the Obama Administration wants to make sure it never hits zero. It doesn't seem to matter that the vast majority of the money in an estate was already taxed when the money was earned. Liberals counter that the estate tax is ``fair'' because it is only paid by the richest 2% of American families. This ignores that much of the long-term saving and small business investment in America is motivated by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation. The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was first measured in a National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1980. That study looked at wealth and savings over the first three-quarters of the 20th century and found that ``intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation.'' The co-author of that study was ... Lawrence Summers. Many economists had previously believed in ``the life-cycle theory'' of savings, which postulates that workers are motivated to save with a goal of spending it down to zero in retirement. Mr. Summers and coauthor Laurence Kotlikoff showed that patterns of savings don't validate that model; they found that between 41% and 66% of capital stock was transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. A major motivation for saving and building businesses is to pass assets on so children and grandchildren have a better life. What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs. In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of fairness, Mr. Obama won't merely bring back from the dead one of the most despised of all federal taxes, and not merely splinter many family-owned enterprises. He will also forfeit half the jobs he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. Maybe that's why the news of this unwise tax increase was hidden in a footnote. Mr. Speaker, ``Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, declared recently that `Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year.' Oh, yes, yes, there are. The President's budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010. ``The announcement of this tax increase was buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: `The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.' This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 45 percent, with an exemption level of $3.5 million . . . Better not plan on dying next year after all.'' I know we are not discussing the President's budget here today with that bill, but I think this shows that they are trying every way possible to reinstitute what is probably the most hated tax in the United States. The American people understand this is not a fair tax, whether they are hit by it or not. I want to read another piece from The Wall Street Journal article. ``The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was first measured in a National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1980. That study looked at wealth and savings over the first three-quarters of the 20th century and found that `intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation.' The co-author of that study was . . . Lawrence Summers.'' Mr. Summers understood this when he was first at Harvard.

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the additional time. Mr. Speaker, this is not good for the American people at a time when we need to be creating jobs not destroying jobs. Again, the President wanted to create jobs with the stimulus. He has created no jobs with it. This is going to destroy even more jobs. This is the wrong direction to be going.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the generosity and community work of my friend, Jerry Long. Today, Jerry is being honored for his generous philanthropy back in North Carolina as the West Forsyth Family YMCA officially changes its name to the Jerry Long Family YMCA. This honor comes to Jerry thanks to his tireless work as a community leader. He is someone who understands that making a positive difference in your community and helping your neighbors can start with the hard work and dedication of just one person. His example of serving his community is inspiring, and this renaming is a much deserved honor. Congratulations to Jerry and his family, and thank you for your many years of giving back to Forsyth County and the communities there.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, from almost the very first day when I came here, I heard my colleague from Oregon blaming George Bush for everything insufficient in this country. That started in 2005 and he is still doing that, just like many of our colleagues here. But the Democrats in charge can't hide from the fact that they now control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and what are they doing to solve the problems? Very little. I want to say that the sponsor of the bill actually brought up this issue that our friends across the aisle are trying to say now is our issue, but unfortunately the sponsor of the bill has been helped to change his mind on the issue by the Democrats in charge because it suits their purposes more. And actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country, just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the sixties without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle. They love to engage in revisionist history. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill could have been brought to the floor under an open rule, and we could have been debating amendments. But it's been brought in a closed rule. Actually, this bill is probably going to pass, the rule and the bill will pass overwhelmingly; and the real reason that we're doing this today is to kill time again. We've been voting on a lot of things we haven't really needed to vote on with a recorded vote because the majority wants to, again, kill time in order to be dealing with problems where their majority is not going to hold very well. What we are going to be voting on a little later today, we think, is a bill which our colleagues across the aisle call the ``doc fix'' but we call the ``doc trick.'' It's really a Trojan horse. Supposedly it is going to take care of the reimbursements for physicians in our country that are scheduled to be cut next year by 20 percent. But this ``doc trick,'' as I said, is really a Trojan horse because it is not deficit neutral, and it is a bill that is going to increase spending by at least $209 billion plus another $70 billion that's hidden in administrative actions by the Department of Health and Human Services. So it's going to really cost $279 billion. When you take the ``doc trick'' in combination with the health care bill, the combination increases the deficit by $100 billion. This is unconscionable in a time when we have the largest deficit ever in the history of this country, which is the biggest concern of the people in this country. They are not as concerned about health care as they are about jobs and about the horrible debt that we are incurring not only for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren. Republicans have made a commitment that if we take back the majority next year, we will fix this reimbursement for physicians permanently. But that's not what's going to happen with the ``doc trick'' shell game that is being brought to us. And what they're going to do is say that it's going to be compliant with PAYGO. You know, every time I hear the term ``PAYGO,'' we know, and the American people are beginning to notice, that it is a big joke. It's been talked about as a joke by almost every editorial in the country. The Washington Post has called it a shell game, budgetary smoke and mirrors. It's going to add billions to the deficit even though President Obama promised, ``If you're a taxpayer concerned about deficits, I want to reassure you that I am too. That's why I have pledged I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it.'' This was said by President Obama in Shaker Heights, Ohio, on the 23rd of July. We also know that the Senate has already rejected a bill almost exactly the same as the one that's going to be voted on today. Thirteen Democrat Senators opposed it. Senator Kent Conrad said, ``I don't agree with just adding that amount to the debt.'' He happens to be a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat in Indiana, said he couldn't support it at a time when we are hemorrhaging red ink. Senator Joe Lieberman, independent, but caucusing with the Democrats said, ``Out of nowhere we're asked to provide $250 billion to cover services without any payment for it, increasing the debt by that amount.'' He added that if lawmakers pass health care reform that includes a public option, the debt crisis will only worsen. This is the wrong direction to be going in this country, Mr. Speaker, because we're adding debt; and, as I say again, the bill that's going to be presented today is a Trojan horse. It is not going to help our physicians dealing with reimbursements. It is a trick to say that it is being taken care of. It was taken out of the major health care bill. Those are the kinds of things that we should be dealing with on this floor. We should have open rules, and they should not be doing their best to fool the American people on what is really happening with our debt and with costs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you said I had 3 minutes. There's so much to say in so little time. I do want to point out--and it's in the Record, it's easy for people to check out--that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee in the 1960s defeated bringing up civil rights legislation until the Speaker of the House increased the membership on the Rules Committee, so that the increased Democrats could vote with the Republicans to bring the civil rights legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule. The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within three legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that, regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue; 85 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters, favor posting legislation online prior to it being voted on. Mr. Speaker, we're elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what's right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it? I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out to the gentleman from California that Senator Helms was not elected to the United States Senate until 1972 and was not in the Congress when the civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes as it's written right now, 420 acres of timberland will be lost and along with it local jobs and funding for local schools. As Mr. Bishop has suggested with an amendment he offered in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, a better name for this bill would be the ``School Children and Jobs Left Behind Act.'' Even worse, Oregon's unemployment level in September 2009, the latest on record, was 11.5 percent, up almost double from 6.8 percent in the same month last year. Most of Oregon's economic output depends on the State's timber industry. Valuable revenue needed to fund schools has been lost as well. According to the Pew Center on the States, Oregon has lost 19 percent of its revenue in the last year and faces a budget gap of 14.5 percent in fiscal year 2010. According to the U.S. General Services Administration, the Federal Government already owns 53 percent of the State of Oregon, 53 percent. Apparently that's not enough to satisfy special interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden. This bill will lock up 420 more acres that could be used to produce much-needed revenue for the State while at the same time refusing to open up an equal amount of Federal land to offset more job losses during a recession. As Ranking Member Hastings described to the Rules Committee, it's longstanding tradition that the Natural Resources Committee be respectful of the views of those elected to represent a district and show deference when a Member opposes an action that's proposed in the district that Member was elected to represent. In his testimony to the subcommittee, Mr. Schrader specifically asked that as this bill moves forward, work be done to ensure that there will be no net loss of acres available for timber management as a result of this legislation. However, Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Bishop to ensure the lost timberlands were offset and the health of the local economy be maintained. Mr. Bishop again offered an amendment to provide an offset for lost timberlands, but it was rejected by the Democrats on the Rules Committee. In fact, the rule we have before us today is a closed rule, as I said earlier. No amendments were allowed by Democrats in charge of the Rules Committee. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has again cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having appropriate input in the legislative process. By choosing to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they have been elected to do: offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. They are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to this legislation, and this is an injustice to their colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Our colleagues across the aisle are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and which constituents can be adequately represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being cut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government. Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process? Mr. Speaker, it's troubling to me we're debating this legislation today when my constituents and all Americans are confronted with dire economic hardships that remain unaddressed. Families all over the country are struggling to find jobs to provide for their children and keep food on their tables. Yet while Rome burns, this Congress is wasting the day talking about whether or not a river should be designated as ``wild and scenic'' and trying to pass a policy that will do even more harm to the economy. We cannot afford to lose more jobs. The U.S. national debt is currently $12 trillion. With over 300 billion people in the United States today, each citizen's share of this debt right now is $38,800. The national debt has continued to increase at an average of $3.88 billion per day since September 28, 2007. We can no longer blame the deficit and the economic difficulties today on the previous administration. As I said earlier, the Congress and the administration are now controlled by Democrats. They continue to borrow money, and it's being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration; and as a result, the unemployment rate continues to rise and the deficit continues to rise. Since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt has increased by $3.282 trillion. Since President Obama was inaugurated just 10 months ago in January, the national debt has increased by $1.325 trillion. Almost 1 year after President Obama was elected and 3 years since the Democrats took majorities in Congress, the Department of Treasury has reported that under the Democrats' control, 2009 was the worst fiscal year in this Nation's history. The results get more disastrous with each passing day. I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit, and we're going to be facing that again very shortly. According to analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the White House projects $10.6 trillion dollars in new deficits over the next decade. That 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 will be the highest level of spending and debt in American history. Mr. Speaker, we need to be dealing with this. We need to be putting people back to work. We don't need to be increasing the debt with every passing day by passing bills that will do that and playing a shell game with the American people. One of the best things that's happened this year is that the American people are paying much closer attention to what is going on in the Congress. They've learned they can read the bills if the bills are ever put out for them to read. They spoke in New Jersey, they spoke in Virginia in the election earlier this year, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to start paying attention, as we have been paying attention all year long. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Not the one in Massachusetts, the Taunton River, and not this one.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding. We have voted for all of the wild and scenic bills that have met the proper definition of wild and scenic rivers.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, Republicans are getting very tired of being accused of not being sensitive to our environment. We are very sensitive to the environment. We want to protect water everywhere. We have been very, very vocal on that issue, especially this session, especially as it has related to the West, and my colleague on the Rules Committee knows that. However, we are also concerned about jobs for the American people. We know that the unemployment rate has recently reached a record high of 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment rate our country has in 26 years, and aptly described in a Wall Street Journal editorial this week, ``It is no wonder Americans seem to have only three things on their mind right now: jobs, jobs, and jobs.'' If nothing else, the Federal Government should do no harm to the job market--that is common sense--but that is exactly what the Democrats in charge are doing with this legislation today. They are going to be harming American families by increasing unemployment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is going to deal with some of the issues that our colleague from Oregon has raised on this issue.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time. I am opposed to the rule and the underlying bill for reasons that I will make clear and that my colleagues will make clear. At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for 5 minutes.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. If I remember right, the promise was if that passes, unemployment will not go above 8 percent; is that correct?

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. I have quoted Morgenthau many, many times saying we've spent, we've spent, we've spent, and we can't do anything about the unemployment rate. And I think we need to keep repeating that quote. And I know you have it, and it's a little more eloquent than what I have summarized here. But I wanted to go back for a moment when you started out talking about our colleagues who were here earlier on the floor talking small businesses and about small government. You know, we hear that talk from our colleagues across the aisle all the time; and it reminds me of the North Carolina motto, which I've occasionally used on the floor when I have heard those kinds of speeches being made. The North Carolina motto is ``To be, rather than to seem.'' Unfortunately, our colleagues talk a good line, but when it comes down to doing what needs to be done, they want to seem rather than to be. So they try to tell their folks at home--they act like they're conservatives. They act like they're going to be good people with the purse, that they're protecting people. Then they come up here and they vote to spend money. Day after day after day we see all of these bills coming up authorizing expenditures, spending money. And as you said, we have the largest deficit right now that we have had, than we had with our first 43 Presidents. And it is really dragging down our economy. You know, my daughter runs our nursery and landscaping business, a business my husband and I started a long time ago; and I can remember going to my husband at times and saying, You know, I'd like to do this in the garden shop and spiff it up a little bit. And he would say to me, Well, how much is that going to help our bottom line? Is it going to bring in more money? And I would sometimes say, No, it will just make things look better. He would say, If it isn't going to bring in more money, then we shouldn't be doing it. That is the decision small business people have to make every day of their lives. Some of them lay awake at night worrying how am I going to pay my bills, how am I going to make my payroll. They personally sacrifice to take care of their employees. I know. We've been there. And yet we have people up here who've never worked a day in their life, a real job. They have been in Congress for 50, 40, 30 years, and they have no concept of how hard it is to run a business and how dedicated small business people are.

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. You mentioned a minute ago about the fact that this has been a year of very unusual things to have happen. I learned just recently that there is a poll that was done, and we know people are polling in this country all the time. But a poll was done that said that two-thirds of Americans believe it is more likely that we'll discover life in outer space than that the Democrats' health plan will be deficit-neutral. Now, I think that's a good sign for our country. It's a good sign that people are paying attention to what is happening in this country and what is happening in this House and in the Senate, the fact that two-thirds of our citizens don't believe the line that's being fed to them that this health care bill is deficit-neutral. That deficit, as you say, is causing tremendous harm, not just because the Chinese are nervous about it, but from the money it's taking out of the private sector and the problems it's causing small businesses. I know you want to talk a little bit about that tonight, and I hope that you will. I'm not going to be able to stay with you for the whole hour because I have the great pleasure of going over to be with Senator Jesse Helms' family who are in town for the unveiling of his portrait tonight, but I want to stay with you for a few minutes. I can just imagine Senator Helms watching us from heaven thinking, ``Oh, I wish I were there to be in this fight.'' The Senate right now is behind closed doors, behind closed doors despite all the promises of transparency, working on a bill that's going to create havoc. But the American public has awakened, and it knows this is not right.