Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to praise Dale Wilson, a remarkable veteran from Troutman, North Carolina, who was named the 2009 National Disabled American Veteran of the Year by the Disabled American Veterans. Dale Wilson lost both of his legs and his right arm while serving in the Marine Corps in Vietnam; but for a Silver Star recipient who paid such a heavy price for his country, Wilson demonstrates remarkable humility, good will, and an astonishingly positive attitude. He is well known for his strident belief that his life is rich and full despite what many could call a severe disability. His days are full of service to his community and his fellow veterans. He counts his family, his community, and his service to his country as dear blessings. And you won't catch him complaining about the hand that was dealt him. Dale Wilson is the sort of marine that gives the Marine Corps such a proud reputation, and his recognition by the DAV is well deserved. I know that his example serves to inspire those who know and love him to remember their many blessings and to love the country that Wilson sacrificed so much for.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Petri, for yielding me some time. When I was going over the bills for this week, this bill sort of flew out at me. It seems like a very innocuous bill, like motherhood and apple pie, the kind of thing that we should be doing here. We know that there are a lot of people needed in the maritime industry. I visited the Merchant Marine Academy last year. I had a wonderful visit there and was told by the administrators there that there is a huge demand for their graduates, that they have about 10 job offers for every graduate and that we need more people who have excellent education and training in the maritime skills. However, this bill I think is not doing what we would like for it to do, and it raises more questions, I think, than it answers. I have asked some of the questions of the staff, and I don't get the kind of answers that I think we need to be getting. I'm very keen on our having accountability for any way that we authorize or spend money, and there is really no accountability in this bill at all. There is no statement of the demand. It says that there were 162,000 jobs in the U.S. water transportation sector in 2006, up from nearly 148,000 jobs reported in 2002, and it says, in the summary, there's a perceived future shortage of workers, not an actual one. So we are going to authorize a program for a perceived need. The headlines out this week are that our military has gone way beyond its goals in recruiting people, and I suspect that with unemployment as high as it is right now, many, many people are going into skilled trades programs trying to get the kind of licensure they need to get jobs. But again, this bill doesn't present that information. It doesn't say that there are people being turned away from these State programs that are helping these people get the skills they need. It doesn't tell how many people are being turned away from the Merchant Marine Academy. I am very much concerned that this program is going to be a lot like the program that was funded in 2004 with an earmark requested by David Price which gave $10 million in the Federal budget to a program at UNC Chapel Hill for a new effort to help deployed soldiers of the National Guard and Army Reserves. An article has said, 5 years later, the citizen-soldiers support program has spent $7.3 million, but the money has accomplished little for the people it was supposed to help. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the complete article that I'm referencing. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that an internal review found that the program produced reams of paperwork but few concrete results. Because there's no accountability in this bill, we are giving huge discretion to the Secretary to handle this money. We are not outlining the kinds of things that we, as a Congress, should be outlining. We are not demanding any kind of results from the money that is being spent. And it's a lot of money. It's $110 million over 2010 to 2014, $22 million in 2014. There's a program to give $10 million for grants to maritime training institutions to establish demonstration projects and other programs to increase mariner recruitment, training, and retention. There is no evidence that such programs need to be out there. Again, we don't know how many people are already applying for such programs. This money also is going to be available to unions and to community action groups such as ACORN. It's going to very nebulous groups of people. I have a great concern, again, about how we are going to have any accountability from this program. We, in Congress, have an obligation to make sure that any money that we are spending is being spent as well as it could be spent. We have an almost 10 percent unemployment rate in the country. We are taxing people who are working for a living, and we are taxing them to give the money to programs like this for which, again, there is no accountability and no idea that we are going to get our money's worth out of it. I just think it's very unfair to the American public. We may need to do this kind of program. I know that the Merchant Marine people told me that we need better educated, better trained people, but I don't think this is the right program. [From the Raleigh News and Observer, Sept. 25, 2009] Program Provides Little Help for Soldiers

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the recently enacted policies rammed through Congress in this defense bill. The so-called ``Hate crimes'' language in this bill contradicts Americans' First Amendment rights and sets a very dangerous precedent. We can all agree that any form of bigotry in America is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the ``hate crimes'' provisions in this defense bill not only have no business in this unrelated legislation, they are also so sweeping and broad that they may very well encompass legitimate religious beliefs. As a result, under this legislation, any pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi or imam who gives a sermon out of their moral traditions about sexual practices could be found guilty of a federal crime. This is far outside of the current of American freedom that flows through our history. These ``hate crimes'' provisions will have a negative effect on the ability of people of deep religious convictions to express those convictions freely. They will inevitably have a ``chilling effect'' on religious expression from churches, temples and mosques. The most responsible thing for Congress to do is to take steps to rein in this infringement on Americans' First Amendment rights.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I think all of these issues that you and Dr. Price, and he is a real doctor, he is an orthopedic surgeon and we are really glad he is around, but all of these things that you have brought up are extraordinarily important. But we might need to bring up another one that is very important, and that is that the American people have become awakened as a result of this issue of health care. I think it is the best thing that has happened to our country perhaps since the founding. People are saying we want to know what is going on and we are voicing our concern. They want to read the bills, and they are incensed that the bills are not being put online and out there for them to read and for us to read.

Ms. FOXX. Obviously the majority party hasn't learned any lessons because right now they have no bill in the Senate. They have been dealing with concepts.

Ms. FOXX. That's exactly right. They have no bill, and they are about to vote on it. They have even asked the CBO to score it, and the CBO has scored against an outline of what the Senate says it is dealing with.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I think the attitude of the people in the Senate is, we're smarter than the American public. We know better than the American public. That's really been the attitude of this entire Congress, and this administration, and that is, the American public doesn't need to read these bills. And, in fact, some Senators have said they're not smart enough to read them and understand them. I think even some House Members have said that. They don't expect them to read them and understand them. But what we need is the transparency that the American people were promised. In the elections in '06 and '08, they were promised by the people in charge of this Congress, and by the administration, that we wouldn't have these kinds of shenanigans anymore, that the bills would be out there, they'd be out there for 72 hours, even 5 days before they'd be voted on. I believe the President promised 5 days after a bill was passed--he wouldn't sign it until 5 days had passed. That's not happened on any significant legislation, maybe no legislation that's passed in this entire House. We have a real need to hold people accountable in this body.

Ms. FOXX. That's exactly right. The American people should be up in arms.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri. It's not important what credentials we have. I think it's important how we feel about serving the people that we serve, and so--if I have any accolades for myself, it's that I want to be known as a Member of Congress who cared for her constituents and worked hard to serve them. But thank you for your recognition. I just heard tonight on the news about a study that evidently came out last week that somehow or another I missed it. And it fits into what you're talking about there. I am not sure if you've heard about it. There's a GAO report that came out, I think September 29, and there was an article about it in USA Today: ``Millions in fraud and drug abuse clogs Medicaid.'' Now, I know the President has said that he expects to fund a lot of the health care bill, the government takeover of health care with weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse; but that's never happened in any kind of government plan, as you say. We don't have a line item in the budget that says we're going to reclaim X amount of money from waste, fraud, and abuse and plug that into the system. Perhaps we should do that. But if we have waste, fraud and abuse now, wouldn't it make sense for us to just go ahead and go after that? Let me tell you about that. It is a staggering study with staggering results. An audit of the government program Medicaid in five large States found 65,000 instances of beneficiaries improperly obtaining potentially addictive drugs at a cost of about $65 million during 2006 and 2007, including thousands of prescriptions written for dead patients or by people posing as doctors. You know, we could save millions of dollars and we should be doing that whether there is any health care plan out there or not.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I think what is happening is you have people who are addicted to drugs, and they figure out ways to get prescriptions written. What they did, the GAO looked--well, the program for low income and disabled Americans, run jointly by States and the Federal Government, underwrote, get this figure, more than $23 billion in drug costs last year.

Ms. FOXX. For drugs alone in the Medicaid program.

Ms. FOXX. Exactly. Here is a program that has been around since 1965, I believe I am right, and yet we have millions, potentially billions of dollars of fraud, and the government hasn't been able to figure out a way to collect that money or to stop it from happening. That is my concern. And it deals only with a rather small segment of our population. Here the government wants to run health care for everybody in this country. Imagine the kind of fraud that we are going to have, because there is no incentive when you have a government-run program to knock out fraud, waste, and abuse. People in the private sector, people either are punished or rewarded, depending on what direction they go in. That doesn't happen with a government-run program. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Ms. FOXX. I see you have a wonderful chart here, and I want to say, isn't it true that the Republicans have put up on the Internet a section-by-section breakdown of H.R. 3200, so the public doesn't have to wonder are we telling the truth, is the President telling the truth? Are the Democrats telling the truth? They can go to the Internet or, in my case, I made these available to the libraries in my district. They can go read for themselves. Isn't that true?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it's fitting that Congress pass a bill that gives Members of Congress and the American public 72 hours to read major legislation before Congress votes. Both the stimulus and the national energy bill passed in the House less than 1 day after coming to the floor. In town halls all across the country, constituents have demanded that each major bill be made available to Members of Congress and the public for at least 72 hours before a vote takes place. We should not rush to pass a sweeping government takeover of health care and energy or advance any other important issue without taking the time to understand fully its impact on American families and small businesses. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. Let's give them and their elected leaders 72 hours to read what's in the bills before Congress.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today deeply concerned by this conference agreement. This legislation that was originally brought to the House was offered under a closed rule. Throughout this appropriations season, the Democrat majority took unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under closed rule. This has consistently eliminated the ability for Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent. This is not the way the House should be operating, and we want to express again our concern about this and will be doing that throughout our time in discussing the rule this morning. I will urge my colleagues to vote not only against the rule but against the previous question. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) blames Republicans. I mean we're used to it. We're being blamed for everything. And yet, you all are in the majority. You have the votes to do whatever you want to do. You've been in the majority for the last 3 years. So I don't understand why it's our fault that these programs haven't been authorized at the appropriate levels for the last 3 years. I would like to yield now 4 minutes to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Conaway.

Ms. FOXX. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this conference report are emblematic of the problems of this Democratically controlled Congress. I want to quote from a piece called ``A New Direction For America'' which was on the Web site of then-Minority Leader Pelosi. ``Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.'' Despite this well-known promise, however, Representative Charlie Rangel remains the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee even though he faces serious charges that are now the subject of an Ethics Committee investigation: failure to report $75,000 in rental income on Federal and State tax returns; agreed to preserve tax breaks that would benefit a supporter who on the same day pledged to give $1 million to Rangel's ``Monument to Me''; used official congressional letterhead to solicit support for his ``Monument to Me''; rented four rent-stabilized apartments; took at least two corporate-funded trips; and failed to disclose millions of dollars in income and assets. This promise has certainly not been adhered to. Neither have the promises that have been made on other issues such as allowing 72 hours for bills to be read before they are voted upon. We are facing a serious economic situation in this country right now. In September, according to the Heritage Foundation, every aspect of the labor market was negative. Labor force participation fell to 65 percent. Job losses were widespread. The negative statistics just go on and on and on: 15 million people unemployed and looking for work; 263,000 jobs eliminated in September; almost 2 million people laid off in September, the highest number in 1 month ever; and 3 million jobs lost since the Democrat stimulus was passed in February. As I said, the numbers go on and on and on. The unemployment rate is at 25.9 percent among job seekers between the ages of 16 and 19, the highest level since the statistic was first measured in 1948. The people in charge of this Congress, the Democrats, have not lived up to their promises, have not lived up to the expectations of the American people. They talk about a moral obligation. Our moral obligation is that to us personally. We don't have an obligation for wealth redistribution in this country. It is not our job to take from some Americans and give to others. Our moral obligation, again, is on a personal level. We're challenged by Jesus to look after people as individuals, not as a government. So we are not doing what we should have been doing. As my other colleagues have said, we don't want to starve people. We don't want to starve children. We don't want to deny people the opportunity to succeed in this country. I heard my colleagues talk about food safety from overseas, and yesterday we heard that less than 1 percent of foods being imported from overseas are being tested for food safety. But what are our colleagues on the other side of the aisle doing? Putting small farmers out of business just as fast as they possibly can, raising taxes by their cap-and-tax bill and by their proposed health care bill. A large number of small businesses who make over $250,000 a year file their taxes as individuals. There is this hatred, it appears, for success in this country by members of the opposite party. They don't make the connection that many of these small businesses file as individuals, and therefore, they are going to be taxed, despite the promises that individuals aren't going to be taxed. They're out of touch. They don't understand rural America. They don't understand small businesses. They've never been there. They don't know what it's like to make a payroll, so they willy-nilly go ahead and raise taxes. They don't want to dole out money from the government to try to make people beholden to the government. If we would talk to our farmers out there, particularly our dairy farmers, we would find out that they don't want a handout from the government. They simply want rules and regulations lifted so that they can do the jobs that they want to do. They love farming. They want to stay in it, but they want the government to get out of their way and stop giving them a burden. So what we need to do is we need to take into account the need to establish priorities, fund those things that the Federal Government should be funding, get out of the way of our farmers and our small businesses and not tax them out of existence. That's what we need to be doing in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a statement that says what 9.8 percent unemployment means by the numbers, which has in it many more things than I was able to say on the floor today. What 9.8 Percent Unemployment Means by the Numbers, October 6, 2009 ``I know that ultimately the measure of an economy is, is it producing jobs that help people support families, send their kids to college?''--President Barack Obama, September 20, 2009. Last week, the Department of Labor reported the highest unemployment rate in 26 years--9.8 percent for the month of September. Sadly, 9.8 percent only tells part of the story of the struggles of average Americans. A deeper look at the numbers reveals the true cost of the Democrats' economic policies, especially for the nation's most vulnerable people. People unemployed and looking for work--the highest number ever: 15,142,000. Jobs eliminated in September: 263,000. People laid off in September--the highest number in one month ever: 1,916,000. Jobs lost since Democrats' ``stimulus'' was passed in February: 2,884,000. People who are working only part-time because they cannot find full time employment: 9,179,000. People who want work, but who are not currently looking because of state of the economy: 2,219,000. People unemployed and searching for work for more than 27 weeks--the highest level ever: 5,438,000. Job seekers that are new entrants to the workforce and have yet to find a job: 1,112,000. Average number weeks job seekers are unemployed after losing their jobs--the highest number since the statistic was first recorded in 1948: 26.2. Unemployment rate among job seekers between the ages of 16 and 19--the highest level since the statistic was first measured in 1948: 25.9%. Unemployment rate among African Americans--the highest level since 1985: 15.4%. Unemployment rate among Hispanics and Latinos: 12.7%. Rate of underemployment, accounting for the unemployed and those who are unable to find adequate work: 17%. Unemployment rate among job seekers without a high school degree: 15%. Rate of the U.S. population in the workforce--the lowest level since 1986: 65.2%. Rate of the U.S. population who currently have a job--the lowest level since 1985: 58.8%. I want to urge my colleagues today 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. 544, 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. My colleagues have spoken very eloquently about this. The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule. The discharge petition has 182 names, including 5 Democrats. This bill has gained the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs. I want to urge the citizens of this country to pay attention to the process, as was discussed earlier, because process is important. Whether people sign the discharge petition is really the measure of whether they support it. This is not a partisan measure, 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. We need to have this debate. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate very much the sympathy and concern from our friends from urban areas for our dairy farmers and our farming interest. I come from a rural district. I represent a rural district and many dairy farmers. I grew up milking a cow. I understand that cows have to be milked. I know they can't wait. But what we've done to hurt dairy farmers in this country is we're putting them out of business because we've driven up the costs of doing business. We have an EPA that is totally out of control in this country and that has harassed our farmers, and particularly dairy farmers, to the point where we have almost driven them completely out of business. Yes, dairy farmers are hurting right now, and we need to do something to help them; but we could do a lot to help them by reducing the cost of their doing business with the ridiculous rules and regulations that we've put on them. I also would like to say that we need to be setting priorities in this Congress, and that's one of the main problems that we have with the majority in charge right now. I'd like to now yield 4 minutes to my colleague who also understands rural United States' needs, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, in a column last month for RealClearMarkets, businessman Bill Frezza took on the idea that the stimulus package had somehow ``saved'' jobs in America. He writes: ``The White House Council of Economic Advisers said Thursday the $787 billion stimulus plan kept 1 million people working who would otherwise not have had jobs. ``You wouldn't let me stand up and make the simplistic claim that these million jobs were saved at a cost of $787,000 per job without challenging the details of my accounting, would you? Surely reality is more complex. ``But when the White House Council of Economic Advisers calculated the number of jobs saved by our government's massive stimulus spending, how is it that they entirely neglected to account for the impact on employment of removing $787 billion from the balance sheet of the private economy?'' He continues by discussing those from the White House Council of Economic Advisers who make these dubious claims about the so-called ``saved'' jobs: ``They never had to meet a payroll,'' Mr. Frezza writes. ``They never had to raise money to fund their businesses from skeptical investors. They never bet their life savings on their own business judgment. They never had to scramble to pay off a banker who called in a loan. They never had to decide whether to take a calculated risk to expand their workforce, hoping to take market share from a fierce competitor. They never had to make a judgment call on whether or not to launch an unproven new product. They never had to manage a new reduction in force, explaining to employees that their jobs have been eliminated because the tax and regulatory burdens imposed by some new law forced them to cut costs. ``They never lost business to a government-subsidized competitor whose cost of capital was vastly lower than theirs. They never had to grease the palms of politicians offering constituent services to resolve a bureaucratic hangup caused by the labyrinthine government approvals these selfsame politicians inflict on many businesses. ``They never had to deal with a missed sales forecast caused by an economy so roiled by capricious and uncertain fiscal policy that frightened customers were holding back orders. They never had to deal with a key supplier that unexpectedly went bankrupt because their source of credit dried up as dollars got sucked out of the commercial economy into government debt. They never had to negotiate with angry landlords after being forced to shut down a business destroyed by spurious mass-manufactured class-action suits. They never had to stand up in front of disappointed investors to explain why they lost money that had been entrusted to them. ``And you can be sure that none of them ever fell on their face and had to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and decide whether it was worth going through all the joys described above to take another shot at building a business from scratch.'' Then he launches into his final broadside against the assumption of the council's economists: ``All three have Ph.D.s from fancy universities,'' he writes. ``They are prize-winning experts in macroeconomics. To have come this far, you can bet they are ambitious, articulate, well connected, and brilliant. Yet when the Council of Economic Advisers did its calculations to determine the numbers of jobs saved by the stimulus, they shamelessly counted assets and totally ignored liabilities. ``People this smart cannot be easily fooled. People so visibly in the public eye cannot remain willfully blind. ``No, these people and those who appointed them are cunningly smart. It's we who are the fools for listening to them. Long after these experts return to their sinecures in academia to train another generation of economists on the wisdom of central planning and Keynesian pump priming, it's we and our children and our grandchildren who will be paying the price.''