Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who also offered several amendments that were not taken.

Ms. FOXX. I have read the bill and read it carefully, and I have great problems with the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. In just a moment. I also want to point out that one of the concerns that we have and why we believe that free speech is being endangered by this bill is the fact that the word ``perceived'' is used so often in this bill. In fact, I have pulled each one of them out. It says ``is motivated by prejudice based on actual or perceived race.'' Throughout the bill, there are five instances where the word ``perceived'' is used, but the word ``perceived'' is never defined. We believe that that opens up a Pandora's box in terms of how people can use this bill to stifle free speech. Our colleagues on the other side have not been willing to define this word or, again, to take amendments that many of us believe would have made this bill much, much better. So I say to my colleagues, this is not the kind of legislation we should be passing in this country in this day. If the gentlewoman wants to ask me a question which I can answer quickly, since I am on my time, I will yield. If it is a matter to speak on, then I would ask her to ask for time on her side.

Ms. FOXX. As soon as I am finished, I will do that. However, nobody has said that the States aren't doing an adequate job of administering the laws that they have already. We don't need the Federal Government going in and working with them. The issue of giving them assistance is another issue. If nothing else, that is a good reason to vote against this bill, because the bill states ``such sums as are needed.'' We are creating another entitlement program. Now, the grants say $100,000, but we are going to have people going after this money, putting ourselves more in debt, not included in the budget, not included in the appropriations but outside the budget. If you didn't vote against this bill and against this rule for any other reason, you could vote against it because we are spending additional money. I also would like to point out that there was a bill, the hate crimes bill called the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed. But we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it is really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to respond to some of the comments that have been made here this afternoon by our friends on the other side, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas bringing up an issue that I think needs to be responded to. As she pointed out, these crimes are being taken care of in the States. Forty-five States already have hate crime laws. What we are doing with this bill, as one of my colleagues has said earlier, is going in and preempting what the States are doing. This is abrogating the 10th Amendment again. The Constitution has clearly left to the States and localities and the people things that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this week we will see the 2009 budget coming before Congress for a final vote. In the wisdom that only the City of Washington, D.C., can bestow, this budget borrows record-setting sums, raises taxes, and spends taxpayer money at an unprecedented clip. This so-called wisdom produced a budget that places our children and grandchildren in a state of perpetual servitude to the national debt and is a perverse sort of wisdom indeed. This reality brings to mind something that Thomas Jefferson penned in 1781. He said that ``every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.'' The current conventional wisdom in Washington of borrowing and spending doesn't work for American families, and it won't work for the Federal Government.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I think he created the hurricane too. He gets blamed for everything. But when you point out to them that they were in charge in 2007, 2008 and now they're in charge in 2009 they just don't like to talk about that. And they want to give President Clinton all the accolades for the budget that he had. But let's point out again, it was a Republican Congress that reined in spending under President Clinton. So as I pointed out in the Rules Committee one day to the chairman of the Budget Committee, it's so convenient for them to give all the credit to a Democratic President with a Republican-controlled Congress, and all the blame to a Republican President with a Democratically- controlled Congress.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to congratulate my colleague from Missouri and my colleagues from Texas and Colorado for spending the time that they have on this special order tonight. And I said I would come over and help a little bit, but you guys have been doing such a wonderful job, you don't need a lot of help. But I have been interested in talking about what our colleagues in the House said in the past about deficit financing and deficit spending. And I'm wondering, at times, whether they've been on the road to Damascus in terms of the revelations that they've had and the changes that they've made. I have a quote here from the chairman of the budget committee that I think we ought to talk about. He has talked about betting the budget on a blue sky forecast, and saying that he was concerned about these minor deficits under the Bush administration, a record deficit of $413 billion. And now they're talking about deficits of trillions and trillions of dollars, and that seems not to bother them in the very least. And I think that the chart that you have, the bar graph there shows the problems that we're facing in this country. And I've said once before, I went home after we voted for the bailout, and said to my grandchildren when they asked me what were we doing in Washington. And I said, well, we're putting you and your children and your grandchildren in debt. And my granddaughter said to me with the wisdom of a child, Grandma, why do you want to put little children into debt? And I said, you know, I don't want to put little children into debt. But we know now that we have Debt Day the earliest that it's ever been in the history of this country. This coming Sunday is going to be Debt Day. It shows the size of government spending relative to our revenue. Never before has Debt Day come in April. It's coming up several months from when it used to come up. I mean, the earliest that it's ever come up before was in July 2004. And I think what we also have to remind the American people is that up until the year 2007, there was a Republican Congress and a Republican President. They blame all that's happened in the last 2 years on President Bush. And I find that very intriguing. But when you ask----

Ms. FOXX. It's April 26.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his willingness to take this hour and to bring attention to this report. I had a chance to skim over this report today for the first time. I, frankly, was appalled when I read it. I didn't think I would live to see the time when Representatives of this government would be characterizing the good people of this country, who love this country and who have served this country so well, as extremists and terrorists. We can't even get the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use the word ``terrorism'' anymore for real terrorists. What she wants to do, though, is to characterize very, very patriotic Americans as terrorists, and I am simply appalled by it. As somebody pointed out today to me, when the President was campaigning, he promised to transform this country, but you know, I don't think people really understood what that meant. He never said he was going to improve the country. He said he was going to transform it. I think that these folks are on their way to doing that, and I don't think people are going to like, primarily, the way they transform it. You've done a great job, Congressman Carter, of highlighting this really, really scary definition of ``right-wing extremism.'' I want to highlight a couple of parts of that definition. I want to talk about rejecting Federal authority in favor of State or local authority or rejecting government authority entirely. I guess that what these people in the Department of Homeland Security mean is that the 10th amendment of the Constitution, which I consider an integral part of our system of federalism, is part of the danger that they see in this country, and I'm going to read the 10th amendment just so we're all clear on it. ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' I tell people when I speak to them, particularly to school groups, that the three most important words outside the Bible, in my opinion, are the words ``we the people.'' That begins the preamble to the Constitution. These folks see the American people as right-wing extremists in their concern for terrorists. So, as for those of us who are members of the Constitution Caucus, who for the last 4 years have come here on a fairly regular basis and who have talked about the 10th amendment in order to bring attention to the overreaching of the Federal Government, we're those right-wing extremists. So many patriots who have served in this House and in the Senate before us who felt very strongly about the 10th amendment and who did everything that they could to hold down the reach of the Federal Government are considered right-wing extremists. I just cannot understand how we have put in power in this country the kind of people who have so little regard for our Constitution. You and I and all of us in this body, who come here every day to vote, are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Many of my ``no'' votes are based on the 10th amendment, rejecting Federal authority in favor of State or local authority. When I say that on this floor, then these people consider me a right-wing extremist. I don't consider myself a right-wing extremist. I consider myself a person who believes in this 10th amendment, which, by the way, we understand from history that the Constitution probably could not have been ratified had that amendment not been in this because the Founders understood so well what a dangerous country this would become if we gave too much power to the Federal Government. I also fail to see how someone who holds fast to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights should be lumped into a category with homegrown terrorists and violent racist groups. This is an affront and an insult to the millions of law-abiding and taxpaying citizens who long for a return to limited Federal Government and to a restoration of limited Federal power. The question that must be answered in light of this document is: Since when does being a small government conservative make one a right- wing extremist? The claims in this report that limited government activists pose a threat are completely unsubstantiated and paint law-abiding citizens with the broad brushstrokes of extremism. I have to say that, I think, most of us who consider ourselves conservatives see this as a real slap in the face because we consider ourselves patriots for this country. I think also offensive--and I want to highlight another part of the definition of ``right-wing extremists''--are those groups and individuals who are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. You know, I'm not opposed to immigration. All of us come from people who immigrated to this country, but I am very much opposed to abortion, and that does not make me a right-wing extremist. That makes me, I believe, a person who celebrates life, and I believe that it is completely wrong to say that those of us who cherish life and who oppose abortion on demand pose a security risk to the United States. Such an assertion not only insults the moral beliefs of countless Americans but threatens their very right to freedom of expression. I've been on this floor many times in the past few months saying that I believe we're going down a slippery slope in this country in terms of how our right to freedom of expression may be impinged upon. I think, again, this report--which, by the way, I'm going to post a link to it on my Web site because I want every American to have the right to read this and to make some judgment for themselves. Opposition to abortion is a profoundly moral issue to those of us who oppose abortion. The willful taking of innocent human life is not a matter of right-wing extremism. It's a matter of conscience and of deep personal conviction. When we belittle our conscience and our deep personal convictions, we've come to, I think, a very, very bad place in our country. There is also not a shred of evidence anywhere to back up the claim made here that pro-life Americans who hold deeply rooted beliefs in the immorality of abortion are a threat to our Homeland Security. There is not a shred of evidence. When people read this, they're going to see all kinds of assertions made in here that I do not believe they can back up. I think that, again, those assertions undermine our ability to have freedom of speech and are a real threat in the opposite way to our country. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas for taking on this Special Order tonight and for highlighting this report. I do hope that millions and millions of Americans are going to read this report. I believe they will judge for themselves that this is a bad definition for ``right-wing extremism.'' I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just recognize the eloquence of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and want to make sure that he has some time at the end, and I appreciate it very much. I want to talk about Debt Day for just a minute. I want to show you some things, some figures. We don't have a bar graph which would show this a little bit better; but in the year 2002, Debt Day occurred on September 2, 2002. This year, Debt Day is going to occur on 4/26/09. Debt Day is an illustration of the size of government spending relative to the revenue the government receives and is calculated by taking the ratio of the Federal revenues to the Federal outlays projected by the Congressional Budget Office. So we are going to have the earliest Debt Day we have ever had in this country. In large part, it's due to the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus spending bill, the more than $400 billion omnibus spending bill, loaded with 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks, and another $350 billion in bailout funds Democrats have green-lighted since the beginning of the year. This is an abomination for our country. We should never be in this shape. John Adams said there are two ways to conquer a country--one is by the sword and the other is by debt. We are being conquered from within by our own people who have no sense of shame and no sense of shame for what they're doing to our children and grandchildren, and they should have because, in years past, they've criticized Republicans. Majority Leader Hoyer said $350 billion in deficit back on March 17, 2005, was wrong. Even the chairman of the Budget Committee made comments over and over again in 2005 that we had a terrible deficit. It's nothing compared to what they have proposed to us, and as I said, it is a shame. This budget that they have increases spending by over $1 trillion over 5 years. It increases taxes by $1.2 trillion. They have done nothing to work with us, and this is an abomination.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last week, America witnessed an historic public outcry on tax day as countless Americans exercised their constitutional right--some would say duty--to take to the streets to protest Washington's borrow-and-spend and bailout mentality. Those assembled offered tangible and forceful evidence that average people are concerned by the government's breakneck borrowing spree and the nonstop bailouts of failed companies. Too many people have played by the rules only to see their children and grandchildren socked with the bill for the bailouts of irresponsible megabanks. To this they are saying ``enough is enough.'' They realize the truth of John Adams' warning on excessive national debt. Adams said, ``There are two ways to conquer and enslave a Nation; one is by the sword, the other is by debt.'' I hope that for the sake of future generations we take these words to heart and restore the American ideal of small government and individual liberty and responsibility.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, ``The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,'' which is before us today, contains a so-called ``special rule for cigarettes'' in Section 907 of the bill that would ban flavored cigarettes--with the exception of menthol flavored cigarettes. Since the legislation allows the sale of menthol cigarettes, which are produced in the United States and in my home State, while banning clove cigarettes, which are imported primarily from Indonesia, the Indonesian Government has made it clear that it considers this provision an attempt to discriminate against imported clove cigarette products in favor of a competing U.S. product--and thus section 907 in the bill runs contrary to the free-trade commitments the United States has made as part of the WTO. According to WTO rules Mr. Speaker, an imported ``good'' (clove cigarettes) should receive treatment that is ``no less favorable than that provided to a domestic good.'' Adhering to this principle would appear to require that clove cigarettes be treated no less favorably than menthol cigarettes and thus under this bill both should be exempt from the prohibition on flavored cigarettes or both should be banned in order to ensure there is no unfair discrimination in the treatment of the two products. The latter option is not an option at all in my opinion but neither is ignoring the concerns of our ally Indonesia, a country well known to our President. For years now, senior officials of the Indonesian Government have repeatedly and doggedly attempted to communicate their country's concerns to U.S. legislators and executive branch policy-makers alike-- to no avail. The communique from the Indonesian Ambassador to Chairman Waxman, as well as the Indonesian Trade Minister's dispatch to former Ambassador Schwab clearly articulate the imperative the Indonesian Government places on the trade violation contained in ``The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.'' Last year, the HHS Secretary sent a letter to Congress expressing various concerns about Mr. Waxman's bill on behalf of the Administration. Among his concerns he included the following statement about the bill's prohibition on imported clove cigarettes that reflects the concerns expressed by the Indonesian Government: There is a further issue regarding the bill that I would like to bring to your attention. Our trading partners believe that by banning the sale of clove cigarettes but not prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes, the bill raises questions under U.S. international trade obligations. The government of Indonesia has repeatedly objected to the bill on the ground that this disparate treatment is unjustified and incompatible with WTO trade rules. Accordingly, I would recommend that the Committee further review the relevant language in this light to ensure the bill is consistent with U.S. trade obligations. Mr. Speaker, Congress is increasingly--and rightly--calling on our United States Trade Representative and the Administration to more strenuously enforce the WTO and other trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are playing by the rules and not discriminating against our products and services. I think that it is only right that we abide by the same standards that we expect of our trade partners when the question is as clear as this situation. It would have been my hope that the minor changes needed to correct this avoidable trade complication in the bill could have be made before the legislation was brought to the floor for consideration, but that was not the case. Section 907 affects a de facto ban on the importation of clove cigarettes from Indonesia. It is another troublesome example of serious flaws overlooked by Mr. Waxman in his bill. Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, Washington, DC, July 25, 2008. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Waxman: I extend my personal best wishes for your continued service in the United States House of Representatives and particularly as the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. My government has been communicating with appropriate members of the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch since 2004 regarding our opposition to a proposed prohibition on the sale of clove cigarettes in the United States. This prohibition has most recently been included as part of H.R. 1108--the ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act''--which was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee just this month on July 17th. In this regard, I am enclosing a letter that the Minister of Trade in Indonesia, Mari Elka Pangestu, gave to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab on this issue when they met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney, Australia last September. I also want to bring your attention to the recent letter U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt sent Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton in response to the Congressman's inquiries about H.R. 1108. Secretary Leavitt raised the following reservation about H.R. 1108 regarding Indonesia's grave trade concerns on the clove cigarette issue: There is a further issue regarding the bill that I would like to bring to your attention. Our trading partners believe that by banning the sale of clove cigarettes but not prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes, the bill raises questions under U.S. international trade obligations. The government of Indonesia has repeatedly objected to the bill on the ground that this disparate treatment is unjustified and incompatible with WTO trade rules. Accordingly, I would recommend that the Committee further review the relevant language in this light to ensure the bill is consistent with U.S. trade obligations. As you may know, the U.S. does not produce traditional clove cigarettes while Indonesia produces over 99% of the clove cigarettes imported into the U.S. This is why Minister Pangestu felt it necessary to personally express to Ambassador Schwab our government's great concern that the proposed prohibition on clove cigarettes in the U.S. would unjustifiably discriminate against Indonesia's cigarette exports to the U.S. in favor of competing, domestically produced U.S. cigarette products under World Trade Organization and other international trading standards. We hope the attached letter from Minister Pangestu to Ambassador Schwab will help to more fully inform you as to the international trading standards and rules which serve as the basis for our objections to the proposed prohibition in H.R. 1108. In addition, we hope you will also consider Secretary Leavitt's concerns as a measure of the seriousness with which your own government views the potential trade problems in this regard. We respectfully ask that the bill be modified prior to final passage by the House so that clove and menthol cigarettes are treated equally under the legislation. Sincerely yours, Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat. Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, 28 Agustus 2007. H.E. Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, U.S. Trade Representative Washington, DC. Re: The ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act'' (S. 625). Dear Ambassador Schwab: It was a pleasure meeting with you a few months ago in Washington DC, in which I had enjoyed discussing with you about the increasingly strong relationship between our two countries in trade and investment sectors. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again for the excellent arrangements made during my visit to Washington, DC. I am writing to you to raise my Government's concern over an introduction of a draft legislation entitled the ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act'' (S. 625), which currently is being considered in the U.S. Congress. This draft Act contains a provision, which if enacted as currently drafted, will unjustifiably discriminate against Indonesia's cigarette exports in favor of competing, domestically produced U.S. cigarette products. We understand that Senator Kennedy, who has been supportive of addressing our concerns with appropriate legislative language, has written to you about this matter. Specifically, the ``special rule for cigarettes'' in section 907 of the legislation states that, beginning 3 months after the date of enactment: (a) In General-- (1) SPECIAL RULE FOR CIGARETTES--A cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. The United States does not produce clove cigarettes at all. Indonesia produces cigarettes containing cloves and over 99% of the clove cigarettes imported into the United States come from Indonesia. That entire volume of imports would be prohibited under section 907 of the proposed bill. In direct contrast, cigarettes containing menthol sold in the U.S. are almost exclusively produced in the United States as imports of menthol cigarettes are negligible. However, menthol cigarettes are explicitly excluded from the prohibition in section 907. The fact that Section 907 would prohibit the importation and sale of clove cigarettes from Indonesia while arbitrarily permitting domestic production and sale of menthol cigarettes reuses serious concerns about the consistency of this proposed provision with the United States' obligation under the agreements of the World Trade Organization. In particular, the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) obligates the United States to ensure that, in respect of its technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any WTO Member shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to domestic like products and to like products originating in any other country. The Agreement also obligates the United States to ensure that its technical regulations are not more trade- restrictive than necessary, thereby creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. In that regard, the TBT Agreement requires that the United States take account of scientific and technical information, as well as the special development and trade needs of developing country Members, such as Indonesia. Similar obligations exist under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. A stated purpose of the standards in the proposed U.S. legislation is to restrict advertising and promotional practices most likely to entice youth into tobacco use, while affording ample opportunity to market tobacco products to adults. Like menthol cigarettes (and unlike other flavored cigarettes), clove cigarettes are not targeted at youth smokers. Clove cigarettes are estimated to account for only 0.1% of the total number of cigarettes consumed in the United States and only approximately 0.8% of youth smokers have smoked clove cigarettes and that number of youths is declining based on recent studies. Menthol cigarettes, on the other hand, are estimated to account for approximately 26% of the cigarettes consumed in the United States and approximately 29.7% of youth smokers smoke menthol cigarettes. Moreover, there is no scientifically supportable evidence or risk assessment establishing specific human health risks associated with clove cigarettes that would justify banning those cigarettes while continuing to permit the sale of menthol cigarettes. These facts are compelling. Imports of Indonesia's clove cigarettes are prohibited for no reason other than they contain a natural herbal additive, while U.S. cigarettes containing menthol--a processed herbal additive--are explicitly exempted from the prohibition. The Government of Indonesia firmly believes that such discriminatory treatment is inconsistent with the United States international obligations and, if enacted, will have a significant adverse effect on Indonesian trade. The Government of Indonesia therefore respectfully asks that you carefully consider our concerns and, in the interest or our positive trade relationship, ensure that both the spirit and the requirements of the WTO agreements are observed, Further, absent elimination of the prohibition on imports of clove cigarettes, pursuant to Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement and Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, we ask the United States to explain how that prohibition is justified As you are aware, Indonesia has expressed concern over the Bill at previous meetings of the Indonesia-U.S. Trade and Investment Council. We trust that your government would understand the difficulties we are faced with, as well as the severity and the urgency of this matter to our people whose livelihood very much depends on the existence of the cigarettes industry. We would be very appreciative of your attention to this matter and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further with you, at your convenience. We look forward to an opportunity in building and strengthening the robust relationship between our two countries. Thank you. Your sincerely, Mari Elka Pangestu.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Today, the House will consider whether we put our fiscal house in order or whether we continue the same failed policies of wasteful spending and skyrocketing debt. We will decide whether we continue the great American tradition of leaving our children a Nation stronger and more prosperous than the one our parents left for us. The President and Democrats in Washington have proposed a budget that takes this country in the wrong direction. The President proposes many of the same failed policies that caused our economic crisis, a budget that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Our children and grandchildren deserve better. It's time to get our fiscal house in order and make the tough decisions needed to set this country back on the path of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. The Republicans will present our budget plan that does just that, a budget plan that curbs spending, keeps taxes low, and tackles our Nation's skyrocketing deficits and debt. The Congress must reject the President's budget and begin working on behalf of the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my colleague from Colorado yielding time. This is another very deceptively named bill by our colleagues on the other side. It is a fairly short bill, only four pages long, so everyone should have a chance to read it, and that is an important thing to do. It is titled ``to amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.'' Now, again, that sounds great. However, when you get inside the bill and you read it, it says, ``any executive or employee,'' and it says that four times, so the deception is that this is only for executives. It is not just for executives. It allows the Treasury Department to set the salaries and compensation for all employees in a private organization. This is wrong to do. We have had so many statements that have been made that have been misleading, I think, on the floor. This is not the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Our situation in the country was much worse in the eighties after a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic Presidency. So we are in a situation that has been created, again, by Democrats. Yet they want to say over and over again that this is the problem of a Republican administration. We have to constantly point out the fact that the Congress has been controlled for the past 2 years and is now controlled by Democrats. So I think this rule is bad; I think the underlying bill is bad, and I think that our colleagues should vote against both of them. What the Democrats are doing now is, again, providing political cover for Democrat Members of the House who voted for a bad bill a couple of weeks ago, and they are trying to change the subject from the administration's failure to exercise adequate oversight of the taxpayer dollars which have been extended to prop up AIG, American International Group. So I expect most of my colleagues, if not all, to vote against this rule and to vote against the underlying bill. We also have a situation where this is not an open rule. The majority continues its practice of limiting debate and of limiting opportunities for Republicans to offer amendments and to do whatever we can do to make a bad bill somewhat better or to make a bad rule somewhat better. So we have a situation where these things continue. You know, when I have thought about this, I have thought about just a commonsense way to describe this to people. The Democrats have a tar baby on their hands, and they simply cannot get away from it. They are stuck on this problem. They have created a bad situation, and every time they try to get away from it, they keep getting stuck on it, and I think that this is just the latest iteration and bad policy that they are recommending, and I am going to recommend to my colleagues to vote against it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am intrigued at my colleagues being outraged. Well, my goodness. If you were so outraged, why did you vote for these things to begin with? You know, your hands are not clean. I'm sorry, but your hands are not clean when you say that you are outraged. Point of Order

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I wonder why my colleagues are so outraged when they voted for these bills. This is covering up their previous action. They are trying to make something better. As I said, they've got a tar baby on their hands and they don't know what to do with it. Well, it's easy to say that you could criticize the AIG executives for taking the money and criticize people for having voted for these things and be against this bill because it is taking our government in the wrong direction. I am also very puzzled at my colleagues saying they are so concerned about their children and their grandchildren. But I will bet most of them are going to vote for this budget a little later on today, and they are quite willing to put the debt of this country on the backs of their children and grandchildren. I think those are crocodile tears that they're crying when they say they want to preserve this country for their children and grandchildren. Give me a break. In the headlines today in one of the rags here on the Hill--``Senator Levin Considers Defense Executive Pay Cuts.'' Where is this going to end? Our colleagues in this administration think they have all the answers. They're going to run this country from the government down to every single business in the country: ``Let's just cut their pay. They're getting money from the government.'' Where is it going to end? Are we going to have a President--he's already running GM. He's now the executive in chief of GM. And so our colleagues want to take on every single entity in this country and say, We know best. The government knows best. We're from Washington and we're here to help you. The American people have heard that before. They are not going to be fooled again by this kind of comment. And, I'm sorry, but, again, I think it's crocodile tears when they say they are concerned about their children and grandchildren. If they are, they'll all vote ``no'' on the budget a little later on today and show their true concern. Saying that this upholds the rule of law for their children and grandchildren? Again, give me a break. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I have said on the floor several times in the last few weeks that the public needs to be reading or rereading the book ``1984'' because we're here in a period where the Democrats continue to rewrite history. I would like to, just again, say to my colleague from Virginia that he wants to say we have the largest deficit we've ever had. Absolutely. Because the Democrats have been in control of Congress for the past 2 years. The President does not pass a budget, does not pass appropriations bills. The President can either sign or reject appropriations. The appropriations bills were not passed last year because they knew that President Bush would reject them, he would veto them, and so they didn't pass them. We did them this spring. That's what caused the largest deficit. We have a Democratic President and a Democratically controlled Congress, and you cannot rewrite history in that way. We had a very small deficit when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President. With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleagues on the other side keep bringing up Secretary Paulson, but they leave out the fact that the current Secretary of the Treasury was the head of the New York Fed at the same time and was standing right beside Secretary Paulson when those recommendations were made. It also was under his watch that the amendment to allow the bonuses to AIG was done, and we know from statements that Senator Dodd has made that he was directed to do that by the Treasury Department. So, again, we're not going to be saddled with the problems they created. They've got a tar baby. They're not going to shift it off to the Republicans. I'd now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my colleague.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to give the gentleman 2 more minutes.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think that my colleagues who have spoken have been very eloquent in pointing out again what is wrong with this bill. I want to reiterate that this is simply to provide political cover for Democratic Members of the House and to change the subject away from the administration's failure to exercise adequate oversight of taxpayer dollars extended to prop up AIG and other organizations. Most Republicans voted against the bailout last fall. All Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against the stimulus bill. So, again, we can't be blamed for the things that the Democrats have carried out in this session of Congress. We are for accountability, and we want to see the administration and the Democratically controlled House get these things under control. But they keep doing things that make it worse and worse and worse. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that we need to be focusing on holding all programs that get Federal dollars accountable. However, there is absolutely no effort going on in this Congress to scrutinize programs that are controlled by the Federal Government. As my colleague from Georgia pointed out, we have such great examples of the wonderful way that the Federal Government spends money, such as FEMA and other areas where the public knows a big disaster has been made. But I want to point out again that this is the wrong way to go. We've said this from the beginning--again, with the bailouts last year. And we're asking now: What is the exit strategy from all of the sweeping government involvement in the private sector? What is the exit strategy? Is it going to be week after week after week that we're going to see another bill that tries to cover up the mistakes that the Democrats have brought to us over and over again? This moves in the wrong direction from an exit strategy. It makes the Treasury Secretary, with approval of the members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, in consultation with the chairperson of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, the arbiters of what is reasonable or excessive compensation for covered institutions. They don't even define that in this bill. They leave it up to the Treasury regulators, the bank regulators, who created this problem to begin with. What kind of a system is that? It's a little crazy to say that we're going to give the people who created this problem more authority, more responsibility. They're going to define what is unreasonable or excessive. I asked yesterday, ``Can we define those things?'' No. We leave that up to the Treasury Department. But it was the Treasury Department who decided that the AIG bonuses were just fine. In fact, they promoted them. So are they going to say that they are going to give big bonuses under this? That doesn't make any sense. The best approach to protecting the taxpayers' investment in private businesses is through stronger oversight and accountability, not by further entrenching government in the operations and management of hundreds of businesses across America. I say again, Senator Levin says he wants to consider defense executive pay cuts. Are we going to go into every single business in this country and decide? Is the Congress going to do that, is the Treasury Department going to do that? We know that the bill a week ago to tax bonuses 90 percent--those at AIG--was clearly unconstitutional. My guess is that this bill is going to be decided that way also. We also know there was this big hue and cry and, again, outrage, outrage, outrage, expressed on the floor of this House about that bill, and the bill is going nowhere. After all the outrage, then the President says, Oh, maybe we went too far. The Senate buried the bill. Nobody's going to do anything about it. I'm wondering if that's going to happen to this too. And that's what should happen to this bill--the same thing that happened to the bill last week. But is it going to be a bill a week where we deal with this? Again, we try to make Republicans look bad because they are standing up for the Constitution, they're standing up for the people of this country. They are trying to rein in the government. Again, we don't say, We're here from Washington, and we're here to save you. The Congressional Oversight Panel that they want to put in charge of this, along with the Treasury Department, was never intended, nor is it authorized, to set policy. So here we have, again, a situation where we're going to mix the executive with the legislative. We know the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that that is unconstitutional. But this majority doesn't seem to care about the Constitution. They don't mind that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Day after day after day we see violations of the Constitution. This happens to be the latest one. I want to point out again what one of my colleagues said earlier. There's a rush to judgment here. This bill was introduced on March 23. So, here we are, continuing to rush in. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread is something my mother taught me a long time ago. I'm wondering if we need to think a little bit before we rush into areas where we might be treading on thin ice. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers, but I do have a closing statement.