Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. My memory is this--and maybe you said it and I missed it. My memory is that every Republican voted against the stimulus; is that correct?

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for coming up with this very innovative way of describing this process, and I hope that the folks who created the game Clue are going to appreciate that there may be a revival of interest in it and that our young folks who are listening will look up the word ``sleuths'' and if they don't know that word, it's a good word to learn today. I advocate young people learn one word every day, and they can join us as sleuths and perhaps become identified with what we are doing here in terms of figuring out who is spending all of this money, who is putting these items in these bills that nobody has a chance to read because they are coming up at the last minute. They have to be done right now, and if they are not done right now, the world is going to come to an end. But I know that our colleague, Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania, is going to be sharing some great insights with us about the budget and, again, other activities that we are doing. He has just joined the Congress in this session, but he's already making a great name for himself in terms of presenting items on the floor and doing hard work as a Member of Congress. So I would yield the floor to Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania.

Ms. FOXX. All right. And 11 Democrats joined us?

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for coming and sharing his perspective. As he indicated, we all represent small businesses. We all represent people who are struggling in this country. Middle class families and small businesses are making tremendous sacrifices when it comes to their own budgets. They're learning to live within their budgets, but Washington continues to spend trillions in taxpayer dollars on bailouts and other government programs. We have people up here who are so out of touch with the American people. Some of them never go home. Some of them have been in Washington 50 years. A vast majority of the majority party has been here for a long, long time. Many of them have parents who served in Congress. They really are out of touch with the average American, and I think it's extraordinarily unfortunate. I'd now like to yield some time to our distinguished colleague from Michigan, the chairman of the Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter, who always has an interesting perspective to bring to us and usually some words we have to look up in the dictionary to see exactly what the definition is.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his comments, and I actually had a constituent come to me this week and say what do you think about the phrase ``America, too big to fail''? That's a scary notion because that phrase has been used for these agencies and institutions that have been failing, and it is scary for us to think about that. This is the greatest country in the world. We have been extraordinarily successful by being very prudent in the way that we spend money. For two centuries, Americans have worked hard so their children could have better lives and greater opportunity. Democrats now want to reverse that order by having our children work hard so we don't have to make the hard economic choices now that need to be made. It is a terribly cynical approach to governing, and it is one that I can hardly believe we've come to in this country. But it appears to be that way, and I thank, again, Mr. McCotter from Michigan for always putting things in a very strong philosophical light to make us think about them in the larger order. And of course, we always need to think that way. I'm very grateful to him for doing that. I now want to yield back to my colleague from Georgia for a few more comments about where we are, and then I will wind up our Special Order for today and hope that we give the American people a lot to think about this weekend. Most of us are going home to our districts where we'll be dealing with our constituents. They will be telling us how this budget's going to affect them and what's happening to them on a day-to-day basis, and this is the kind of thing we always need to stay in touch with. So I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to our colleague, Mr. Fleming, from Louisiana.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Nunes, the distinguished gentleman from California.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Maine if she is prepared to close.

Ms. FOXX. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. FOXX. I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I call on the Democrats in charge to fulfill their obligation to the American people by restoring their second amendment right to carry concealed firearms on public lands in accordance with State law. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to restore Americans' second amendment rights on public lands and wildlife refuges. In January, with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, the Federal Government announced a commonsense policy to allow citizens legally to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in accordance with State law. Last week, House and Senate leaders added an amendment, sponsored by Representative Jason Altmire, to the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act that protects hunting and fishing on certain parts of Federal land. It clarified that the States have the authority to manage fish and wildlife. In short, the Altmire amendment made certain that Americans kept their second amendment right to carry concealed firearms on public land. However, in an arbitrary reversal of sound policy on March 19, a U.S. district judge single-handedly decided to block this commonsense policy to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in accordance with State laws. As Ranking Member Hastings said, ``There is now a giant hole in the Altmire language.'' Americans' constitutional second amendment rights are again in jeopardy, and I call on the Democrats in charge to amend this rule so Congress can protect these rights as we were sent here by our constituents to do. For months, Democrats in the House and Senate have done everything in their power to block the House from voting on any amendments to this enormous 1,200-page, $10 billion bill which combines over 160 land bills, most of which have never had hearings in either the House or the Senate. This bill contains hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in new spending and locks up additional public land which may have energy resource potential. Many of the bills rolled into this package are controversial and ambiguous, yet in a series of hasty maneuvers to silence dissent, the Democrats have worked to marginalize rather than engage the healthy debate our constituents deserve on these bills. With this new court ruling, Americans' second amendment rights would be in jeopardy on all Federal land, including 2 million new acres of land designated as ``wilderness areas'' under this bill. Today, there are 708 federally imposed ``wilderness areas'' totaling 107 million acres of land in 44 States. If this bill is enacted, the amount of Federal wilderness areas will exceed the amount of all developed land in the United States. If Congress does not take action to protect every American's constitutional rights now, it won't be long before these rights are in jeopardy on even more land. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the best thing about what has been happening in this session of Congress, I think, is that the American people are paying close attention to what is going on here, and I certainly hope that they are paying close attention to the debate on this rule today because it's an important rule that we are debating and it's an important bill that is going to be voted on. Process is important, I think, although people say most folks don't pay attention to it. But what the majority has done, it's taken a very, very bad bill and used every possible maneuver to it to keep us from really debating this bill, from voting on amendments, and from dealing with this bill in an open way. I want to say that I am a big supporter of national parks. I often say that I think the Federal Government's number one job is national defense, but I think there is an important role in this country for preserving land for all people to use. So I am a supporter of national parks. When I travel around the country, those are the places that I like to go. We are debating the rule, but the underlying bill, I think, is going to harm our country and harm Americans in many ways. We are going to be restricting Americans' right to the second amendment in this country. We are going to be restricting people with disabilities from using the very lands that they think they should be able to use. We are going to be restricting our disabled veterans from being able to use the parks and areas that are being set aside. We are going to be trampling on the important issue of eminent domain. Many people are opposed to this bill. We even have the ACLU along with several other groups saying that they are opposed to this bill and have serious reservations about it. But it's going to be rammed through, like so many other things have been rammed through in this session of Congress, and it's setting the tone for how the majority is operating in this Congress at this time. We are even told that even though 100 of these bills--there are 160 bills in this one bill--even though 100 of them have never been debated by either body, because the Senate okayed this, then it's okay with us. I suspect that later on in this session I'm going to hear my colleagues who made that comment make a very, very different kind of comment. So I am very concerned about this rule. I think it is a bad underlying bill. I think the rule is bad because it cuts off debate. But this is the modus operandi of the majority in this session. With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I am absolutely amazed at the ability of my colleagues to bring to life the novel 1984 by Orwell. They stand up every day and rewrite history right here on the floor of the House. We had 55 straight months of job growth, which ended in January 2007. Why? The Democrats took over the Congress that month. The Democrats then began spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much-- and they continue to do that. Their plans are going to finish off this country as we know it. Their budget will grow the Nation's debt to 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019--from 41 percent in 2008. The Democrat budget doubles the share of the debt on every family in America. The current debt per capita is roughly $35,000. Under the Democrat budget, this will rise to $70,000 in only 8 years. Despite the Democrats' claim, their budget plans for deficits through 2019 are actually higher than any year before President Obama took office.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is time for a brief history lesson. In the fall of 2008, the Bush administration came running to Congress with an historic ask: $700 billion with no strings attached to save the country from financial meltdown. At the time I didn't buy it, so I voted against the bailout plan twice. In fact, my distaste for the bailout plan and the unfettered access to taxpayer money that it gave the Treasury Department and the executive branch was so strong that I soon introduced a bill to stop the bailout mania. It was a simple bill, but it had to be considered by Congress thanks to the way the bailout law had been written. In a nutshell, it would have stopped the second half of the $700 billion TARP bailout. I introduced it in 2008 and again in 2009. President Bush's request for the second half of the bailout money in early 2009 triggered consideration of my bill. That's when things got interesting. The week before we considered my bill to stop the bailout, we also considered another bill called the TARP Reform and Accountability Act. Nice name, but what it essentially did was give a tacit thumbs-up on the second half of the bailout and even more wasteful bailouts with taxpayer money of failed automakers. It had some provisions to increase oversight and transparency. But ultimately, it would have expanded the use of taxpayer money for bailouts. As I look back over the debates from those two days in January and in the ensuing weeks, I found some comments to be rather surprising, especially in light of the news last week about the outrageous bonuses awarded at AIG, a company which received another $30 billion this month in government bailout cash. The comments and questions from my friends on the other side of the aisle focused on their unwavering trust in the Obama administration's intentions to stop these sorts of executive bonus payments at companies that received bailout money. During the debate on the anti-bailout measure, my colleague, Chairman Frank said, ``We saw bankers saying I got the money, it's none of your business what we do with it. We saw bonuses given that shouldn't be given. I am confident that the Obama administration has learned from that.'' In his defense, I know that the chairman of the Financial Services Committee does not support these AIG millionaire bonuses, but we can draw a useful lesson from his comments. It's a simple lesson: the Obama administration pledging that there will be no more excessive bonuses does not make it so. While I regret that my colleague was so gravely mistaken about the Obama administration, I do think that it is important to point out how quickly the new administration's actions have fallen short of its inflated rhetoric. Let's take a look at some of the other comments made over the past couple of months. Last month, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) trumpeted President Obama's promise to limit executive compensation at bailed out companies. He said, ``Today, the President will limit executive compensation for executives of companies that take advantage of taxpayer bailout funds. This is the right thing to do.'' And in January, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota defended his vote to give the Obama administration the $350 billion in bailout cash, ``The written pledges of the Obama administration to operate TARP with firm conditions, greater oversight and transparent accountability abide with the conditions passed by the House.'' So what exactly did the Obama administration pledge to do? It pledged to ensure that bailed out financial institutions did not go overboard with excessive executive compensation bonuses. Specifically, his National Economic Adviser wrote a letter to Congress on January 12 that stated: ``The President-elect is committed to using the full arsenal of tools available to us to get credit flowing again to families and businesses. He will ask his Department of Treasury to put in place strict and sensible conditions on CEO compensation and dividend payments until taxpayers get their money back.'' He continued: ``We will ensure that resources are directed to increasing lending and preventing new financial crises and not to enriching shareholders or executives. Those receiving exceptional assistance will be subject to tough but sensible conditions that limit executive compensation until taxpayer money is paid back.'' One of my colleagues, Mr. McGovern, was very encouraged by this letter from the incoming administration. I will read what he said in response to the administration's pledge: ``And I should say that the statement by the Obama administration, the statement by Larry Summers, is all very encouraging. It demonstrates a real appreciation of what average people are going through.'' I will leave it to the American people to judge how well the Obama administration has stood by its pledge to ``limit executive compensation until taxpayer money is paid back,'' and I will leave it to the American people to judge how well this administration appreciates what average people are going through--unless, of course, you consider people who get million-dollar bonuses for running a massive company into the grounds to be average.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my family and I have always been pet lovers. In fact, we have always been owned by at least one cat and one dog. We support many animal rescue organizations. The current dog and cat we have are both rescue pets. However, we cannot hold a candle to a person whose life has been dedicated to saving animals. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great American, a woman with a passion for the humane treatment of animals, my friend, Gertrude Maxwell. Gertrude Maxwell is the founder, past president, and lifetime chairman of Save-A-Pet of Illinois, which she founded more than 35 years ago. Later, she founded and served as president of Save- A-Pet of Florida. Then, 15 years ago, she started the National Save-a- Pet Foundation, where she currently serves as director and chairman. Her Save-A-Pet organization exists for one reason--saving animals. It is a nonprofit group dedicated to saving abandoned, homeless, or lost pets, and is committed to shielding pets from the practice of animal euthanasia. Gertrude is a champion of abandoned and unwanted pets and, as a fellow animal lover, I am inspired by her pioneering work with Save-A- Pet. When she discovered in 1972 that more than 90,000 pets were destroyed every month in the United States, she set about the work of shrinking and hopefully one day eliminating the number of pets euthanized in America. Throughout her lifetime of work on behalf of animals, Gertrude has established and maintained many animal hospitals and adoption centers. Thanks to her unwavering commitment to saving pets, her work has directly saved nearly 100,000 pets over the course of her decades-long campaign on behalf of animals. After more than 35 years of advocacy for animals, she is still working for the humane treatment of animals. Her tireless efforts also find her lobbying for laws to aid animal welfare, and recently bore fruit when the Save-A-Pet Act was signed into law in Florida last spring. This legislation creates what is known as a Direct Support Organization that will raise funds from individuals, corporations, and small businesses to provide grants to animal shelters in emergency situations. This organization will provide for spaying and neutering of abandoned cats and dogs, reduce the need for euthanasia of animals, and reduce animal cruelty. The Save-A-Pet Act was widely supported by Governor Charlie Crist and organizations like the Florida Veterinary Medical Association; the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs; the Florida Animal Control Association, and the National Rifle Association. Gertrude has received over 200 awards and honors for her dedication to defenseless and vulnerable animals in America. Today, I honor this outstanding woman for a lifetime of selfless service to her community and for her love for animals.