Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. McGovern, another Member of the Rules Committee, said, ``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.'' They really understand average people in this country. This bill unconstitutionally gets, back 1/1000th--that's one one thousandth of the bailout cash that AIG has gotten. We need to get all of it back--all $170 billion. We need a bailout exit strategy. And passing unconstitutional laws is not an exit strategy.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by submitting for the record the vote record for the stimulus bill, which included the provision for the AIG bonuses that the administration pushed for, showing that the gentlelady from Maine, who said earlier that she had not voted for these bonuses, when she told the gentleman from Florida she didn't vote it. House Rollcall Vote 70, Feb. 13, 2009 yeas (246) Republicans (0). Democrats (246): Abercrombie (HI-01), Ackerman (NY-05), Adler (NJ-03), Altmire (PA-04), Andrews (NJ-01), Arcuri (NY- 24), Baca (CA-43), Baird (WA-03), Baldwin (WI-02), Barrow (GA-12), Bean (IL-08), Becerra (CA-31), Berkley (NV-01), Berman (CA-28), Berry (AR-01), Bishop, S. (GA-02), Bishop, T. (NY-01), Blumenauer (OR-03), Boccieri (OH-16), Boren (OK-02), Boswell (IA-03), Boucher (VA-09), Boyd, A. (FL-02), Brady, R. (PA-01), Braley (IA-01), Brown, C. (FL-03), Butterfield (NC- 01), Capps (CA-23), Capuano (MA-08), Cardoza (CA-18), Carnahan (MO-03), Carney (PA-10), Carson, A. (IN-07), Castor (FL-11), Chandler (KY-06), Childers (MS-01), Clarke (NY-11), Clay (MO-01), Cleaver (MO-05), Cohen (TN-09), Connolly (VA- 11), Conyers (MI-14), Cooper (TN-05), Costa (CA-20), Costello (IL-12), Courtney (CT-02), Crowley (NY-07), Cuellar (TX-28), Cummings (MD-07), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Davis, A. (AL-07), Davis, D. (IL-07), Davis, L. (TN-04), Davis, S. (CA-53), DeGette (CO-01), Delahunt (MA-10), DeLauro (CT-03), Dicks (WA-06), Dingell (MI-15), Doggett (TX-25), Donnelly (IN-02), Doyle (PA-14), Driehaus (OH-01), Edwards, C. (TX-17), Edwards, D. (MD-04), Ellison (MN-05), Ellsworth (IN-08), Engel (NY-17), Eshoo (CA-14), Etheridge (NC-02), Farr (CA- 17), Fattah (PA-02), Filner (CA-51), Foster (IL-14), Frank, B (MA-04), Fudge (OH-11), Giffords (AZ-08), Gonzalez (TX-20), Gordon (TN-06), Grayson (FL-08), Green, A. (TX-09), Green, G. (TX-29), Grijalva (AZ-07), Gutierrez (IL-04), Hall, J. (NY- I9), Halvorson (IL-11), Hare (IL-17), Harman (CA-36), Hastings, A. (FL-23), Heinrich (NM-01), Herseth Sandlin (SD- AL), Higgins (NY-27), Hill (IN-09), Himes (CT-04), Hinchey (NY-22), Hinojosa (TX-15), Hirono (HI-02), Hodes (NH-02), Holden (PA-17), Holt (NJ-I2), Honda (CA-I5), Hoyer (MD-05), Inslee (WA-01), Israel (NY-02), Jackson, J. (IL-02), Jackson Lee (TX-18), Johnson, E. (TX-30), Johnson, H. (GA-04), Kagen (WI-08), Kanjorski (PA-11), Kaptur (OH-09), Kennedy, P. (RI- 01), Kildee (MI-05), Kilpatrick (MI-13), Kilroy (OH-I5), Kind (W1-03), Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Kissell (NC-08), Klein, R. (FL- 22), Kosmas (FL-24), Kratovil (MD-01), Kucinich (OH-10), Langevin (RI-02), Larsen, R. (WA-02), Larson, J. (CT-01), Lee (CA-09), Levin, S. (MI-12), Lewis, John (GA-05), Loebsack (IA-02), Lofgren (CA-16), Lowey (NY-18), Lujan (NM-03), Lynch (MA-09), Maffei (NY-25), Maloney (NY-14), Markey, B. (CO-04), Markey, E. (MA-07), Marshall (GA-08), Massa (NY-29), Matheson (UT-02), Matsui (CA-05), McCarthy, C. (NY-04), McCollum (MN- 04), McDermott (WA-07), McGovern (MA-03), McIntyre (NC-07), McMahon (NY-13), McNerney (CA-11), Meek, K. (FL-17), Meeks, G. (NY-06), Melancon (LA-03), Michaud (ME-02), Miller, B. (NC-13), Miller, George (CA-07), Mitchell (AZ-05), Mollohan (WV-01), Moore, D. (KS-03), Moore, G. (WI-04), Moran, James (VA-08), Murphy, C. (CT-05), Murphy, P. (PA-08), Murtha (PA- 12), Nadler (NY-08), Napolitano (CA-38), Neal (MA-02), Nye (VA-02), Oberstar (MN-08), Obey (WI-07), Olver (MA-01), Ortiz (TX-27), Pallone (NJ-06), Pascrell (NJ-08), Pastor (AZ-04), Payne (NJ-10), Pelosi (CA-08), Perlmutter (CO-07), Perriello (VA-05), Peters (MI-09), Pingree (ME-01), Polis (CO-02), Pomeroy (ND-AL), Price, D. (NC-04), Rahall (WV-03), Rangel (NY-15), Reyes (TX-16), Richardson (CA-37), Rodriguez (TX- 23), Ross (AR-04), Rothman (NJ-09), Roybal-Allard (CA-34), Ruppersberger (MD-02), Rush (IL-01), Ryan, T. (OH-17), Salazar, J. (CO-03), Sanchez, Linda (CA-39), Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47), Sarbanes (MD-03), Schakowsky (IL-09), Schauer (MI- 07), Schiff (CA-29), Schrader (OR-05), Schwartz (PA-13), Scott, D. (GA-13), Scott, R. (VA-03), Serrano (NY-16), Sestak (PA-07), Shea-Porter (NH-01), Sherman (CA-27), Sires (NJ-13), Skelton (MO-04), Slaughter (NY-28), Smith, Adam (WA-09), Snyder (AR-02), Solis (CA-32), Space (OH-18), Speier (CA-12), Spratt (SC-05), Stark (CA-13), Stupak (MI-01), Sutton (OH- 13), Tanner (TN-08), Tauscher (CA-10), Teague (NM-02), Thompson, B. (MS-02), Thompson, M. (CA-01), Tierney (MA-06), Titus (NV-03), Tonko (NY-21), Towns (NY-10), Tsongas (MA-05), Van Hollen (MD-08), Velazquez (NY-12), Visclosky (IN-01), Walz (MN-01), Wasserman Schultz (FL-20), Waters (CA-35), Watson (CA-33), Watt (NC-12), Waxman (CA-30), Weiner (NY-09), Welch (VT-AL), Wexler (FL-19), Wilson, Charlie (OH-06), Woolsey (CA-06), Wu (OR-01), Yarmuth (KY-03).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have asked the gentlewoman from Ohio for a simple answer and I am not getting that. I would like to ask her to please answer the question that I asked her: Why did she not vote to stop the bonuses to the AIG employees? Does the gentlelady refuse to answer?

Ms. FOXX. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentlelady to answer my question.

Ms. FOXX. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentlewoman to answer my question. Why did you not vote for that bill to stop these payments?

Ms. FOXX. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio says there is a time and place for this debate. She indicates this is not the time and place. It is my belief that this is the time and place for that debate. It is a time and place for there to be accountability and responsibility. We have heard those words over and over and over from the other side and from the President. It's time that the other side decides to live up to their responsibility and their accountability.

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding the time. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy) for her service in various governmental capacities and for her amendment. We all agree that service to this Nation is important. That's why all of us are here. We serve our constituents. So I would like to ask the gentlewoman, Ms. Kilroy, why she voted to block consideration of a bill to require the Treasury Secretary to recoup the outrageous bonuses to AIG employees. This week, $165 million was awarded to 73 AIG employees. Today's vote would have stopped the bonus payments on behalf of American taxpayers and prevented future abuses of bailout funds. All Americans, my constituents, your constituents, which we serve, are outraged over this because it is taxpayers who are keeping this country alive. So I ask the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy) why she didn't stand up and serve her constituents today. We all had a chance to do something today. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman for a response.

Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentlelady from OHio.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Again I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. It is interesting. I had intended to say something about this sounding to me like AIG in many ways. I didn't realize that my colleague from Minnesota was going to say that when he got up to speak. But I wanted to point out the purpose of this program as stated in section 1201. It is to: Support high-quality service-learning projects that engage students in meeting community needs with demonstrable results, while enhancing students' academic and civic learning; and build institutional capacity, including the training of educators, and to strengthen the service infrastructure. That is the purpose. When you get over in the evaluation section, it is pretty nebulous. One of the interesting things that I find is that they are saying that if the program doesn't perform, if they received assistance for less, they mean fewer, than 3 years, and is failing to achieve the performance measures, then they give them technical assistance. They give them technical assistance for 3 more years, and then they make some decision about whether they are going to continue funding the program. I think we are setting up AIG programs all over this government. We just happen to know about AIG because of the egregious situation that has come up. But we have a potential AIG program right here. We are funding these people. We have no way to evaluate it. The expectations are not set out to begin with, and that is a great failing in this program. So I can tell you that if we examine this program closely, we could show at least as much or maybe more money being abused by this program than is being used by AIG. The American people should be up in arms about all of these programs that we are funding from which we get no value. Now what we are getting, we are employing a lot of bureaucrats, a lot of bureaucrats at high salaries. I call that high-priced welfare. But we are not getting a good return on our investment, just like we haven't gotten a good return on our investment from AIG.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for his gracious comments. It's a joy to serve on the Rules Committee. It's a joy, actually, to serve with all the folks on the Rules Committee. I am learning a great deal. We have some very talented people on that committee. I do have to say, though, that I disagree with many of my colleagues about this rule and about this bill. I appreciated the comments that have been made. I particularly appreciate my colleague giving the definition from Winston Churchill because I use that definition often when I write volunteers to congratulate them on what they do. To quote it again, ``We make a living by what we do, but we make a life by what we give.'' The word ``give'' is the important word here. I looked up the definition of volunteer, and it says ``a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.'' The second definition is ``a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.'' What this bill does is expands dramatically the government's role in an area that I don't think the government should be dealing with. Our colleague from Ohio just said this is an opportunity for people who have lost their jobs. Well, I think it's important that we encourage volunteers, but this is a paid job. This is a government-authorized charity. And it concerns me a great deal because I see our taking over what is being done voluntarily by people--this, and in the budget. The President wants to tax people who give money to volunteer organizations and to charities. He says that's okay because the government's going to pay it. We're pretty soon going to have a government that controls everything in our society. That's not what America is all about. When de Tocqueville came here in the 1800s--and he is quoted over and over--he said he never saw a society with so many associations. Those are voluntary associations. We have Ruritan clubs, Civitan clubs, Rotary clubs. They do their work without pay. That is what America's all about. What we are doing is creating a 1984 because we're setting up paid volunteers. That's not what America's about. Someone sent me an e-mail last night and said we need to give this GIVE Act a new name: People Audaciously and Insidiously Demanding Vituperously Outlandish, Laughable, Unsustainable, Needless, Totally Egregious and Extortionary Recompense Act, or the PAID VOLUNTEER Act. That is what this is all about. That is not what America is all about. We need to be encouraging people to be volunteers and not be paid for it. The other concern that I have is that there is no accountability in this bill. The Learn and Serve program that is already in existence was rated the lowest rating possible--not performing; results not demonstrated by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool. Yesterday, in the committee, the gentleman from the Education Committee made a big deal about the fact that these programs are going to be evaluated by PART. But they've already been evaluated, and they've been evaluated as basically no good and as wasting money. The AmeriCorps National Community Corps Program was rated as a low rating, of not performing, and ineffective by OMB's PART program. OMB defines a rating of ineffective as programs not using your tax dollars effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to establish evaluation programs. I know. I was in education for a long, long time. It is difficult to do that. These programs are not establishing credible evaluation programs. We demand that of our education programs, we demand it of teachers. No Child Left Behind has the most egregious kinds of evaluation programs that we hear about all the time. Here, we are spending $27,000 dollars per person; $27,000. In North Carolina, I think we are spending about an average of $7,000 dollars per child in public education. That may not be the most up-to-date figure, but it's something like that. And here we are going to pay $27,000 dollars per person for these volunteers? What about that? I know that probably hospitals in my community and other groups that use volunteers extensively don't spend hundreds of dollars for volunteers, let alone $27,000.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for yielding additional time. As I said, one of my concerns is here we are in a time when we need to be looking at every single dollar we spend. I take that approach every day. I don't care if the Federal Government is flush with money, we should be very careful with every penny we spend. The American public are watching us like never before. And here we are, about to put these programs out. One of the concerns I had, too, is how the people are going to be counted. Again, where is the evaluation? In the rule that was adopted yesterday, it said that this bill adds language to promote community-based efforts to reduce crime and recruit public safety officers in the service opportunities. Well, I wonder if every community-watch program in the country, which can have hundreds of people in them who do very little, but they perform an important service for their community. They may be assigned an hour a week to do something. Are they going to be part of these 250,000 volunteers? That's not at all clear. But I have a suspicion they're going to be counted if they can get to that magic number. And they will say, Look, we have 250,000 people. But the effectiveness is not being gauged, and I think this is a tremendous waste of money where we could be doing this for a lot less.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague. I agree with him. I think this should be dealt with right now. This is something we very much agree on. And my colleague from California, I think, has just made the case for why this bill should not be passed. She said, let's get this on through. Let's move it through. That is the same thing we heard about the stimulus: We don't have time to wait; we have got to move this on through. Every time the majority wants to get something passed that ought not to be passed, they are ramming it through. That has been the whole story of this session. I just want to share with you from the White House OMB, Washington, ExpectMore, their program assessment of the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. It says, ``not performing, ineffective, the program has never conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Compared to other AmeriCorps service programs, this program is very costly. Performance goals are not measurable.'' Ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. These are coming from OMB. We know the program is not effective, and we are going to be spending $3 billion. With AIG, the contention is $165 million. It is a pittance compared to the money that is going to be spent on this program. And the program says ``and such sums.'' That, ladies and gentlemen, means any money they want to spend. It is open- ended. They can spend anything. I want to say, again, what is happening here is that we are confusing government work with public service. Yesterday our colleague from the Education Committee said, ``well, this program gets kids in middle school, it moves them into high school and moves them into that, and eventually they get a government job.'' We are teaching people to go to work for the government through this program. What a shame. Shame on us. This country was not built on working for the government. It was built on volunteering and on the private sector. We are taking this country over with the government.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit codifies current regulations with regard to activities and organizations ineligible for grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service and AmeriCorps volunteers. The activities include lobbying, protesting, union organizing, engaging in partisan political activities or religious instruction, conducting voter registration, or providing direct benefits to for- profit businesses, labor unions or political parties. It also adds to the list of organizations, those that promote or provide abortions, as well as for-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, lobbyists, and those indicted for voter fraud. Organizations are also prohibited from receiving funds under these instructions if they are also co-located with an organization that engages in prohibited activities. Finally, no organization that receives funds under this bill may displace current employed workers or volunteers. Madam Speaker, the overriding principle here is that money is fungible. Funds must be used for the purpose of service and encouraging others to serve within their communities. They must not be allowed to be used for prohibited activities. Groups that might be eligible for these grants and volunteers, if this motion to recommit were not to pass, include a laundry list of organizations that engage in activities that many Americans do not support. For example, ACORN employees and supervisors have been indicted for voter fraud in recent history. During the 2008 election, proof surfaced that voter registration by the group was, in the words of the New York Times, ``vastly overstated,'' including registrations for Disney characters and Dallas Cowboy football players. Experts say that instances of inaccurate registration and fraud are greater when volunteers receive payment for their services. The American taxpayer should not be forced to pay for fraudulent behavior in the name of promoting community service. For the current 2008-2009 AmeriCorps service year, Oregon Planned Parenthood has listed position for a paid volunteer. This AmeriCorps volunteer would be responsible for ``providing, promoting and protecting access to reproductive sexual health care for the women, men, and teens.'' While individuals should be aware of how to access health care services within their communities, the Federal Government prohibits use of Federal funds to be used for abortion as a form of family planning. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund volunteers at organizations such as this. Volunteerism plays a critical role in meeting many needs in our society. However, the Federal Government should not be paying individuals to volunteer their time at locations that are prohibited from receiving taxpayer dollars, especially when Americans are already facing budget constraints from all the demands they face. This is not acceptable. This motion to recommit ensures that taxpayer dollars are not directed toward programs that are politically divisive and morally objectionable. It also ensures that AmeriCorps volunteers and recipients of corporation grants do not disrupt current volunteer activities and employee responsibilities. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. I am, Madam Speaker.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues on the great job that they have done this evening in presenting information about the budget, the deficit, the challenges that we are facing in this country, and I particularly want to agree with Congressman Carter from Texas for the statement he made about the fact that we live in a wonderful country. In fact, I tell my friends all the time, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is say thank you, Lord, for letting me live in this country. And the last thing I say, before I go to sleep at night, is thank you, Lord, for letting me live in this country. We are the most blessed people in the world, I believe that God has given us tremendous opportunities and responsibilities. And for those of us who have been here tonight and other nights and other days talking about what's happening in our country, we are really motivated by the fact that we know we live in the greatest country in the world, and we want it to remain that way. And what we see happening in this country is people taking us in the wrong direction in order to maintain the greatness and the opportunities that this country has always had and always presented. One of the things nobody said tonight is the fact that we, as Republicans, we, as conservatives, I would say--not all Republicans are conservatives, but those of us who are conservatives and who have been here talking about these issues are not alone. There are many Democrats who share our concerns too. I want to just share some quotes from some of our colleagues who have expressed their own concern and their own apprehension about the proposals that have been made by this Congress and by this President. Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana. ``I do think that before we raise revenue we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.'' As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama's plan, Bayh said, I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending. This was in Politico March 3, 2009, ``Moderates Uneasy With Obama Plan.'' Again, Republican conservatives are not the only ones that are worried about the direction that we are going. Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, ``I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy.'' Then he says, ``On the one hand, you're trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you're trying to keep money from going into taxpayers' pockets. It's very difficult to make that logic work.'' Again, Politico, March 3, 2009. Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat, Nevada. ``Representative Shelley Berkley, (D-Nev) called the proposal `a nonstarter,' telling Geithner, `I'd like to think that people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up their heartstrings.' Outside the hearing, Berkeley said the proposed tax increase was `the number one issue on the minds of her constituents over the weekend. Reminded that the provision is intended to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage, Obama's top domestic priority, she said, `We can find another way.' '' We know that going in this direction, and these Democrats know, that this is not the way that we should be going. We should not be taking more money from the American people. Cutting back spending would be the appropriate way to go. I have a couple of other articles that I want to share, actually three articles that I want to share pieces of, because, again, they show, I think, the direction or the concern that people are having about these proposals that have been made in the last 50 days. This article is from Stewart Taylor, Jr., it's in the National Journal, March 7, 2009. Stewart Taylor is known as a very strong liberal. He has been described in other terms even stronger than that, in terms of his liberalism, but I am just going to call him that tonight. The title of this article is ``Obama's Left Turn.'' It reads, ``Having praised President Obama's job performance in two recent columns, it is with regret that I now worry that he may be deepening what looks more and more like a depression and may engineer so much spending, debt, and government control of the economy as to leave most Americans permanently less prosperous and less free. ``Other Obama-admiring centrists have expressed similar concerns. Like them, I would like to be proved wrong. After all, if this President fails, who will revive our economy? And when? And what kind of America will our children inherit? ``But with the Nation already plunging deep into probably necessary debt to rescue the crippled financial system and stimulate the economy, Obama's proposals for many hundreds of billions in additional spending on universal health care, universal postsecondary education, a massive overhaul of the energy economy, and other liberal programs seem grandiose and unaffordable. ``With little in the way of offsetting savings likely to materialize, the Obama agenda would probably generate trillion-dollar deficits with no end in sight or send middle-class taxes soaring to record levels or both. ``All this from a man who told the Nation last week that he doesn't `believe in bigger government,' and who promised tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. ``The President's suggestions that all the necessary tax increases can be squeezed out of the richest 2 percent are deceptive and likely to stir class resentment. And his apparent cave-ins to liberal interest groups may change the country for the worse.'' Then he goes on to say, ``Such concerns may help explain why the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 17 percent from the morning of Inauguration Day (8,280) to its close on March 4 (6,876). The markets have also been deeply shaken by Obama's alarming failure to come up with a clear plan for fixing the crippled financial system--which has loomed since his election 4 months ago as by far his most urgent challenge--or for working with foreign leaders to arrest the meltdown of the world economy. ``The house is burning down. It's no time to be watering the grass. ``This is not to deny that the liberal wish list in Obama is staggering $3.6 trillion budget would be wonderful if we had limitless resources. But in the real world, it could put vast areas of the economy under permanent government mismanagement, kill millions of jobs, drive investors and employers overseas, and bankrupt the Nation.'' Let me say again, these words are not being written or spoken by a conservative, they are being spoken by a person who calls himself a moderate but is described by most people as quite a liberal. He goes on to say, ``Meanwhile, liberal Democrats in Congress are racing to gratify their interest groups in a slew of ways likely to do much more harm than good: Pushing a union-backed `card check' bill that would bypass secret-ballot elections on unionization and facilitate intimidation of reluctant workers; slipping into the stimulus package a formula to reimburse States that increase welfare dependency among single mothers and reduce their incentives to work; defunding a program that now pays for the parents of some 1,700 poor kids to choose private schools over crumbling D.C. public schools; fencing out would-be immigrants with much-needed skills. ``Not to mention the $7.7 billion in an omnibus spending bill to pay for 9,000 earmarks of the kind that Obama campaigned against: $1.7 million for research on pig odors in Iowa; $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Texas; $819,000 for research on catfish genetics in Alabama; $2 million to promote astronomy in Hawaii, $650,000 to manage beavers in North Carolina and Mississippi; and many more.'' The article goes on and on as I said, but I want to share, not all of it, but a couple of more pieces of it, because I don't want to spend all the time reading from this article. I want to skip over to where he says, ``Small wonder that liberal commentators who complained about Obama's initial stabs at bipartisanship are ecstatic about his budget. And small wonder that some centrists, who have had high hopes for Obama--including New York Times columnist, David Brooks, my colleague, Clive Crook, David Gergen and Christopher Buckley--are sounding alarms. ``In a March 3 column headed `A Moderate Manifesto,' Brooks wrote, `Those of us who consider ourselves moderates--moderate conservative, in my case--are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. The only thing more scary than Obama's experiment is the thought that it might fail.'' Then I will share the end of the column, ``I still hold out hope that Obama is not irrevocably `casting his lot with collectivists and status,' as asserted by Peter Wehner, a former Bush aid and a leading conservative intellectual now with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.'' ``And I hope that the President ponders well Margaret Thatcher's wise warnings against some collectivist conceits, in a 1980s speech quoted by Wehner: `The illusion that government can be a universal provider and yet society still stay free and prosperous. The illusion that every loss can be covered by a subsidy. The illusion that we can break the link between reward and effort, and still get the reward.' '' Again, my point in sharing this is that it isn't just conservatives who are concerned with the direction in which we are going in this society. There is another article on an Internet Web site called GOPUSA that many people who use the Internet and use e-mail will be familiar with. The title of it is ``George Orwell Would Be Impressed With Barack Obama,'' and it's written by Doug Patton and it's dated March 2, 2009. ``There he was, standing before a joint session of Congress, promising America the Moon 1 minute and sounding like a deficit hawk the next. President Barack Obama and his Democrat cohorts had just rammed through the biggest pile of pork in the history of the republic, and yet there he stood, before the whole Nation, telling us he was going to go through the budget `line by line' finding ways to cut waste. In fact, he intended to `slash the deficit' he `inherited' by almost exactly the amount he and his Democrat Congress had just spent. What a coincidence.'' The article goes on to say, ``Obama is a combination of Ronald Reagan and Big Brother--by which I mean that he uses his considerable communications skills to sell the agenda of the huge, intrusive government, and that he does it in a ``Newspeak'' that would impress George Orwell. ``Those who have read Orwell's prophetic little tomorrow, `1984,' will recall that `Newspeak' was a language in which the line between contrary concepts was so blurred that words either had no meaning at all or could be used to create concepts that were contrary. When words no longer had meaning, the concept of truth was not far behind.'' I want to say to those who are watching this tonight, if you have never read ``1984,'' or if it's been a long time since you have read it, I will urge you to reread it now, because I think you will be startled by it and by the analogies that are being made by this author here tonight. So what will Obama's America look like if he gets all that he wants? It won't happen overnight, but if he has his way, eventually it will be a very dreary place, much like the old Soviet Union. Having followed the old Marxist axiom of making everyone equal, Obama will have brought about the same kind of quality instituted by the old Soviet Politburo. Gone will be the quality of opportunity we have enjoyed for more than 200 years, the right to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Obama's America, as in the failed Soviet State, a quality of outcome will be the preferred result. The idea is to make everyone equally prosperous. This sounds good in theory until one considers that the only way governments have ever accomplished this is by making men and women equal in their poverty, misery and squalor. And how does the President pay for it all? It doesn't seem to matter to most Americans. He talks about taxing the rich in order to pay for his schemes. Yet, if our government confiscated 100 percent of the income of everyone in this country making more than $75,000 a year, he would barely have enough to cover this year's budget. And we don't even have universal health care yet. Human beings are endowed with our rights by our Creator. Our Founders recognized that principle. This President and the majority in Congress believe our rights come from them. No one, until now, has been able to sell that idea to the American people. Barack Obama is doing his best to sell it to us now, and George Orwell would be very impressed. The last article I want to share is an article from the Saturday- Sunday March 7-8, 2009, Wall Street Journal. I think another thing that hasn't been clear to the American people is that there are many things said by the President, by the leadership in this Congress, that if you look behind the curtain, as we do in the Wizard of Oz, you will see that what is being said and what is actually being done are not exactly the same thing. More and more people are beginning to talk about this, but few have brought out really good examples of it as well as this article in the Wall Street Journal does. The title of it, and it's an editorial, the title of it is: Obama Channels Cheney. ``The Obama administration this week released its predecessors post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of transparency, producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. ``Anyone initiated in President Obama's actual executive power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling. ``In a Federal suit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the al- Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush administration in 2004, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped. ``At the heart of the al-Haramain case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Service Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known. ``In July, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA preempts the state secrets privilege. If he does, al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate. ``The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive, than the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause exceptional harm to national security by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday, the ninth circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker. ``In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information is committed to the discretion of the executive branch. And is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the court does not have independent power to order the government to grant counsel access to classified information when the executive branch has denied them such access. ``The brief continues that Federal judges are ill-equipped to second- guess the executive branch. That is about as pure an assertion of Presidential powers as they come, and we are beginning to wonder if the White House has put David Addington, Mr. Cheney's chief legal aid, on retainer. ``The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous, at least before taking office. ``Justice, by the way, is making the same state secrets argument in a separate lawsuit involving rendition and a Boeing subsidiary. ``Hide the children, but we agree with Mr. Obama that the President has inherent Article II constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation hearings. ``It's reassuring to know the administration is refusing to compromise core executive branch prerogatives, especially on war powers. Then, again, we are relearning that the ``Imperial Presidency'' is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for spying on Americans and illegal wiretaps are now conspicuously silent. Yet, these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos issue this week. ``Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the al-Haramain case. ``By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not political directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when war seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of war powers in a worst case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his administration would do the same.'' ``I think, again, it's important that even late at night, when maybe not too many people are paying attention, we reveal some of the cognitive dissonance that exists in this administration and in this Congress in ways that it discussed the previous administration, actions of the previous administration, and the things that it is doing now. ``We have to hope that once he became President, President Obama did learn that there are some things that the President must do that he may have railed against as a candidate, and hope that there's a maturity there that will service us all well.'' I want to end my comments tonight on a totally different subject. Today, we passed a resolution celebrating Women's History Month. I was not able to be here during that time. But I often point out the situation with women in the Congress and with the role that they have played in our country over the years, and celebrate that role, as I think it is important to our country. Most people know very little about the history of women in our country; about the history of women and their voting rights. So I am going to share just a little bit with you on that issue. And I have learned some of these things since coming to Congress. Some people may not know that in 1790, the New Jersey colony granted voting rights to all free inhabitants. But then, in 1807, they took back from New Jersey women the right to vote. In 1869, the Wyoming territory gave women full suffrage; 1870, Utah. And it goes on and on with other States, other territories giving women the right to vote. In fact, the first woman who was elected to Congress was elected in 1916 before women in this country had the right to vote. She was from Montana--Jeannette Rankin. She was elected there, and women got the right to vote in the West because women were valued much more in the West in the early days of our country, and that was one of the ways to attract women to come out West. Let me give you a little history of the women in the Congress. Thirty-seven women have served in the United States Senate. Only 37. I don't have the total number of the men who have served, but I have been told that approximately 12,000 men have served in the Congress. Only 37 women in the Senate. Seventeen are currently serving. Two hundred twenty-nine women have served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Seventy-four of them are currently serving. That totals 266 women that have ever served in the United States Congress; 91 currently serving. So 12,000 men, 266 women. I am the fourth woman from the State of North Carolina. The first woman was elected in a special election in 1946. She served 1946 and 1947 and didn't run in the general election for re-election. Eva Clayton from the first district was the first woman to serve. She was elected in a special election. Sue Myrick, who's currently serving, was the second woman to be elected. North Carolina has had two women Senators; Elizabeth Dole, who served from 2003 to 2008, and Kay Hagan, who is currently serving. I think most of us wish we would have more women serving in the Congress on both sides of the aisle because we believe that it adds to the Congress in terms of the perspectives that we bring, is as it adds to the Congress that we have men serving who have been in many, many different professions and had many, many different experiences. I see that my colleague from Texas has joined me. Before I yield back my time, I would like to see if he has some comments that he would like to make. This is Mr. Gohmert from the great State of Texas. I would remind him that he and I are the only two things standing in the way of adjournment tonight.

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for coming in tonight and sharing this time with me and ending the evening on the appropriate note.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank my colleague from Texas for starting this Special Order tonight and giving me a chance to come down and be you with you and spend some time talking about several different issues. I certainly agree with you that it is important for the American people to have faith and trust in their elected officials. And I think that there is a great deal of cynicism in this country. And people wonder what can they believe in? I think that it is important that when they hear us speaking on the floor, or they get letters from us, or they have other means of communications from us, that they know that we are telling them the truth. When I first came here, we had folks speaking on the floor almost every night. A group of us who were new in the Congress that year, in 2005, were so concerned about the things that were being said that we established a group called the ``Truth Squad.'' And we would come down at night after that group would speak and set the record straight by giving out what we thought were true statements. They were often very different from the statements that were being made by our colleagues. I think it is important that we do this on every occasion, because frankly, I think in the last 3 years or so, the American people have really been sold a bill of goods. All of us would like to see things easier, better and less expensive. We would like to think that life would be a lot easier than it is. But we have challenges that we deal with every day. It is not likely that the government is going to be able to make our lives easier for us. Yet, that is what has been sold, I think, to the American people. We haven't had the benefit of having a large segment of the media on our side in order to be able to counteract some of those things that were said. I want to give a little detail, put a little meat on the bones of some of the things that you have been talking about in terms of what would this cap-and-tax plan do to us in the country? We have been told that everybody making less than $250,000 is not going to be taxed in this country and that 95 percent of the people are going to get a tax cut. But let's talk a little bit again about the particulars of this. It is actually $250,000 per couple. It is not $250,000 for an individual. It doesn't exempt small businesses who often are taxed at the individual rate. So there are some minor little details in there in what has been told about taxes and about the budget that has been presented. To go to your point about what the increase in taxes are going to do to the American people, you are absolutely right. Every single family is going to be paying for these ideas that are being brought up under the guise of ``scientific knowledge.'' I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any conclusive proof presented that the science can support this. We know that President Obama himself said, ``under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' So we know that is going to happen. But no one has explained to the American people how that is going to happen. There was a piece done by FOXNews just a few days ago, I think somewhere around March 4, where an energy analyst, Margot Thorning, said: ``In dollar cost terms, it is probably an additional $700 to $1,400 per family per year starting around 2012.'' That is right around the corner. So what the President says he is going to give is a tax cut. But that is going to amount to about $600 to $800, and at the same time, the families are going to be charged about $1,400 more in energy costs. So what the government is going to give, it is also going to take away. I think, again, what you're doing is great. I have pointed out many times that the North Carolina State motto is ``to be, rather than to seem.'' I have brought that up several times on the floor because I think that is what the American people want out of us here in Congress. The American people don't want us to seem rather than to be; and yet what is being done here in the name of science and in the name of protecting us from the climate change that they believe is occurring is going to be a pretty expensive trial as to whether or not this is going to work. And we don't know. It is an experiment, really. It is not proven science. We don't know that we are causing global warming with carbon. We have had global warming and global cooling even before human beings were on the Earth. So I think it is a great thing that you are doing, to tie programs, budgets, proposals and policies to this issue of ethics because they are tied together and are very important. I want to commend you for doing that. We have been joined by some of our very articulate colleagues here tonight, and I want to give them an opportunity to share their knowledge, their enthusiasm for this issue.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. This is my colleague from New Jersey, Scott Garrett.

Ms. FOXX. I wanted to say some of the same things. I think that you and I and conservatives here in Congress really were hopeful that when the Democrats took control of Congress, when President Obama was elected, that they would keep their promises. I agree with you. We wanted change. We wanted to cut spending. We wanted an era of different government. But all we have dealt with has been a series of broken promises. One promise after another. You highlighted the issue of not having 5 days to read the bill. I think that that's an extremely important thing. The American people take our job seriously even if some of our colleagues don't take their job seriously, but they expect us to be here to vote and they expect us to read the bills. I am getting more and more questions from people, have you read the bills? I am being much more diligent about reading bills these days because of that. But all we have gotten are broken promises from the President and from the Democrats who are in charge. And I think that's really a sad situation. Earmarks, for example, as our colleague from Minnesota pointed out, the bill that was passed the other day, the omnibus bill that was passed the other day, had 8,500 earmarks in it. Now, it may be that some of those are worthwhile projects, but we had a promise from our President that he would not sign any bill with any earmarks in it. He would go through line item by line item and take those out. That is another promise that's gone by the wayside. It's just not going to happen. I think what we are seeing is the comment that he made without his teleprompter that he does believe in wealth transfer. I think we know now why he always wants a teleprompter in front of him because when allowed to speak off the cuff sometimes he says some things that really reveal what it is. The comment about ``never let a crisis go to waste,'' of course, he didn't say that, his Chief of Staff said it. But the wealth transfer I think is something that the American people are beginning to understand.

Ms. FOXX. Well, there is a chart here that showed that in addition to the high rate we are going to be paying for the cap and tax that the President has in his budget bill, what I wanted to point out and wanted to ask the gentlelady, it's my understanding again that the President promised that he was going to cut taxes for 95 percent of taxpayers; is that right?

Ms. FOXX. And yet he left out saying he is going to raise taxes, though, a lot more for 100 percent of the people by instituting cap and tax. Again, they like to call it cap and trade, but it's going to be cap and tax. Because as you so eloquently pointed out, it's going to raise the cost of energy for everybody in this country. And these people, I think they are just playing God. I think they think that we human beings are going to offset the action of the sun. They think they are God, and they are going to be playing that role. But I wanted to point out something tonight that we haven't said that I think is very important to point out, and I think our colleague from New Jersey reminded me this is something we should be saying, we know, as Republicans, that Americans are hurting. We know lots of people in our districts who are suffering as a result of the actions and the policies that have been taken, particularly in the last couple of years, and we don't want that hurt to go on. So Republicans have been offering alternatives. The Democrats are accusing us of being the Party of ``No.'' You know, that's a cute little thing that they can try to hang around our necks. But I saw something today in Roll Call, can't take the credit for it, wish I could. I love it the way cartoonists can sometimes put in just a couple of words what we are thinking about, but there is a cartoon that says the Party of ``O'' and showing a picture of a donkey. Now, I like that. We are not the Party of ``No'' because we have presented alternatives. Last year we presented alternatives when it came to energy. We had an all-of-the-above energy plan. We have an alternative to the budget. We had an alternative to the stimulus, but we are being accused of being the Party of ``No,'' but I think calling them the Party of ``O'' is the appropriate thing to do, because they don't want to take responsibility. It's all a sham. I tell you, again, this place reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. You know, there is this feeling that there is something out there, and it's going to take people who are willing to say the truth to tell the American people. Those stories you heard, those promises you were made, not true.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Last week we talked about the massive increase in government spending President Obama is planning, the largest since World War II. This week we will tell you how they plan to pay for all this new government spending--with the largest tax increase in American history. The Democrats' budget will raise taxes by $1.4 trillion on American families and businesses over the next 10 years. President Obama promised a tax cut for most Americans, but he raises energy taxes on 100 percent of Americans. The Democrats' budget will put a new tax on charitable giving that could cost American charities as much as $16 billion a year. This will harm numerous organizations at a time when many of these groups are now struggling with the economic downturn. This is the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker. We need to stop this spending, taxing, and borrowing.