Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the era of big government is back. President Obama's proposal last week on the budget raises the deficit to $1.75 trillion. That is 12.3 percent of GDP. Even while rolling back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Democrats' budget stills grows the deficit, and we've been told over the years that it was those tax cuts that created the deficit. The national debt will double to $20 trillion in just 8 years. Think of that, ladies and gentlemen, $20 trillion. In the last 8 years, the budget rose only by $4.9 trillion in comparison. The Obama administration will exceed that within their first 3 years. Beginning in 2012 and every year thereafter, the government will spend more than $1 billion a day in net interest. Just think what we could do with that kind of money. I've just been visited by representatives of School Food Service in the Fifth District of North Carolina. They tell me, unless the Federal Government increases its commitment to School Food Service, children in our country are going to go hungry. Think what we could do with $1 billion a day. By 2019, the government will spend $1.7 billion per day on interest. Total spending is going to equal $3.9 trillion in 2009. That's 27 percent of GDP, a record level and the highest level as a share of GDP since World War II. This spending is going to expand net entitlement spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, and it includes a $634 billion down payment on socialized medicine. Medicaid spending will double in less than a decade, growing from $201 billion in 2008 to $403 billion by 2017, and there are no provisions for rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in this program. It's going to increase domestic--non-defense, non-veterans, non-homeland security--discretionary spending by at least 10 percent next year on top of the 8.7 percent increase this year. Ladies and gentlemen, the American people can not stand this debt and can not stand this kind of spending. The proposed budget also raises taxes by $1.4 trillion during a recession. This includes tax increases on American business, small businesses and individuals. Furthermore, all Americans who use energy will be penalized with a new carbon tax. This energy tax negates the so-called ``tax cut'' for 95 percent of Americans, because 100 percent of Americans who use any form of energy are going to pay this tax. It reinstates the death tax. This onerous tax punishes families for building up savings to pass on to their heirs, and it imposes an especially heavy burden on small businesses and family farms. It will penalize Americans for contributing to charities by increasing taxes by $179.8 billion over 10 years. The budget repeals seven different tax provisions for oil and gas producers, including a manufacturing deduction and the expensing of drilling costs, which would effectively raise taxes on the industry by $60 billion. The new policy of Cap and Tax, or Cap and Trade, would impose a $79 billion annual cost to the economy, or $646 billion over 10 years. This is going to raise energy prices by an average of $516 per year for each household. We heard the President talk about responsibility and accountability. By my account, he mentioned ``responsibility'' seven times last week in his speech to Congress, and he mentioned ``accountability'' six times. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time that Congress lives up to its responsibility and becomes accountable for its spending and stops passing these spending costs along to future generations.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Brent Whitley, a student at Caldwell Community College in Watauga County, North Carolina. Brent recently learned about someone in the community who was battling cancer, and instead of just moving on, Brent decided to take action. His example shows what can be accomplished by people who set their minds on doing good for others. Brent is a volunteer at Watauga Medical Center, and during his service at the hospital, he noticed a posting in the Emergency Room about the Will Dicus fund. He immediately recognized the need to help Will Dicus, a young man in Watauga County who has been courageously battling cancer for several years. Over his college Christmas Break, Brent decided he would organize a fundraiser dance to help raise funds for Will's cancer treatment and, thus, ``Dance For Dicus'' was born. Brent tirelessly planned and fund-raised, contacting churches and businesses and igniting a spirit of community service. Soon, many people were calling and offering their services and help without solicitation from Brent. All it took was the energy, ambition and selflessness of one person who simply wanted to help someone in need. To illustrate Brent's true altruism in this situation, I learned that before he began to organize this fundraising effort, Brent did not even know Will Dicus. His desire was simply to help someone who needed assistance. I'm pleased to report that the ``Dance For Dicus'' fundraiser was a success. The event raised more than $5,000 for the Will Dicus fund and, just as importantly, raised awareness of Will Dicus' struggle with cancer. I had the great pleasure to be at the dance and see also the great number of volunteers who were there to help with the event. Brent, who is the Student Body President at Caldwell Community College, should be inspiration for average Americans everywhere. In a time when many, many Americans are facing real struggles, Brent Whitley demonstrated the power of one person to make a meaningful difference. I applaud Brent for his ethic of community service. His altruistic example is a true inspiration during these difficult times.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri. I hope I can tie in some of my comments with where you're going with that quote from Henry Morgenthau. We've used it a good bit recently, and I think it is a really, really good quote to share with the American people. I think we need to keep doing it over and over. I certainly share your feeling that this is not a failure of capitalism, what has occurred in our country recently. Indeed, it has happened all over the world.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I'm trying to read The Forgotten Man right now. It's a wonderful story about what happened during the Depression and just before the Depression. I have to agree with you that we can't blame all that happened then on the Democrats, although they exacerbated the problem a lot, but I would commend that book, The Forgotten Man, to folks who are watching us and to anybody else. It's a history book, but it reads like a novel, and it's really a great piece. As I said, I want to try to tie in what's going on today with something I read recently. You're right; we don't get enough time to read books. We read a lot every day, but I was thinking that we need to set aside an hour a week, at least, to read books. I'm trying to do that. It's good for our souls to read those kinds of things. You know, Republicans have been criticized recently for not having new ideas. We've been told on this floor over and over again and we've been told by the administration that doing nothing in this situation is not acceptable, so the Democrats are doing what they say they know to do. They say our alternative is doing nothing. Well, that has never been our alternative. We've presented lots and lots of alternatives, but what we have to get people to understand is that the tried and true issue of keeping money out of the hands of the Federal Government and leaving that money in the hands of the citizens is really the best cure for this problem that ails us. Actually, it's the best cure for a society that is free, and I want to acknowledge that.

Ms. FOXX. That's right.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to call to the attention of the American people an article that I read. You know, we've talked about reading. I think I read this during the Christmas holiday. It's an article by Terence Jeffrey. It was published in Human Events on the 5th of November of last year. The title of it is ``Wanted: Small Government.'' I just want to read a couple of excerpts from it, and then I'm going to put it in the Record. ``Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small Federal Government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do. ``Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they could not take care of themselves, they looked to their extended family, their neighbors, their churches, and local governments to give them a helping hand. ``Charity in America, in those days, did not mean the Federal Government compelling you to hand over some of your property to the State so the State could hand it over to someone else. ``Americans did not believe in spreading the wealth--they believed in earning it. The term `compassionate conservative' had not been coined. ``There was no Federal welfare state before the 1930s. ``That year, according to historical data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the entire Federal Government spent only 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. Because Federal tax receipts equaled to 4.2 percent of GDP in 1930, there was a Federal budget surplus equal to eight-tenths of a percent of GDP.'' Human Events--Wanted: Small Government (By Terence P. Jeffrey) Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small federal government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do. Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they could not take care of themselves, they looked to their extended family, their neighbors, their churches and local governments to give them a helping hand. Charity in America in those days did not mean the federal government compelling you to hand over some of your property to the state so the state could hand it over to someone else. Americans did not believe in spreading the wealth--they believed in earning it. The term compassionate conservative had not been coined. There was no federal welfare state before the 1930s. That year, according to historical data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the entire federal government spent only 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. Because federal tax receipts equaled to 4.2 percent of GDP in 1930, there was a federal budget surplus equal to 0.8 percent of GDP. Within a decade, things changed dramatically. In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt--founder of the modern American welfare state--was preparing to break George Washington's self-imposed limit of two presidential terms. Although the nation was still at peace, the federal government had grown almost threefold--when measured as a percentage of GDP--from what it had been in 1930. Federal spending in 1940 was 9.8 percent of GDP. Federal tax receipts were 6.8 percent. The Treasury borrowed 3 percent of GDP to make up the difference. In fiscal year 2009, according to OMB's estimates, the federal government will spend 20.7 percent of GDP while taking in 18 percent of GDP in taxes. The Treasury will borrow 2.7 percent of GDP, much of it from foreign creditors, to make up the difference. And that does not count the $700 billion the Treasury will borrow to fund the financial industry bailout. Today, the federal government eats up more than twice as much of our national wealth as it did in 1940 and more than six times as much as it did in 1930. What did Americans get for this massive increase in government? More of their life is now mortgaged to the government, and they are now more dependent on government. Most of the growth in federal spending has come in the sector that the OMB calls ``human resources.'' As currently budgeted, this includes federal spending on education, training, social services, health programs, veterans benefits and services, income security programs, Medicare and Social Security. In 1940, the ``human resources'' part of the federal budget consumed 4.3 percent of GDP. In 2009, it will consume 13 percent, or three times as much. Before the current economic crisis hit, the American welfare state was on an unsustainable trajectory. The Government Accountability Office informed the Senate in January that it estimated there was a $53 trillion gap between the entitlement benefits the federal government has promised to pay over the next 75 years to people now living in the United States and the tax revenue that can be expected to pay for those benefits. Then-Comptroller General David Walker said that for the government to cover this gap every American household would need to put up about $455,000. That is the size of the mortgage the federal government has already taken out in the name of every American family. We got to this place because politicians for decades have been telling voters they would give them something for nothing--when what they really meant was they would take money from one set of people and give it to another. When they borrowed vast sums to keep their welfare-state politics rolling, they were taking money away from future generations--our children and grandchildren. Now we are being told we face the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. And we are being offered the same solution: more federal programs so Uncle Sam can take better care of us. In other words, the politicians want to take out a second mortgage on top of the $455,000 they have already put on our backs. America is heading down the blind alley of big government toward the brick wall of national bankruptcy. The only way out is to turn the truck completely around and head back toward small government, self-reliance and freedom.

Ms. FOXX. Correct.

Ms. FOXX. That's right. No. What we brought into the Federal Government was 4.2 percent of GDP. Now, that could have been in addition to--well, it was mostly taxes, I guess. That's what it was.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri yielding. I was trying to make this point today, and I think it's so important that you've brought this up. Let us remind the American people that the Democrats took control of the Congress in January of 2007. Do you remember--I remember--that we had 54 straight months of job growth up until January of 2007? Do you remember that number?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that one of my constituents, Donna Dent, was part of the heroic emergency landing of US Airways flight 1549 that recently made headlines as a ``miracle on the Hudson.'' Donna and her husband Bill live in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Donna is known by family, friends, and neighbors as an unshakably calm, responsible, and warm person. As one of the flight attendants on duty, Donna was an integral part of ensuring all 150 passengers aboard the flight made it to safety while the plane quickly filled with water. With two decades of experience, Donna is known to have a knack for keeping passengers calm on flights, especially children. There is no doubt that she was an asset in preparing passengers for a crash and keeping passengers composed enough to exit the aircraft safely once it hit the river. When people go out of their way to do service for others in such a kind and selfless manner it renews our faith in humanity. We are lucky to have had such a wonderful person from the Fifth District of North Carolina on duty and working to make the ``miracle on the Hudson'' truly a miracle.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say there is another issue here related to process that, I think, we need to talk about. Many people say that the American people's eyes glaze over when we talk about the process here and that they don't really care, but I think we showed a couple of weeks ago that they do care and that they're watching and that they're paying close attention to what's going on in Congress, because the American people believe in fair play, and they believe that we should play by the rules. So often, Congress passes bills and exempts itself. It often passes rules, and the majority exempts itself. One of the ways that Congress is exempting itself or that the majority is exempting itself right now on this bill, on this rule, is with something they call PAYGO. Now, the majority party 2 years ago made a big splash and got a lot of great publicity, saying, ``Everything is going to be pay as you go.'' It's abbreviated PAYGO. ``We're not going to do any more spending unless we cut spending somewhere else. We want to be diligent.'' They criticized Republicans for years on the deficit. They criticized Republicans for spending too much money. They were going to show that they were different. Yet what have they done every time they've gotten a major bill they've wanted to pass? They've just waived the PAYGO rules. It's real simple, and it usually doesn't get a lot of publicity because they got all that great publicity for saying that they weren't going to do that, but that's what's happening here, ladies and gentlemen. The PAYGO rules have been waived on this bill. They don't want to show the American people how again they're abusing their own rules, how they're being unfair to the American people because they're saying one thing and they're doing another. They say, We want to bring down the deficit. We want to curtail spending. What they're actually doing, as I said earlier, is bringing back the old welfare system. We saw that with the stimulus bill. We saw it with the appropriations bill. It's back to the old style of welfare. We don't have to ask people to work to draw welfare payments. No. Let's just get rid of that. Let's extend the payments. Let's increase the payments. Let's put more people on welfare. That's exactly what this bill does. We're simply going to be increasing welfare. The way they do that is to say, By passing this bill, we don't have to show how we're not increasing the deficit, so we'll just waive that rule, and nobody is going to notice it. Well, I think the American people are noticing that. I think they are paying attention. Again, the majority of the American people who are paying their mortgages, who are playing by the rules, who are going to work every day, and who are doing their jobs are getting sick and tired of the increase in the welfare system again. Here you go. The Democrats have been in charge of the Congress for a little over 2 years, and what do we see but a massive increase in welfare. I appreciate my colleague talking about the President saying he was going to be responsible, that he was going to be held accountable, but you know, we've not seen anything written into legislation so far. I've asked about that. Again, I appreciate very much Chairman Conyers putting a little piece in this bill about accountability. I think that was good. We're going to look at bankruptcy judges, see if they're abusing their power, make sure we have some idea of what they're going to be doing. We give them 2 years to make that report--it's plenty of time-- but I have great concern over the fact that the majority party has waived the PAYGO rules on this bill. That's a part of what they're doing, and I think the American people are concerned about that, too. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that 94 percent of the American people are paying their mortgages and are paying them on time, and they don't understand why this is happening and why they should be burdened with having to pay off the mortgages of people who are not being responsible and who are not being held accountable. I want to share with you an article that came out in The Washington Post last December about the HOPE Program and about the situation that we're dealing with. When I read the article, it made me realize that our colleagues across the aisle are simply not in touch with reality. They don't have any idea about how the real world works. Most of them have not been in business. Most of them have not had to meet a payroll. They're living sort of in a Never Never Land, and I'm going to quote some things from this article that, I think, will help the public understand what that is. There is criticism about the bill from the HUD Secretary. Now, that HUD Secretary was in the last administration, and there is a lot of blame back and forth between Congress and the executive branch. This is what the HUD Secretary said: ``What most people don't understand is that this program was designed to the detail by Congress.'' So that bill was passed. The bill setting up the HOPE Program was passed under the Democratic Congress. It also shows how off their numbers are in so many cases when they make predictions. They said the 3-year program was supposed to help 400,000 borrowers avoid foreclosure, but between October and December of last year, only 312 applications had come into the program. Let me tell you a little bit about why that is the case and why, I think, people who irresponsibly got mortgages to begin with continue to look for bailouts and continue to look for welfare. This is basically expanding the welfare program in our country by passing this bill. Here is what one of the people said who is working with those people who might benefit from the program: ``Getting the lenders to agree has been our biggest challenge,'' said Peyton Herbert, director of the foreclosure services at HomeFree-USA, a housing counseling firm in Hyattsville. This is what he says. This is the ridiculous way that these folks respond to this. He says, ``The lenders want dollar for dollar what's owed on that loan or something close to it. That's the fly in the ointment.'' Imagine that. People who loan other people money want them to pay it back dollar for dollar. Isn't that an unusual situation? But that's the way most of us operate in this country. However, most of these people who got these loans and who are in trouble now got them because they never expected to pay them back. They expected somebody to bail them out. They weren't honest when they got the loans, and now they're going to be bailed out by this legislation. The other thing, which is just mind-boggling to me, is how the press writes these. Okay. ``The number one impediment is the lenders will redo their loans if the people promise to pay them back.'' Now, that's the way it usually operates, but the article goes on to say, ``The list of impediments goes on.'' That's the attitude of The Washington Post. There is an impediment given out there to the people who want to redo their loans. Do you know what that impediment is? That the people who are getting these loans, if their home increases in value, they have to split that value with the Federal Government, which is underwriting their loan, if they sell the home; and the people don't want to do that. Again, there is no sense of responsibility. We didn't hear the President the other night talk about personal responsibility, personal accountability. He uses those words a lot, but he never pins them on anybody. It's just unbelievable that that's the attitude that people have. They could be getting help that already exists out of the HOPE Program, but they don't do it because they don't want to pay the money back, and they don't want to share the increase in value with the Federal Government, which is underwriting their mortgage, if they ever sell the home. Again, I think they're living in a Never Never Land. They think that they're due this money for free. They've been taught to live in a welfare society. We're continuing the welfare mentality. We're going back to welfare that was done away with when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995. That is not what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes my distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) to discuss the amendment that he had written that I offered last night in the Rules Committee, which was rejected. And I think he will share some very enlightening comments with us.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding us the time on this rule, and I also want to say that I thank very much the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his help yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting on incorporating a suggestion that I made into the manager's amendment. It didn't make it in this bill in the form of an amendment, but he was very kind to include that, and I think it made this bad bill a little bit better. I want to say that my colleague from Florida has made some very eloquent comments about why this rule should be adopted and why the underlying bill is such a good bill. However, those of us on this side of the aisle have some clear concerns about this rule and about the bill and what it is going to be doing to our economy. We heard yesterday a lot of numbers that were very, very difficult to pin down. In fact, I tried very hard, knowing I was going to handle this rule this morning, because I wanted to try to get a handle on the number of people that we are talking about. We heard the number 14 million. We heard 14 million now and more later. But we also heard that what this bill will do will be to allow the bankruptcy system to handle about 30,000 new cases per year. My guess is that while this bill claims not to be needing a lot more money in that area, that eventually our colleagues across the aisle are going to come back asking for more money to deal with this issue. But what I want to talk about today a little bit is both the process and about the reason why the rule should not be adopted and the bill should not be adopted. 94 percent of the people in this country are now paying their mortgages and paying them on time. What's going to happen if this bill is passed is that those people, and people in the future, are going to be punished. We are continually punishing the people who play by the rules and rewarding the people who don't play by the rules. It is a real shame that we have come to that place in our society because we don't want to set that as the norm for what we're doing in this country, because we've always had the rule of law and we've operated very well. What separates us from most other countries is that. And yet, now we're going to say to people, it's okay if you go out, misrepresent your position in terms of being able to pay for your mortgage or do any kinds of things like that, and then we'll bail you out. It will be okay for us to do that. And that, basically, is what this bill is, the message that we're sending. But let me talk just a bit about the process that was involved in bringing this rule to us. We had a very lively debate in the Rules Committee yesterday. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee told us that he was very willing to accept some of the amendments that had been offered. They might not exactly fit in the Financial Services Committee, but he was willing to work with some of our Members to make those fit. We had 20 amendments offered, Republicans did. Only one of those amendments was accepted to be offered today, and it looks like we may have a problem with that amendment once it is offered. We are trying very hard to be bipartisan. We want to work with the majority on helping the people in this country who are truly hurting, who have played by the rules and who are being hurt by the economy, through no fault of their own. However, what this bill, again, is going to do is it is keeping us from being bipartisan. We have to be opposed to the rule and opposed to the bill because they've put together bills that should not be put together. Many of us could probably support the Financial Services part of this bill, but we would be very concerned about the Judiciary part of it. But no, the majority has to lump them all together and create a situation that denies our ability to be bipartisan. A couple of the rules that were offered yesterday and in the various committees that Chairman Frank said he was willing to have a debate on was a rule offered by Representative Neugebauer which would amend the servicer safe harbor provisions to provide that unsuccessful plaintiffs would pay all the attorney's fees and any legal costs incurred by the defendant. Another one by Congresswoman Capito would exempt the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration Loan Guaranty Program and Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans from adjustments to the terms of the loan in bankruptcy. These already are very, very lenient programs and, supposedly, all the work has been done so that there would not be the need to go to bankruptcy. Also, Congressman Hensarling offered, I offered on his behalf, three excellent amendments that would, I think, help with the issue of responsibility and accountability. The President talks a lot about that, but when it comes down to implementing those things in legislation, we see nothing coming from the majority on those issues. Let me mention the Hensarling amendments which were denied, and we can't even vote on them. One would exclude from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose original loan was a zero down payment loan. Many of these people are treating these homes that they bought like rental property. They have no investment in them, and so when the economy goes south or the home is not worth as much as they thought it was worth, they just walk away from it. That's no sense of responsibility. We're just, again, rewarding irresponsibility. Another amendment by Congressman Hensarling would exclude from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose original loan documentation did not include verification of the amount and source of income. A lot of these loans were given out to people who did not bring information on their income. That seems a logical thing to do. Most people, again, who are paying their mortgages are people who paid something down and then were able to show that they could pay for the home ultimately. And then the third one would have excluded from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower who has a family income that exceeds 125 percent of the area median income for where they live. Republicans are usually the ones criticized for helping wealthy people, but this bill is going to allow millionaires to be able to get help. We don't think that that's the right thing to do. Those were three very logical amendments that were turned down. As I said, only one out of 20 of our amendments was accepted. So we think that this is a bad rule. We think it's a bad bill and we're going to urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear all this talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship to the other side, to the majority party, means do it my way. That's what bipartisanship means to them. Bipartisanship to us means how about we have a discussion? How about we bring up some amendments and have some votes on them? If you're so sure that your position is right, bring those amendments up for a vote. Let's see what kind of votes they're going to get. No. They won't even allow amendments to be voted on. That's not bipartisanship. We had 20 amendments offered for this bill. Only one was accepted. That's not bipartisanship. Bipartisanship would be, again, bringing up lots of Republican amendments. Let them be voted on. Again, people who are sure of their position aren't afraid of having votes on alternative points of view. Again, the American people are watching us. They're watching this Congress, and we know the Congress is putting off some tough votes they don't want to deal with right now because they know the American people are watching. And you know, that's one of the best things that I think has come out of last year's election and, perhaps, the economic uncertainty. People are suffering. Republicans are concerned about that. We want to do everything we can to help those people who are suffering. But what this Congress has done so far hasn't helped those people who are suffering. It hasn't helped the people who are working and lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We want bipartisanship, but it should be true bipartisanship. It's not ``do it our way or do it not at all.'' You know, I respect my colleague from California who just spoke and said that this bill doesn't cost taxpayers anything; it only costs the lenders. Well, who are the lenders? They're banks that are owned by stockholders. Those, the last time I looked, were taxpayers. They're the real taxpayers. That, again, is part of the out-of-this-world mentality that the people on the other side of the aisle have. It doesn't cost anybody. I had people in my office and they said, ``Oh, this bill doesn't cost anything.'' I said, ``Pardon me? You mean they're going to cram down the mortgages, they're going to reduce the amount of the mortgages? Who's going to pay the difference between the original amount and the cramdown amount?'' ``Oh, those are the bankers. But it just means they won't be as rich as they were before.'' That's not the way this country operates. ``Cramdown'' is the right name for the people talking about part of this legislation. That's exactly what it is. And what are we doing here? You know, the New York Post--not exactly known as the most conservative newspaper in the world--calls it the Foreclosure Five. What we are doing is we are bailing out people in five States. And is it any surprise that those five States are California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Michigan? Where is the leadership in the majority party? California and Nevada. Is it surprising? This is just more earmark legislation, ladies and gentlemen. More earmarks. We're bailing out these five States. This is not a crisis of a national proportion. This is a personal matter, not a national crisis. Falling home prices are not the problem. Home prices went up tremendously for several years. Everybody knew that was going to have to come to a halt. Again, people living in this world knew that. People who had a real-world mentality understood that. But if you're living in Never Never Land, if you're living on the welfare mentality, then you assume you can behave any way you want to and somebody is going to bail you out. And that's what this legislation does. Lots of newspaper articles and magazines have said, ``What this plan is doing is undercutting the banking and private sectors, and hurt many honest, hardworking people.'' That's a commentary from the Street. Over and over and over again we hear, ``we're subsidizing bad behavior,'' an article in the National Review. And that's exactly what this legislation does, it subsidizes bad behavior. This is a sham. It is hurting average Americans who pay their bills, who do their work. You know, I think that the majority party has an addiction to spending other people's money, and that's what this does. Again, saying it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything is ridiculous. It's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, both directly and indirectly. And I want to say that this is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, and I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any more speakers?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a fallen hometown hero from Wilkes County in North Carolina. Gray Parsons, a Millers Creek firefighter, fell in the line of duty earlier this month while responding to a fire near Wilkesboro, North Carolina. Parsons was a dedicated member of the North Carolina Forest Service's Fire Attack Support Team, where he had served for the past 10 years. His funeral was a tribute to his many years of service to the local community as local fire departments from across Wilkes County came out in force to honor Gray Parsons' life. Many of Parsons' friends and family have said that giving his life in the line of duty was just how he would have wanted to go. He was a committed firefighter, a skilled chain saw operator, and an amazing wizard when it came to repairing anything mechanical. He was generous with his always-ready smile and his hands were continually working to help others. His coworkers knew Gray Parsons as a man who was dedicated to his work. In fact, the day he responded to his final fire in Wilkes County was his day off, but he had spent the day helping his partner at the Forest Service finish a project. That was just the kind of person he was, generous, hard-working and committed. The Wilkes community hailed Parsons as a model local hero at his funeral. His life inspired everyone who knew him for his kindness and indefatigable pride in his work and those he served. He was a true American hero, an everyday man, who took pride in the uniform he wore and who loved to serve his community and protect those in danger. He will be profoundly missed and will leave a gaping hole in the Wilkes County community, Forest Service and local first responders. My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of this great man who gave his life in the service of others.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we have some young people here on the floor with us today, and they represent American families who are hurting and need relief. But, instead, Washington continues to engage in out-of- control spending. There was the $1 trillion ``stimulus plan'' that will only stimulate more government and more debt. We're about to deal with a half trillion dollar omnibus spending bill to fund the government for just 7 months, which is an 8 percent increase in spending. And then we have the $75 billion for the President's mortgage bailout proposal. And then he's going to present to us a way to cut the deficit, which is going to be on the backs of our troops. He's going to cut spending for our troops. We need to remind the American people that the number one role of the Federal Government is the defense of this Nation. And we need people to understand that we are putting these children, their children and their grandchildren into great debt because Washington will not face up to its responsibility.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Utah. Mr. Speaker, you know, I was not aware of this bill until today, and I am sure that this is a very worthwhile program and that certainly we want to honor the people who have fought to help keep this country free; however, I am very concerned about the expenditure of another $131 million in addition to the trillions and billions that we are recently committing ourselves to. I mentioned earlier that I had some young people that I was concerned about. There's a little boy in my district by the name of Noah Zenger who's having a birthday very soon. And he wanted to come to Washington to see the Congress in action, and he brought his brother, Ben, and his sisters, Emma and Savannah, with him. They are the ones that are going to bear the responsibility for our profligate spending here. Where is it going to end? How much debt are we going to place on these children and their families? American families are hurting and need relief. And yet, we continue to engage in out-of-control spending. Now, I have to say at least this bill is being debated out in the open. It is not like the bills that have been debated or have been settled on recently in secret, the Reid-Pelosi secret Congress, which has been bringing these very expensive bills to us to vote on. The $1 trillion stimulus bill that's only going to stimulate more government and more debt. There's going to be a half trillion dollar omnibus spending bill that's going to fund the government for only 7 months. And then we've got this $75 billion bill for the President's mortgage bailout proposal. Where is it going to end? We just continue to spend, spend, spend.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Just to clarify then, there is no point of order or other remedy available to address this flagrant violation of the instructions of the House?