Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made on the other side. I share the concern that the gentlelady from New York said that this is an embarrassment. She is right. It is an embarrassment that we have to be doing this, but it's an embarrassment to the majority party, because there are principles involved here. You promised things you are not fulfilling. That's why we are bringing these issues up, and we're going to continue to quote the things that are happening and remind you that that's the reason. CNN.com today: ``Obey says that earmarks can still be scrutinized before the spending bills go into effect, but nonpartisan advocacy groups like Public Citizen says it's not enough.'' Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen: ``It violates the whole spirit of the reform itself. We really did expect that earmark requests were going to be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks.'' We're not saying we are opposed to the underlying bill and we're not doing this for delaying tactics.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I also point out that last year, when we debated this bill, the majority party offered 70 amendments to the bill and took over 2 legislative days. We have not even been in this for one legislative day yet, and we're getting complaints that we are utilizing delaying tactics. Let's not say what we should not be doing. Last night, also, Mr. Obey said that professionals will look at these earmarks. We get complaints all the time that the staff runs this place. I'm offended by that remark. This is a job for the Members of Congress to be doing. This is not a job for the staff to be doing. I consider we are professionals at this business, and we don't need to delegate the looking at earmarks to staff members. We need to be doing that ourselves, and we need to do it in this process.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is clear that the gentleman from Georgia is new here because he has obviously not seen this process played out in the past, or seen his colleagues on his side take days and days and days to take care of appropriations bill and to throw problems in our way. What he is saying is so disingenuous. This bill does not have to be approved until October 1. The budgets are out there for these agencies until October 1. This does not have to be done today; it doesn't have to be done tomorrow. There is plenty of time to do this. But what the Democrats have allowed us to do is to expose their hypocrisy. They are giving us that opportunity. Now, we could stop all of this debate immediately, and we would be happy to do that. All they have to do is stop shrouding the earmarks in secrecy. They think that our wanting to expose their secret earmarks is trivial. My constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina don't think that is trivial. And my colleague here earlier who said that Republicans ask for earmarks, certainly Republicans ask for earmarks, and I think that is appropriate. I didn't ask for any earmarks in this bill. I don't know anybody who asked for earmarks in this bill, but people do. But he misses the whole point, as the Democrats do. They are now trying to turn this on us. They are in the majority. They can handle this problem easily. All they have to do is put out a list of the earmarks, and let everybody know what they are. No, we have a chairman who wants to have those earmarks in secret until after the bills are passed and then vote on them. Also, my colleague from New York talks about wasting time. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just been dying to talk about this, and he has given me the perfect opportunity. The majority party said we are going to have people in Washington 5 days a week so you will work. Well, I work very hard when I'm in my district. I know they love to be in Washington, D.C., but let me tell you about waste of time. Let me tell you about some of the bills that have been brought to this floor for us to vote on. It goes on and on and on. There has been one substantive bill signed by the President in 6 months of this Congress. But let me tell you some of the wonderful, exciting, necessary bills: Recognizing National Americorps Week; supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week; honoring the contributions of the Rocky Mountain Senior Games on its 30th anniversary; in observance of National Physical Education and Sports Week; supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month; honoring the 50th anniversary of the international geophysical year; expressing the support for National Foster Parents Day; honoring the life and accomplishments of Gian Carlo Menotti; recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education; recognizing the 45th anniversary of John Hershel Glenn's historic achievement; supporting the goals and ideals of National Community College Month. That's why we come to Washington 5 days a week and that our colleagues think that our wanting to shed the light of day on these egregious earmarks is trivial? Folks, I want to tell you, the people in my district do not think it is trivial, but they think some of that stuff we have been voting on, and I could spend the next 5 days reading out the titles of these bills when we talk about waste of time. But let me tell you, even their press, their friendly press, gets it; and I think the American public gets it. They want to change the topic and make it look like we are obstructing justice. We are shedding light on the problems. CNN, again, not a bastion of conservativeness said: When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised lawmakers would go public with their requests for funding. They have not done so. Earmarks should be scrutinized before spending bills go into effect. They are not doing that. Obey's move for staff scrutiny comes at the expense of greater openness and examination by the public and other lawmakers. That is from AP. This is from Roll Call: This year despite promises to run the most open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of earmarks. It is over and over again. Even the press that normally supports them is saying they have made a mistake, they have overreached. We don't need more secrecy in this process. We want things out in the light of day. If I ask for a earmark, I better be proud of it and to have it published, and I am. But they don't want to do that. They want to keep it secret. And then they want to let the staff vet the earmarks, not even the Members. That is not the way to operate the House of Representatives.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Let's just put Federal spending into context. Do you know that the United States Federal Government is on track to spend more money next year than Germany's entire economy in 2005? Germany is and has been the third largest economy in the world. There are only two countries in the world with entire economies larger than the U.S. Government budget, the United States itself and Japan. Do you know that next fiscal year, the fiscal year we are considering now, the U.S. Government is on track to spend $700 billion more, $700 billion more. That's more than the entire Chinese economy in 2005. We are on a spending spree that needs to stop. It's called a tax-and- spend policy. That's the model. It hasn't changed. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and make a very small dent in this unsustainable fiscal policy.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I thank my colleagues for coming and supporting my amendment tonight. I thank them for the points that they are bringing up. The gentleman from Tennessee is doing an excellent job in his first year here in the Congress. I also want to thank my colleague from California who made a really excellent point that is something that needs to be made over and over again. When we try to cut back additional spending, it is always a cut, not raising money. Not raising spending is a cut to Democrats. And I think that's a point that needs to be made over and over again. Not increasing spending is a cut. That's not the way the general public sees it. I also want to point out the fact that we are working very hard to bring us to the point where we could have a balanced budget. Americans do have to live with a balanced budget. Individual Americans have to. They have to live with the money they have now. But Congress doesn't do that. And this Congress particularly is looking for every way it possibly can to spend additional money and to tax the American public, which is certainly taxed enough. This seems like, to the majority party, that this, again, is a cut. But Everett Dirksen, one of my heroes, said, a million here and million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. That was during the time when they were not billions.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio's yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he made. I want to also echo how much I appreciate our colleague from Indiana, who has been in the House for several years and came through a time when the Democrats were in the majority. And as he points out, they were in the majority for 40 years, and they did spend this country almost into a situation where we could not get ourselves out of it. And I appreciate his bringing that up again. We need to do it over and over and over again, reminding the American people what they did. I, frankly, thought that when they took the majority this time that they would act differently as they had promised in the election. But we now have what we know is a house of hypocrisy because they promised a lot to the American people and they have not fulfilled those promises. I have been particularly disappointed in the Blue Dogs. As somebody has said, there are these charts all over our office buildings, and they tell us over and over and over that the current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every United States citizen, and growing by $1 billion a day. But where are those Blue Dogs when we need them? Where are they, calling for fiscal restraint? They are going right along with their leadership, going ahead and increasing the deficit every day and doing all that they can to increase the deficit. I would like to know where they are and why they aren't being responsible, as they promised they would be. And I want to give us another quote to tie into what my colleagues have been saying. This is from Speaker Pelosi in a floor speech she made on January 7: ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.'' And yet, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, there has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years that has been authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. That doesn't sound to me like we are committed to a higher standard of ``pay as you go, no new deficit spending.'' I am also concerned about what this is doing to the American public and how cynical it is making the people. They can't count on the Democrats to do what they said they were going to do. We have also heard tonight that we are trying to slow down the process, and I checked about that in terms of what happened last year on this bill. It took 2 full legislative days to debate this bill last year during this process, and the Democrats offered over 70 amendments to that bill. I find it really ironic that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee now says to us, as the Republicans, that we are trying to slow down the process when we are exercising our responsibility as American citizens to try to slow down this incredible spending that the Democrats want to do, increase the deficit, increase taxes. They are saying to us, you are trying to slow down the process. They wanted this week to do four complete appropriations bills. They frittered away their time for 3 months, blamed it on the minority, saying they are not in control of what is going on here.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there's been a lot said tonight by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee about how the numbers of earmarks have gone up over the years, or went up over the years that Republicans were in charge. But nary a word has been said about the fact that the Democrats were getting a large proportion of those earmarks. So I think we ought to talk a little bit about the fact that Democrats were getting some of those evil earmarks that they campaigned so hard against last year. For example, actually, in 1996, the first year that Republicans were in charge and did the budget, the number of earmarks actually went down. The last year that the Democrats did their budget, the earmarks were 1,439. The first year that Republicans were in charge, the earmarks went down to 958. Of the 958, the Democrats had 40 percent, 383. Now, it is true that the number of earmarks went up over the years. In 1997 they went to 1,596. Democrats had 638 of those earmarks. In 2005 the number did go up to 13,996, and Democrats had 5,599 of those. So if they were so evil in those days, it's hard to understand how you could have been claiming such a large proportion of them. Obviously you all missed the point in the debate about these earmarks. Many Republicans believe in earmarks. We think that it is the right of the Congress to appropriate money to certain projects. That's not the issue. The issue is you campaigned on transparency and changing the system. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Office of General Counsel in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account to the FY 2007 level representing a $1.241 million reduction from $14 million to $12,759,000. The bill's current funding level for this office represents a 10 percent increase over FY 2007, enacted. There has been at least $105.5 billion in Federal spending over 5 years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S. citizen. This is growing by over $1 billion a day. We know that because every day we walk down the halls of these buildings here, and we see the signs that the Blue Dogs have put out, which remind us what the current Federal debt is and how much it is for every single U.S. citizen. Spending on the programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is out of control, and within a generation will force either significant cutbacks in services and benefits or massive tax increases. We know that is already happening because the Democratic majority has already recommended the largest tax increase in the history of this country through their budget they adopted earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, for instance, spending that is on autopilot and outside the annual spending process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well- known demographic trends and other factors. That spending, subject to the annual spending process, has also grown exponentially and must be brought under control. This amendment is one step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find both commonsense and innovative new ways to do more with less. The Federal budget must not grow faster than American families' ability to pay for it. We have been hearing a lot here tonight about fiscal responsibility and spending, taxes and deficits. There was a lot of talk about these things during the last election. I think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there right now, and I want to take a few minutes to give people a heads-up on what's going on. This debate and all this talk need some context and some simple facts. Speaker Pelosi said on September 12, 2006, ``Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore pay-as-you-go budget discipline.'' If you want to know exactly what's not going to happen to the Federal budget under this Congress, listen to that statement. PAYGO will not touch a cent of the trillions of dollars with which we have saddled our children and grandchildren. Furthermore, new spending will be proposed and taxes raised to pay for it. That's what we are seeing here, and that's what this debate is all about. The plan is to spend more than ever, repeal tax relief and allow the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities to go on unreformed, all under the veneer of fiscal responsibility called PAYGO. I am down here now because I want people to know this, and to know what it means. I want to put this debate in context. This bill and the others we will debate in the coming weeks mean that the Federal Government is going to cost you more. You are going to pay more than you ever have before in taxes. I think we need to talk about that. People can deny it and spin it any way they want, but the cost of the Federal Government is going to increase under the current fiscal plan. This is in spite of the fact that Americans already pay a staggering amount of money, but Democrats want more. They always do and they always will, even though the average American worked about 125.6 days in 2005 to pay for Federal, State and local spending. Guess where the largest part of it went. To the politicians right here in Washington. In 2005, the average American worked about 83 days to pay for Federal spending. Guess what, it's not enough. These numbers are set to increase as far as the eye can see. Now, let's just put Federal spending into context.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, since the House was not in order, for another minute.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to build on the comments by my colleague from Wisconsin, but I also want to talk a little bit about this amendment and the previous amendment. I tried to talk about it, but did not get recognized by the chairman, unfortunately. Mr. Chairman, I am very much concerned about the need for us to restore fiscal discipline to this House. I have only been here a little over one term. I am in my second term. I came here with the notion that Republicans would be people who cared about fiscal discipline. We did not care about fiscal discipline as much as I would have liked for us to, but we made a start in the right direction, and I was pleased about that. Now what we are trying to do is bring more fiscal discipline to this House and to spending. We do have a broken process. I find it really interesting that the gentleman on other side of the aisle, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is talking about our trying to shut this place down. I think that he has a very funny definition of this open process and this open rule and our being able to offer amendments. That is the way I thought a democracy operated. Saying that we are trying to ``shut the place down'' by doing our jobs is a little disingenuous, I think. I think that is coming because in the last 5 months you all have become so used to ramming things through with no opportunity for amendments that you find this a very unusual process. Well, we intend to use the opportunity available to us to offer amendments every chance we get. He also made the comment that we are taking up the time of this body to do frivolous things. Well, again, this is the job that we are elected to do. We are not taking up the time of the body. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing. You spent 3 months dealing with what we considered a frivolous exercise in talking about not funding our troops serving overseas, trying to protect us so we can do the very things that we are doing; and you didn't want to give them the money that they needed in order to be able to do that. That is where a lot of time was wasted, as far as I'm concerned. I want to also talk about some comments that have been made by members of the other party that show that there were some people who made promises that have not been kept. This quote is from 1-5-2007 from the gentleman from Alabama. ``Today, we made a strong commitment to returning fiscal responsibility to Congress. It is vital that Congress improves its stewardship of the taxpayers' money so we do not pass along today's spending tabs to our children and grandchildren.'' That is a Democratic Member from Alabama. That is what we are talking about here today. We want to make cuts in this unnecessary spending so that we're not passing along these bills to our grandchildren and children. From the chairman of this very subcommittee, ``This bill mandates that all grants and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes, except when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in the bill.'' Well, that is very different from what we know is going to be happening on this bill, where these earmarks are going to be ``air dropped,'' as we say, later on, after the bill has already been passed, and people don't get a chance to react to those earmarks. Another Member from Arizona: ``The American people deserve nothing less than a government that is fully accountable and completely transparent. They need to know that their elected Representatives are focused on the public interest, not the special interests and not the lobbyists' interests.'' In the last amendment that was offered, we wanted to do more to increase what is happening in national security. No. You all prefer to spend a lot more money on bureaucracy. I am very pleased that you are going to take this amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa. I think that is a step in the right direction. But we need to do a lot more of that. We need to cut funding here, and we need to make sure that you fulfill the promises that you made so strongly last fall and at the beginning of this session. Let's make this earmark process transparent. Let's know what is going to be funded in these bills. Let's put it all out there. And let's have the open debate that you promised we would have.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was just back in the cloakroom getting a little bit of the news of the outside world. And the outside world is focusing on what we are doing here. There was a long segment on Fox News about the issue that we are discussing here today. And they actually did a fairly good job of characterizing what is happening here. They talked about the fact that, as a result of a lot of discussion about the plans by the majority to take away our opportunities to have transparency in the earmark process, one person is going to be making those decisions as to whether or not the earmarks are right. We are not going to be able to vote on them. They said, I think very correctly, that that is not what the American people were promised last year. And one of them, not known as a flaming conservative, I have to say, said what the American people wanted was maximum scrutiny and maximum sunshine on the process. And I again want to bring some quotes to our discussion to remind people of some of the things that were promised. The Speaker of the House said last December, ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.'' Well, I don't think the American people deserve what they are being given by the majority party. I call it the ``house of hypocrisy'' and an ``attitude of arrogance.'' The attitude of arrogance is so pervasive on the other side that it has become something that even the press is talking about. We don't normally get that kind of coverage on what is happening here in the kind of detail that they are coming out with, and I think it is good for the American people. Another quote by the majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night . . . We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on.'' Earlier this evening the chairman of the Appropriations Committee accused us of simply wanting to slow down the process by our bringing up amendments and raising the issues about what this bill does. And yet his own leader says, ``Democracy works if people know what's going on.'' But the majority party wants to keep the people from knowing what's going on. They have an attitude of arrogance. They know best. The people don't know best. Our side of the aisle doesn't know best. Only one or two people know best in here. Some other Members, some of the freshman Members actually, who were elected last year on the basis of openness in government and reform in government, the gentleman from New York: ``Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way.'' Some of my colleagues have just outlined the deficit problem that we have and how pretty soon almost all the Federal dollars are going to be spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, with nothing left. We are spending ourselves into a terrible deficit situation. Another freshman, this time from Florida: ``Congress will not reestablish its credibility and trust with the American people until accountability and oversight is established in Washington.'' A grammatical error there, but that is the quote. That is what the American people want. That is what they were promised last fall. They are not getting it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats campaigned on transparency, and I will give you a quote again from Speaker of the House. ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.'' Majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of the night.'' And I think we're in the dark of the night right now. We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on. Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, the bill we're debating tonight: ``This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes, except when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute.'' ``This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in the bill.'' Again, we don't know what is here. The Rules Committee chairwoman: ``Our rules package requires full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them,'' House floor remarks, January 4, 2007. Folks, there is some hypocrisy going on here, and that is what we are calling you on. You promised a different process.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the majority party promised a new process. We are not getting that new process. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished colleague yielding me this time. Sitting here listening, I am puzzled by some of the things being said. First of all, we are having folks thank the majority party for having them give us an open rule. I find it very unusual that we would have to thank somebody for doing what is right. You ought to thank somebody when they do something that is above and beyond what is the right thing to do. I also find it very difficult to understand how the appropriations chairman can say that they have had to deal with the Iraq problem for 3 months; and therefore, they have not had time to do their work. Who is in charge here? You all are in charge. You should have been able to do your work. You let yourself get bogged down for 3 months on something that was totally useless, and here you are blaming the minority party. I find it unbelievable that you don't accept the fact that you are in charge of things. What is the ``existing Republican process''? You all are in charge. You can't blame us. I want to quote from the Rules Committee chairman on 1-4-07, ``Our rules package requires full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them,'' not 30 days afterwards, but before. Where are those earmarks, Madam Chairman? I don't see them in here. The American people were promised transparency, truthfulness, openness in this process. They were sold a bill of goods. They don't want more secrecy, they want less secrecy. The Democrats said, We will have a new day. This is much worse than anything we have ever seen before. We need to restore the earmark rule like the Republicans had it last year.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Wamp for organizing this hour tonight and bringing together a group of folks who have similar feelings to his. I see several of my colleagues have joined us and so I won't take a lot of time. It is always hard to follow such eloquent speakers as Congressman McCotter and Congressman Wamp. They are both eloquent people, and I am pleased to be with them to add my few comments. As Congressman Wamp has said, I have been reading ``America Alone.'' I want to recommend it. It is written by Mark Steyn, S-T-E-Y-N. It is an excellent book. It is very, very readable, and it is very, very frightening. As Congressman Wamp said, if you don't do anything but pay attention to the demographics, you will have your attention gotten by this book. As he indicated, the United States of America is the only western country that is replacing itself in terms of population. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to replace the population. What is happening in Canada, which I wasn't aware of, Canada has a birth rate of about 1.3 right now, 1.4. All of the European countries have birth rates of 1.3, 1.4, 1.2. Their populations are going to be cut in half within 35 years. That is something that has never happened in the history of humanity. Their populations are going to be cut in half; and yet the Muslim populations are growing anywhere from 4.7 percent to over 7 percent which means their populations are going to double in a very short period of time. And fairly soon, all of Europe is going to be predominantly Muslim. The title of the book, ``America Alone,'' we are going to be the only country in the free world that is increasing our population of people with western ideals, western religions and western thought. That is something we really have to be thinking about. I have been troubled, and I have spoken about this before, about statements that have been made by Democrats in this body when we talk about the war that we are in. They talk about failure. They talk about it being an impossible situation. Well, I want to try to tie this in to what Congressman McCotter was saying. When I meet with people and they ask me about the, quote, ``war in Iraq,'' I quickly say to them as kindly and as nicely as I can, we are not in a war in Iraq, we are in a war for the freedom of this country and the freedom of the world. If we lose this war, we are losing to radical jihadists who see that we have only two choices. We either convert to becoming Muslims or we should be killed. Now as Congressman Wamp says, we believe in pluralism in this country. We believe in inviting people to come to this country, worship as they please, but not to come here and try to impose their idea, their radical idea of the world on us. So I think it is very important that we all do that. We understand this is a war for freedom. This country is the beacon of freedom in the world, and failure is simply not possible. I am very troubled again by the talk by Senators in the Democratic party who say the war is lost. It cannot be lost again. If it is, then we will go out of existence as a society and as a culture. We can't do that. We know that we're fighting against extremists. There's Sunnis, there's Shias and there's al Qaeda and their intent to fortify their influence in the Middle East and expand beyond it. The Democrats have claimed that a recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war in Iraq has made the war on terror more difficult to win, even though the terrorists see the war in Iraq and the war against terrorists as one and the same. They see it that way. We do not. But the NIE actually concluded that, should Jihadists be perceived to have failed in their efforts to undermine democracy in Iraq, ``fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.'' So we have to defeat the terrorists. We have to defeat them not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, in New York City, in New Jersey, anywhere that we find them. Because that is our mission, and that is what we're here for. If we don't want to see freedom and our way of life destroyed, then it's our responsibility to do that. And I will tell you that I am not going to allow the brave men and women who are fighting to maintain our freedom to think that all Members of Congress have no backbone and are weak-kneed and look only to political advantage. I want them to know that there's some Members of Congress who appreciate what they're doing, who understand the sacrifice that they're making and understand the consequences of our winning or losing.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Reverend Zane Fishel, who is the House of Representatives' guest chaplain today. Reverend Fishel comes to us from Pilot Mountain and Mount Airy, North Carolina, where he shepherds the flock at Temple Baptist Church. Reverend Fishel has faithfully served in the ministry of Temple Baptist since 1997 and he became the full-time youth minister in 1999 after sensing a call to serve God in the local church. With the passing of Temple Baptist's pastor in 2003, Reverend Fishel took up his current role as the church's pastor, where he is devoted to spreading the good news to his congregation and community. Under his leadership, the church body at Temple Baptist Church in Mount Airy has thrived. He has worked tirelessly to increase the outreach and effectiveness of Temple Baptist in the local community. He has shown a remarkable commitment to educating leaders in the local church so that many within the church can use their God-given gifts. I am very pleased that Reverend Fishel joined us today to open the House of Representatives with such an inspiring prayer. He is a model of service to God, country and community; and he plays a vital spiritual role in Surry County, North Carolina. I am proud to welcome him to the people's house.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Constitution Caucus, and we take it as an important responsibility to come to the floor every week to talk about an issue related to the Constitution. Tonight, we are here to talk about the Federal Government's role in education through the No Child Left Behind Act. But I question whether the premise of Federal involvement is even legitimate. The tenth amendment to the Constitution that enumerates States' rights throws Federal involvement in education into question. The tenth amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. No Child Left Behind has a problem. The problem is that the individual States have learned that Federal Government involvement in local education is often uninformed, inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome. What many Americans don't know or don't remember is that No Child Left Behind is simply a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a law first passed in 1965 and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. It has been revised and reauthorized so many times that it barely resembles the original law. Today the law spawned by the repeated tinkering over four decades is increasingly complicated and burdensome. It attempts to tie Federal money to disparate yardsticks that may or may not make sense for the thousands of local school districts around the country. How can one law effectively regulate both a rural school in North Carolina and an inner-city school in L.A.? I believe it cannot. Accountability needs be a State and local issue left to parents and teachers. It should not be delegated to Washington bureaucrats who don't even step inside the thousands of schools that are scrambling to comply with cookie-cutter regulations that often don't make sense on the local level. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 was primarily concerned with the relationship between poverty and low educational achievement. That is, indeed, a noble goal. But the law has since gone far afield. Now it infringes on States rights to oversee school systems and strays into unconstitutional areas. Again, the 10th amendment to the Constitution says, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.'' The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the express right to dabble in local education. We need to give States back their full constitutional right to set education policy and encourage innovative solutions to the unique education issues faced by every State. Tens of billions of Federal dollars cannot fix faulty schools. Broken schools need to be held accountable on the local level. By pushing accountability to the Federal level, we've produced a counterproductive system that is not responsive to the local needs of students, parents and teachers. As we look towards the next reauthorization of this law, we must take States rights into account, lest we again fail the most important people in this equation, our Nation's children.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, does it not seem ironic that the week in which we are scheduled to vote on a lobbying and ethics reform bill, that I might add is largely a carbon copy of a Republican bill from last year, we are faced with the behavior of a high-ranking Member of the Democrat leadership who made a threatening comment to another Member? What are the American people supposed to make of the failure of the majority to keep their promises? Instead of delivering real reform, the Democrats march in lockstep behind one of their own, despite this clear violation of House ethics rules. Not only has the majority failed to deliver on their agenda, they have shown they will tolerate behavior in their ranks which is antithetical to their so-called reform efforts. In so doing, they have forfeited their credibility.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I just want to ask one question. I think that you have touched on a very important point again, and that is that we here in the House of Representatives are the Representatives of the people. We are the people's House. And I think the Senate is completely out of touch with what the sentiment is in this country. And I agree with you, the American people get it. The people of my district get it, and they are very, very bright. I think that we need to be listening to those people. And the House generally does listen to the people. And I hope that they are going to send a very, very strong message to the Senators about how they feel about this, and turn this around in the Senate, because we need this bill to be killed in the Senate and not even come to the House of Representatives to be debated. But I know that we as Republicans are going to have some alternatives that we will be presenting in this House, and I hope that the majority party, which has made so many promises, none of which it has kept in this session of the Congress, will listen to the people and say, we are going to take up legislation that will do what needs to be done, which is protect our borders and provide for national security and give the people a true immigration reform.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for taking on the task of serving as chairman of our Immigration Caucus. I appreciate the leadership that you have given to it and I appreciate the comments that you and Congressman Carter have made tonight. I have several points I would like to make. The members of our caucus know that I am very keen on the use of language, and that language makes a big difference. And we keep hearing over and over from the supporters of this Senate bill that this is not amnesty. But I think it is important that we define the word ``amnesty,'' so I looked it up under dictionary.com unabridged. The first definition: a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses against the government, often granted before any trial or conviction. And then I like this one, another one from Online Etymology Dictionary: pardon of past offenses, intentional overlooking. I think that is what we are talking about here. And, again, I think it is important that we define what we are talking about. That is exactly what the Senate is proposing. Now, the other thing that I want to say is that I am really concerned with the way this bill has come out. It is being debated in pieces. It was written in secret, sprung on us late in the day, and it didn't go through a committee structure as most of our bills do. It was brought straight to the floor of the Senate. The leadership of the Senate, the Democratic leadership of the Senate wanted to cram it through before the Memorial Day holiday. Those kinds of actions are not the actions of people who are proud of what they are doing. If they were proud of this bill, they would have brought that bill to a committee, they would have debated it, they would have heard the arguments pro and con, and then they would have come up with something that was discussed openly with lots and lots of people. That is the way, as Congressman Carter says, our Republic operates. We don't operate in secret. We don't do things like that. We don't cram bills through in a hurry, especially when they are so controversial. You know, you mentioned, we want to talk a little bit about our districts. I live in, I think, the most beautiful area of the world, the Fifth District of North Carolina. I am very blessed to live there. And I live among, I think, the brightest, hardest-working people in the world. And they are very intelligent, very conscientious, very patriotic people. They are upset about this proposal. They don't like it. Since I came to Congress a little over 2 years ago, I have been telling everybody who would listen, this is the biggest issue in my district, it is the biggest issue in most districts. And why? Because the American people, and again particularly the people in my district, have played by the rules and they understand the importance of the rule of law. I tell folks over and over what makes this country so special are three things: the rule of law, our moral underpinnings, and our capitalistic way of life. But you can't have moral underpinnings and you can't have the capitalistic system if you don't have the rule of law. Now, we can do something about illegal aliens who are here in our country. People say, oh, we can't do anything about them. We surely can. What we can do is start enforcing our laws. We have not been doing that. Both Democratic and Republican administrations are guilty of it. I can't forgive our Republican administrations because they are guilty of it, too. But we can close down our borders and we can enforce the laws as they are now. And I think that what we have to do is we have to look at this issue of illegal immigration in a very careful, law- respecting way. The solution doesn't lie in wholesale amnesty. And the President has said that this bill will treat people with respect. Well, I respect the President, but I have to strongly disagree with him. Because from what I have seen so far, this bill fails to respect the millions of people who have worked within the system and have immigrated to our country legally. And those people who want to come to this country legally, they are doing it the right way. These people have done it the wrong way. We are not going to reward, we cannot reward illegal behavior by uttering platitudes about respect and fairness. Our first principle on immigration reform has to be upholding American laws. If we do not do that, then our system will be fundamentally flawed. The bill that the Senate is proposing is going to legalize these people immediately. They talk about triggers being in there, but the triggers don't really go into effect. And the triggers are nothing but laws that we have already had in place for a long, long time. And if this bill passes and is signed by the President, we will be, I think, doing severe damage to our country, not just in the short run, because I think that it will be both in the short run and in the long run. There will be a huge battle ahead of us if we pass this bill, because we are going to be facing more and more illegal immigration. In addition, as I said before, the people of the Fifth District are very bright people. They know amnesty when they see it, and they know that if this bill or something even vaguely like it passes, it is going to dilute the meaning of citizenship in this country, and that is the last thing we want to do. We are the last best hope for freedom in this world; and if we don't enforce our laws and help people come here legally who want to come here, and deal with things on a case-by-case basis, we are simply going to destroy what it is that is wonderful about our country. Congressman Bilbray mentioned that his mother was an immigrant but came here legally. My father's parents came from Italy in the early 1900s; my mother's ancestors came much earlier than that from Scotland. But the Ellis Island model was a very, very good model. People had to come here, prove that they were healthy, prove that they either had a job or had a sponsor for them to be here. That worked wonderfully well in this country for a long, long time. And think that we have to have something akin to the Ellis Island experience again in this country, where we know that the people who are coming here are coming here because we need them here or they provide a benefit and they can be independent. They will not have to have public assistance.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend THOR-LO, Incorporated, of Statesville, North Carolina, for its commitment to fighting breast cancer. This company, which makes specialized socks for almost any activity, has pledged $250,000 as a national sponsor for the Breast Cancer 3-Day campaign. The campaign will raise funds through a dozen 3-day 60-mile walks in cities across the Nation and will support the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation. But the story doesn't stop there. THOR-LO first became involved in this effort through the example and spirit of a young woman in Mocksville, North Carolina. Jordan Carlson is the daughter of Jan Carlson, a woman who has twice fought off breast cancer. Jordan has the ambitious goal of participating in all 12 of the 60-mile walks. By walking more than 700 miles, Jordan plans to raise $1 million to help fight breast cancer. It was her request for walking socks that brought THOR-LO into the picture last year. THOR-LO has not only committed $250,000 to the 3-day campaign, the company has also designed a sock especially for the thousands of 3-day walkers. They call it the HERO Everyday Walker and are donating one additional dollar for every new sock that they sell. The special HERO sock is almost entirely pink and sports a pink breast cancer ribbon to commemorate the cause for which 3-day walkers will be raising money. THOR-LO employees designed the new sock after going on a trial walk with Jordan last year. The sock is specifically designed for the form of the female foot and is made to withstand the tough conditions of 3 days of almost nonstop walking. The partnership of THOR-LO with Jordan Carlson is a triumph of the spirit of American compassion and generosity. Jordan's example has inspired THOR-LO to support a great philanthropic cause and to offer not only generous financial support, but to bring THOR-LO's sock making know-how to the thousands of walkers who will raise millions to find a cure for breast cancer. It is my hope that Jordan's story and partnership with THOR-LO will serve to inspire her family, friends and classmates and everyone who hears about it to follow in her footsteps. I commend her and all those at THOR-LO, especially the employees who worked to design and produce these special socks. How fortunate for us to live in a country where people care so much. Jordan has discovered one of the secrets of a life well-lived: selfless devotion to a cause larger than herself. I believe that this young woman's passion to help find a cure will lead her to inspire countless Americans to grasp the great American ideals of generosity and hard work in the service of noble causes. Broken Promises on Earmark Reform and Ethics Rules Now, Mr. Speaker, I am switching subjects, and I'm very sad for the occasion to have to do that. I much prefer to talk on this floor about the great things that American people are doing and hold them up as examples for others, but unfortunately, tonight, I need to talk about a very sad situation that has occurred in the House of Representatives. Today, Representative Mike Rogers offered a privileged resolution to force the full House to vote on whether to reprimand senior Democrat John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, for threatening Rogers on the House floor last week. The actions by Representative Murtha constitute a violation of House rules which preclude Members from conditioning earmarks on another's vote. Curiously, Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to defend Murtha yesterday even though, according to the Associated Press, Representative Murtha did not deny that he violated House rules. Congress Daily PM reports that Democratic leadership aides, ``want to make this go away as soon as possible,'' but Representative Murtha's violation is part of a growing pattern of abuses that show the House has moved away from earmark reform under Democrats, rather than toward it. Today Republican Leader John Boehner sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi to renew his long-standing request for a bipartisan working group tasked with recommending fair, sensible and understandable House ethics rules. A little bit later in my comments, I'm going to read that letter and insert it into the Record. As has been reported previously, this is the second incident where Representative Murtha has threatened a GOP Member who dared challenge his questionable earmark, which has been deemed, ``an expensive and duplicative use of scarce Federal drug enforcement resources,'' according to the May 8 edition of The Hill. Fox News has also previously reported on his threat to Representative Todd Tiahrt from Kansas, including the video of it on the House floor. House Democrats have repeatedly promised the most open and ethical Congress in history. It's so ironic that during a week when Democrats will bring up their lobbying and ethics reform bill, which we hear has been watered down considerably, will they back Representative Murtha and make a mockery of their own rules, or will they keep their pledge to the American people? And let me remind everyone what some of those pledges were. I want to contrast some of the promises from the top two Democratic leaders with how they are running things today: violations of earmark disclosure rules, no debate, no amendments to strike, no transparency, no scrutiny, no sunlight. The American people are beginning to catch on to the Democrats' sham pledges and broken promises. First, let me quote from the Majority Leader, Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat from Maryland. ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other Members can see what is being done.'' Second quote. ``We need to have [earmarks] subject to [more] debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on.'' And this has appeared in www.tpmcafe.com, and I'm going again to make this available so that anyone who wants to go to check that quote can go to it without accepting what I'm saying for it. Then Speaker Pelosi, the number one Democrat in the House, ``There has to be transparency,'' on earmarks. That's in www.usatoday.com. Here's a question that was asked of her. ``Yes. They're saying that you would need to put the earmark into a text of a bill instead of in a conference report so that they can--'' And Representative Pelosi answers, ``Well, I think, first of all-- anything that is in any bill, any provision, whether it's an earmark or not, should be--there should be transparency, so that--that's why we have said--and I hope you would agree--that before Members vote on the bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there. ``There are many earmarks that are very worthy--all of mine, as a matter of fact--'' and remember, I'm quoting Speaker Pelosi, ``but it is--because we're talking about helping people in the community--it's the special interest earmarks that are the ones that go in there in the dark of night, that they don't want anybody to see, and that nobody does see and that are voted upon. ``So transparency--yes, by all means, let's subject them all to the scrutiny that they deserve and let them compete for the dollar. But myself, I would not be unhappy.'' And this was in her weekly press conference, 3/17/06. Now, the earmark that is under question is an earmark that was in the Intelligence bill last week. There were many, many efforts to bring that out, all of them thwarted by the Democratic leadership. Now, here is Congressman Boehner's letter to Speaker Pelosi. I don't have the exact text. I'm going to read what it said. But the process ``has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.'' Boehner's letter comes as the House prepares to consider a privileged resolution offered by Representative Mike Rogers concerning an earmark-related House rules violation by Representative John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who was the Speaker's preferred choice for House majority leader. Boehner's letter lists a series of rules abuses by the Democratic majority he argues have made a mockery of House rules that are supposed to ensure that no taxpayer-funded earmark is passed without appropriate scrutiny and debate. In addition to the Murtha incidents, Boehner notes Democrats have refused to allow Members to challenge questionable earmarks on the House floor, certified a huge spending bill as earmark free though it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks, and preserved special privileges for State and local government lobbyists seeking earmarks from Congress, including lobbyists for public universities. Boehner says in the letter, ``At the outset of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats jointly pledged to make the earmark process more transparent and more accountable to the American people. A rules package was adopted that was supposed to enforce this pledge as one of its central objectives by ensuring no earmark would be passed by the House without appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate. Recent actions by the majority have begun to make a mockery of this vow and of the rules themselves.'' I go on quoting from the letter. ``These actions by the majority have become increasingly flagrant and bold with each passing month of the 110th Congress, fueling public cynicism about our institution and disheartening many who believe fundamental change is needed in the way in which Washington spends the taxpayers' money.'' Boehner goes on to say, in the letter, ``We have now reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.'' What this is about is an action by Representative Murtha to secure tens of millions of dollars for a questionable project in his district by highly suspect methods that either flaunted the new rules without penalty, or, at best, nominally complied with them, proving in either case how utterly ineffective the new rules really are. Again, in February, the majority was able to certify a massive spending bill as earmark-free, despite the fact that it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks. Under the rules, there is no way a Member can challenge an earmark that is included in a bill brought to the House floor as long as the bill contains a list of earmarks, even if the list is inaccurate and fails to include the earmark the Member seeks to challenge. This is a terrible way to get around the situation and continued to fund questionable projects, which Members of the majority want to fund, and they are very disingenuous in this process. But perhaps most appalling, the majority has twisted House rules and procedure to prevent questionable earmarks, once identified, from being challenged in any way on the House floor by Members seeking nothing more than up-or-down votes on these suspect provisions. In fact, on at least two occasions, Republican Members objecting to illegitimate earmarks have been directly threatened with retaliation by a senior Democratic Member in open defiance of the new rules. I would like also to read a piece which Congressman Mike Rogers has written, and it's called ``The Sopranos on Capitol Hill?'' ``Bridges to nowhere, the $100 hammer. A rainforest in Iowa. Billions of taxpayer dollars unaccounted for. ``It's no wonder the American people are disgusted with the way Congress spends their money. In the latest incident certain to cement the public's frustration, a powerful chairman threatened and attempted to intimidate me when I tried to stop wasteful duplicative spending from what the U.S. News and World Report has called a taxpayer `boondoggle.' Even more troubling, this pork-barrel project takes precious intelligence resources from spies on the ground catching terrorists in places like Fallujah, Iraq, and sends it to bureaucrats in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. ``Two weeks ago I offered a proposal to the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act that would have taken funding away from an illegitimate, wasteful earmark that happened to be in the district of House Defense Appropriations chairman John Murtha, Democrat, Pennsylvania. Chairman Murtha's earmark would authorize tens of millions for the National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, a government office that the House Government Reform Committee has deemed an `expensive and duplicative use of scarce Federal drug resources,' according to an article in the May 8 edition of The Hill. ``Last week, on the House floor, Chairman Murtha violated House rules in an expletive-laced tirade, pointing his finger and threatening my priorities `now and forever.' Just last week, Chairman Murtha `exploded' and `unleashed a loud, finger-jabbing, spittle-spraying piece of his mind' at a colleague on his committee, according to The Hill. Chairman Murtha then `. . . threatened to withdraw support from a defense project . . .' vital to his colleague's district, according to the article. This week he attempted to intimidate me, and when I had the audacity to question the merits of the project, his reaction was more finger pointing and intimidation. ``Today I will introduce a resolution outlining this egregious action which is not only beneath the dignity of Congress, it constitutes a violation of House rules, which preclude Members from conditioning spending in other districts on another Member's vote. The House should reprimand Chairman Murtha for his conduct. ``This incident in the people's House highlighted arrogance of power at its worst, and both political parties are guilty. This is why the American people throw up their hands and are fed up with Washington politicians. If we are ever going to restore the trust of the American people, Congress can and must do better. ``This reminds me how far some in Congress have gotten away from America's founding. When General George Washington led a rag-tag group of Americans to defeat the most powerful military in the world, many in this new land wanted him to be King. Many feared without a strong, all- powerful leader, our new Nation would be vulnerable to attack. A beautiful painting hangs in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building highlighting Washington's next action, which was perhaps unprecedented in all of history. George Washington voluntarily resigned his commission as head of the Revolutionary Army, giving up personal gain for the greater good of the new Nation. Too many in Washington, D.C., of both parties have instead taken from the greater good for their own gain. ``The House floor is not the place for an episode of `The Sopranos,' and protecting the public's tax dollars is a basic duty of all Members of Congress. The good news is this could be an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to change the way Congress does business and to change the way taxpayer money is spent. The country and our citizens' pocketbooks would be better off for it.'' That ends the article by Congressman Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, and a former FBI Special Agent. As has been said and alluded to by the comments that I have read here tonight, this is simply the latest but most egregious situation where the Imajority party is doing exactly the opposite of what it promised to do. It promised many times on this floor last year, many times in campaigns, the most ethical Congress ever. That simply has not been the case. We have people up here every day saying things that are not true. They keep saying they are not raising taxes in the budget. We know they are. Even some of their Members have said it. Some of their Members voted with the Republicans against the budget, and at least one of them said, I simply cannot vote to let these tax cuts expire. That means the tax increases are there. They have said they would be the most ethical in terms of earmarks. I really dislike that term, ``earmarks,'' it's very negative, but it means money sent to a special project by a Member. I don't have any problem with money going to certain projects by certain Members. That's part of our constitutional responsibility. It should be out in the open every time. If we, as Members of Congress, are ashamed of where we are sending the money, then there must be something wrong with it. If I were to ask for money to go to a special project, I would be very proud of that and would want the people of my district to know it. However, it's obvious that Congressman Murtha does not want the people of his district or this country to know where he is sending certain dollars, partly because that project has been evaluated and deemed to be wasteful, as I gave you some quotes. This was going to be the Congress that was going to do so much. Not any bill of any consequence has passed both Houses and been signed by the President. None of their bills that they promised, their Six in '06, small ideas. Even they don't do what they said they do. I would like to use the example of the student loans. All for last year, the Democrats said over and over and over again, oh, we are going to bring down the cost of going to college. Students have to borrow too much money. We are going to lower the cost of interest rates. Well, ladies and gentlemen, what they did was a giant shell game. It takes 5 years for them to lower the interest rate on one small program that students borrow money from, making up, probably, less than 20 percent or fewer than 20 percent of the loans out there. It takes 5 years to get that interest rate brought down to half. The interest rate stays half for 3 whole months, and then it goes straight back up to the full rate. But they would like the American people to believe that they really have done something that they said they were going to do, which is not true. It's over and over again. They would not raise taxes, the budget raised taxes. They would cut spending. Everything that they have done is increase spending. They said that they would always support our troops. They do not support our troops. They have played games here for the last month or so, trying to embarrass the President, they think, and try to get through, again, more of their pork-barrel projects by putting unnecessary spending onto a war supplemental, which, again, is a giant shell game, because it would allow them to take $24 billion off-line spending, because if it's in the supplemental, they don't have to count it against their budget. That gives them $24 billion more they can spend somewhere else, and they pass it off as emergency funding. It's not emergency funding at all. So, they are not supporting our troops, and they are not doing anything that they promise to do last year. Again, this latest episode, with Congressman Murtha, should send a clear signal to the American people that that is what is happening. You know, there is an old saying, you can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I think that the American people are waking up to the hypocrisy that has been going on here by the Democrats, and they are seeing not only aren't they fulfilling their promises, but they are doing even worse. They are trying to hide everything that they are doing and trying to make it look like they are fulfilling their promises, but they are not. I want to say, in terms of their insisting on a surrender date, I have said this before on the floor, I have never in my life been around leaders in our country that talk about failure and impossibility as much as these people do. America is a place where we believe in things getting done, where everything is possible. We could do it all. We will win this war. We have to win the war, because our freedom is at stake. All they talk about is surrender date. Every bill that they have passed has had surrender dates in it. It has been 105 days since the President first requested additional troop funding. While we are trying to help get that funding, Republicans are, the Democrats want to choke off or ration funding for American troops in harm's way. More of their hypocrisy. They don't want to fund the troops. Sometimes I think they want failure just to prove a point. Yet, they would tear down the freedom that we have to stay in power and to prove a point. We need a clean troop-funding bill. We need to give our troops the resources they need to be successful, no strings, no timelines, no pork, and it needs to be done by Memorial Day so that we show the troops how we really feel about them, and not this sham that the Democrats have been portraying here in the Congress.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 53, and I yield back the balance of my time.