Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honored today to rise as the House considers House Joint Resolution 15, a resolution I authored to recognize the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States economy. As a former Christmas tree grower myself, I can attest to the importance of recognizing this often overlooked, yet highly significant, farming industry. Christmas trees have held a historic place in traditional American family values since 1850. Just as importantly, Christmas trees play a vital role in the North Carolina High Country's economy by providing jobs and livelihoods for thousands of North Carolinians. My district in North Carolina is one of the largest producers of live-cut Christmas trees in the entire country. There are over 1,600 North Carolina growers and approximately 400 choose-and-cut Christmas tree farms across the State. The North Carolina Christmas tree industry is ranked second in the Nation in the number of trees harvested, producing over 19 percent of the real Christmas trees in the United States. North Carolina has an estimated 50 million Fraser fir Christmas trees growing on over 25,000 acres. Representing over 95 percent of all species growing in North Carolina, Fraser firs are grown in North Carolina's western counties, including Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga and Yancey. The North Carolina Fraser fir Christmas tree is the most popular Christmas tree in North America and is shipped to every State in the United States, as well as the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, Japan, and other points all over the world. The North Carolina Fraser fir has soft needles with incomparable needle retention, a long-lasting aroma, and more pliable, yet stronger, branches for even the heaviest ornaments. Through a contest sponsored by the National Christmas Tree Association, the North Carolina Fraser fir has been judged the Nation's best and has been chosen for the official White House Christmas tree 10 times, more than any other species, in 1971, 1973, 1982, 1984, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2005 and 2007. It is my great privilege to say that a beautiful Fraser fir grown by Joe Freeman and Linda Jones of Mistletoe Meadows Christmas Tree Farm in Laurel Springs, North Carolina, presently sits in the White House Blue Room as this year's official White House Christmas tree. The Christmas tree industry supports our economy and the environment. Christmas trees are grown in all 50 States, with North Carolina, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Virginia, California, and Ohio being the top Christmas tree producers. Nationally, there are more than 21,000 Christmas tree growers, and more than 100,000 people are employed in the live-cut Christmas tree industry. Thirty-six million live-cut Christmas trees are produced each year, and 98 percent are shipped or sold directly from Christmas tree farms. Live-cut Christmas trees are a renewable, recyclable resource. There are over 500,000 acres in production for growing Christmas trees in the U.S., and each acre provides the daily oxygen requirement for 18 people. On average, over 1,500 Christmas trees are planted per acre, providing an abundant habitat for wildlife. It can take up to 15 years to grow Christmas trees to retail sale height, a testament to the commitment growers have to maintain strong and healthy trees. The retail value of all Christmas trees harvested in 2004 was $1.4 billion. Live-cut Christmas trees have been sold commercially in the United States since 1850. By 1900, one in five American families decorated live-cut trees during Christmas. By 1930, the tree had become a nearly universal part of the American Christmas. For generations, American families have traveled hundreds and thousands of miles to celebrate the holiday season together at home around the Christmas tree. This year, more than 10,000 trees were donated to American troops by over 750 Christmas tree farmers across the Nation. These Christmas trees were delivered to over 37 bases across 19 States and over 15 countries abroad to spread the holiday spirit to our men and women in uniform who are bravely and honorably serving our Nation throughout this Christmas season. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture and the majority leader for their assistance in getting this resolution to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, recognizing this important industry, not just for its economic and environmental impact, but also for its cultural contribution to the Christmas holiday. Thank you to Christmas tree growers across the country for their contribution to our economy, our environment, and our Nation's heritage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I hope you will repeat that 22 more times tonight, and we need to be repeating that every single day. It's one of the issues I talk about over and over again, what are our priorities, what is the role of the Federal Government. As you say, we could be seen as a 51st State and be trying to deal with every single issue, but the Constitution is really clear about what our role is, I think. As you point out, here we are in the middle of December, and what has this Congress accomplished? So much was promised by the majority last year when they were running for office and condemning Republicans for being profligate spenders and being irresponsible about the way we spent money. I will tell you that we can't hold a candle to what it is they want to do. I think it was bad enough that Republicans before I got here ballooned the budget beyond where it should have been. And I have to say that I understand why the American people got upset with us last year, why we lost our majority. They felt that we were profligate spenders, as I said. But the Democrats promised something different. We are standing on our principles now, and they are stunned by that. We are earning our way back into the majority by living up to the image and the reputation that Republicans have had over the years of being careful with the way money is spent. And, of course, today I heard other Democrats talking about the fact that this was going to be a cut in the budget. Well, only in Washington is a smaller increase than what they want considered a cut or level funding considered a cut. The increase in what the President asked for, and again I know you are going to go into much greater detail about this, a 3.1 percent increase in spending overall was requested by the President; and yet, the majority party is saying that the fault is with the White House and it refuses to negotiate, that the President won't negotiate with them. They say we are engaged in political posturing. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I certainly have never seen that. They are totally surprised by the fact that the President and we are standing on our principles. They think they can get by with simply increasing spending. They asked for $22 billion plus a lot of money in emergency spending; so then they come back and say, well, we will just split the difference. It will only be $11 billion and you should compromise with us. And the fact that we don't want to increase spending that much more over the 3.1 percent requested by the President stuns them. So the way they get around it is, here we are again the middle of December, and they have not passed the appropriations bills that we should have passed. And I want to talk some about what they promised they would do and what they have done. And we have compiled a list of promises. On November 8 of last year, Speaker-elect Pelosi said: Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead. Here we are, only one appropriations bill that has passed, and that is the Defense bill. Thank goodness that has happened. Another Democratic promise: open, honest, and ethical Congress. Speaker-elect Pelosi: we will make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history. And what do we get? We get bills brought on the floor at the last minute, thousand-page bills. We get no time to read them, and we are asked to vote on them. We are also told by the Blue Dogs and by others that they believe in something called PAYGO. Now, PAYGO, they would have you believe, is a way for us to get back fiscal responsibility. Well, I want to say that if you look up PAYGO in the dictionary, it means new taxes. That is what PAYGO means to them, new taxes. It doesn't mean cutting spending. And it only applies to a very small part of our budget, but they want to try to fool the American people into thinking that it means something different than what it means. They criticize the Senate for having passed an AMT bill last week, which is a clean bill. It simply delays the increase in taxes that would go to about 23 million Americans, something they have never paid. And to the House, the fiscally responsible way to do this is to add new taxes to other Americans to, quote, pay for, that is, offset, taxes that have never been paid by another group of Americans. That is some of the most twisted logic that I have ever heard in my entire life. I know that these people never could have taken logic in high school or in college. They also promised no more borrowing from Social Security. But what that means is that the money that is currently being spent from the Social Security fund will not be spent from the Social Security fund. But that is not what they are doing. They are spending that and a whole lot more. And Rob Andrews last year, or this year, promised that we would not borrow any more money from the Social Security fund. Every one of their promises has been broken, and they are taking us down a very fiscally irresponsible budget. The energy bill that was passed last week is a no-energy bill. It included nothing to increase domestic energy production. As Christmas approaches, 5,000 troops are going to return from Iraq; but they are holding hostage the bipartisan legislation to fund key benefits for them and their families. It has been 6 months since the House overwhelmingly passed the veterans and troops funding bill and 3 months since the Senate did the same, but they have put that bipartisan bill into this omnibus bill that we are going to be dealing with, which will have billions in wasteful, unrelated pork. We are seeing a tremendous problem here with only one of the 12 appropriations bills passed, a year wasted while they have brought before us unnecessary bills to vote on and while they have voted 41 times on measures to withdraw from Iraq, and they have let the important work of this Congress go by the by. I hope again that the American people are paying close attention and reading between the lines on the things that they are saying, and I am going to yield back to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much, Congressman Garrett. I appreciate your putting together this Special Order tonight and focusing on spending and on where we are here, as you said, in the second week of December in the greatest country in the world. I was listening for a few minutes to our colleagues who preceded us, who called themselves the Blue Dog Democrats, and I was really fascinated to hear them talk about how fiscally responsible they have been, and I know that you're going to talk a little bit later about the total tax increases that they have proposed, the total spending that they have proposed. And I am fascinated that our colleagues can stand here and talk about being fiscally responsible, I think, and assume that nobody is adding up what it is they are doing. And they show their charts about the debt and how much each person is responsible for that debt, and I am intrigued that if you look at the record, you would see that most of the Blue Dogs vote every time for these fiscally irresponsible bills that are being brought up. So I want to say to the American people, if they believe that these folks have been fiscally responsible, then I have got some swampland in Mexico that I'd like to sell them. I felt like, in listening to them, that I was like Alice in Wonderland, where the language means the opposite of what it is, or 1984, particularly 1984, where white is black and black is white. That is what it feels like when you're listening to them talk about being fiscally responsible. It's unbelievable. One thing I do agree with them, it is about priorities, and it's obvious that their priorities and our priorities and the priorities of the American people are two different things. For one thing, our colleague used the example that we could be building 12,000 new elementary schools. Well, the Federal Government has absolutely no business building elementary schools. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which gives us any right to be involved in education, and particularly in building buildings at the local level. I am astonished at some of the things that they say, again, and assume that nobody is going to question them.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the unsung heroes of the United States Capitol. Here in the Capitol Building, we have a group of fine individuals who serve the public by giving tours of the Capitol and educating the public about the history of this great institution. But during the few years I have had the honor to serve in Congress, I have noticed one member of the Capitol Guide Service who has consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty. Albert Carey Caswell has served as a Capitol guide for more than 20 years, and his tenure has been marked with an ethic of civic outreach. He routinely gives tours to disabled veterans from Walter Reed Medical Center and to children with life-threatening diseases through Make-a-Wish Foundation. Mr. Caswell does all of this on a volunteer basis on his own time. He insists that the tours he give to these children and brave veterans be coordinated and given on his watch. Mr. Caswell is an accomplished poet and an extremely knowledgeable tour guide, but more importantly he is a great American. He embodies the spirit of a true patriot, someone who grasps the importance of a cause greater than himself and pursues it with energy and commitment. He is the model of a civically minded citizen who is selflessly committed to the greater good.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about what has not been accomplished in this Congress, and what it looks like we may be facing in an omnibus bill. Last week we were told that we would be here on Friday of this coming week, after we had been told about a month ago that we would be able to be in our districts on Friday. I know that I made many plans to be in the district, speak to school groups that had been asking me to speak, meet with chamber of commerce people to talk about concerns that they had, and to do lots of things in the district. We have been denied many opportunities this year to be in our district to hear from the folks in the district the things that are on their minds and what's really important in the country, because the majority has insisted that we stay in session 5 days a week. But if you look at the bills that have been passed in those days that we've been here, you'd see that they were not things that primarily the Congress needs to be concerning itself with. We do need to be concerning ourselves with the appropriations bills, funding the war on terror, taking care of tax relief for middle-income Americans, many, many things that we should be doing. But, instead, we are literally wasting our time on insignificant issues and not dealing with those things we should be dealing with. It was announced last week that we would be dealing with an omnibus appropriations bill. Why an omnibus appropriations bill? Because the majority has been unable to pass 10 of the vital appropriations bills that our government relies for its funding on. We have passed the Defense bill and the President has signed it. We've passed the Labor-HHS bill. The President vetoed it and the veto was upheld. So we are coming to the end of a continuing resolution that was passed that expires on Friday, and we're facing the prospect of lumping 11 appropriations bills together and passing them in one fell swoop. Well, we know that is just a recipe for disaster. Last week we were given the Energy bill, 15 hours before we voted on it, a 1,000-plus page bill, and it had all kinds of problems with it. Buying Lexus hybrids for the Beverly Hills police, many, many things in there that the American people would not approve of. And I fear that in the omnibus bill we're going to see a lot of those kinds of things. Now, we don't know yet what's going to be in the omnibus bill, but in addition to a tremendous number of earmarks, we are probably going to see sanctions against Cuba weakened. We are probably going to see the Mexico City policy overturned. The House and Senate versions of the State Department appropriations bill permits grants and subsidies for organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, overturning the Bush administration's Mexico City policy. We don't need to be doing that. The American people do not want us to take their hard-earned money to fund abortions. It is probably going to provide federally funded benefits for domestic partners. Before being stripped from the House-passed Financial Services general government appropriations bill, a provision would have allowed unmarried cohabiting couples in the District of Columbia to qualify for Federal benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. That provision could be brought back to life in the majority's omnibus legislation. Ending an IRS private debt collection program, the majority spending bill could limit funding to implement the Internal Revenue Service's use of private collection firms to collect unpaid taxes. The private debt collection initiative is expected to collect $1.3 billion in taxes owed to the government that would otherwise go uncollected. Undermining regulatory reform, a provision in the House-passed Financial Services general government appropriations bill, again, H.R. 2829, would kill efforts to increase the quality, accountability, and transparency of the Federal Government's regulatory review process. It would result in a fox guarding the hen house approach to approving Federal rules and regulations. We don't need an omnibus bill. We need to vote on these bills one at a time, Madam Speaker.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Lowe's Home Improvement, a company that has long been a strong force of economic development and community involvement in North Carolina. It recently came to my attention that this week there was a bit of a kerfuffle over a misprint in Lowe's holiday catalog. Apparently the Christmas tree section of the catalogue had a misprint that labeled them ``family trees.'' There was no small outcry from a number of concerned citizens who thought that Lowe's might be up to something here. Well, I want to set the record straight. After hearing from Lowe's myself I know that it was a simple printing error--a matter of a hiccup in the creative process. Lowe's was quick to apologize for the printing error and assured me that they were not out to alter the nomenclature of this fine Christmas tradition. As a former Christmas tree farmer I know how important it is to millions of Americans that a beautiful evergreen graces their living rooms each year as part of their celebration of this sacred season. At the same time, I also know that Lowe's was in no way attempting to undermine our celebrations of advent. I fully support every American's right to voice concerns over what many see as the steady march of secularism each Christmas season. But I want to assure them that Lowe's had no such intentions in mind. A printing error slipped through the cracks and the company has pledged to redouble its catalogue proofreading processes. A company spokesperson has even been quoted in the media explaining that the catalogue title was an error and was inconsistent with the company's long-standing practice of referring to its Christmas trees as ``Christmas trees.'' This spokesperson said that Lowe's had intended to convey that family traditions often begin with a Christmas tree. I hope that now that the facts are out, we can all return to celebrating the birth of Christ this Christmas season, undistracted by this dust-up over a simple copyediting slipup.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this coming week we will celebrate Veterans Day. As we remember the many who have given their lives in service to our Nation, I hope we pause not only to honor their memory, but also to express our gratitude for that which their sacrifices have secured. The many American veterans that we honor today are a reflection of American greatness. The men and women of our Armed Forces throughout our Nation's history have not hesitated to make tremendous personal sacrifices for the cause of freedom. If it were not for our brave and selfless veterans, we would be a land of fewer freedoms and smaller liberties. Throughout our history, our veterans have gone to foreign shores to fight the forces of injustice and tyranny. Today, many live in freedom thanks to their great sacrifices. Our veterans are the first and the finest example of the American hero. They have preserved our peace and they have held back the tide of darkness when the call has sounded to protect our liberty. And these men and women have done and continue to do these things with a sense of duty that has never shirked the great sacrifices, but instead, upholds the mantle of democracy with strength and pride. On Veterans Day, we rightly single out the members of our Armed Forces, past and present, and give them the honor that they do not ask for, but that they so richly deserve. I do not say this lightly, that our veterans are the primary forces that keep and have kept the vision of America alive throughout the centuries. Ours is a vision of freedom for all, a vision of a land where any man or woman can breathe free and lay hold of prosperity, secure in the knowledge that their brave and selfless soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coast guardsmen have proven that our cause is worthy of the most profound of sacrifices. We must not take our freedoms lightly. They have been purchased with the blood and sacrifice of many patriots. These patriots have answered the call to service, knowing that a life without liberty is hardly worth living. They've shown us that our freedoms are invaluable and priceless beyond the paltry dividends of a life under the shadow of tyranny or fear or repression. We have much to be grateful for in this Nation. Our freedoms are many and our sacrifices are few in comparison to what our veterans willingly give up. And these sacrifices are made on our behalf so that we might enjoy a liberty that is unrivaled throughout human history. It is therefore a tremendous pleasure to honor the men and women who saw the value of freedom and grasped the threat of tyranny and did not shrink into the twilight. As Thomas Paine said of our freedom on the eve of the American Revolution: ``The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.'' I thank our veterans for recognizing this cause and rising to its defense with unfailing strength. Our gratitude is tribute to your great bravery and profound sacrifice.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we celebrate Veterans Day on November 11. Every day in this country should be Veterans Day, that is, we should highlight veterans and thank them for their service to our country. Yet, it's been over 140 days since the House passed the MilCon-VA appropriations bill and 8 weeks since the Senate passed it. The bill has strong bipartisan support and the President is ready to sign it. Yet Democrats have delayed bringing this bill to the floor. The Democrats finally announced they're bringing it to the floor this week, but instead of voting on a stand-alone bill which would ensure quick passage and provide funding for our troops and veterans, they're using it as a political tool by attaching it to the Labor-HHS bill. The American people hate this kind of political posturing. They know that when bills are combined like that, that it's a political and cynical ploy. That's the only way the Democrats can get their pork- barrel spending passed is by attaching it to the military bill. By using it as a political tool instead of an urgent spending priority, the Democratic leadership illustrates where their priorities are, and they aren't with our troops and veterans.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a book that has changed the course of history and left its mark on every level of our society. The Bible has been a God-given source of guidance for humanity for thousands of years and was a wellspring of wisdom and truth for the Founders of our Nation. As we approach National Bible Week, which is traditionally celebrated during the week of Thanksgiving, it is important to pause and reflect on how this Good Book has shaped the world, changed countless millions of lives, and brought humankind to a better understanding of our God and of our place in the world. The Bible is a deep repository of fundamental and universal truth that has stood as a guide post for the generations. It teaches us how we ought to relate to our Creator and how to love our fellow human beings. During times of turmoil, confusion and strife, I can think of no more important source of guidance than the wisdom of this unchanging and inspired book. The Bible offers us hope when circumstances are dire. The Bible is a source of strength when our human frailty brings us low, and when we are surrounded by darkness, as the psalmist wrote, the Bible ``is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.'' In all of its transcendent wisdom, the Bible does not fail to connect to our human condition. It kindles our joy and beckons us to know God regardless of our place in life. Throughout my life, I have drawn on the words of the Bible to lead me and inform my moral compass. The Bible is an unshakeable pillar of truth that provides the surest of moral foundations for society's founded on and reliant on its inspired content. The Bible has nourished a dialogue of our Nation's public square and has bolstered the development of a strong moral identity for hundreds of years. I encourage my fellow Americans to dig deep into the Good Book and discover for themselves what riches God's word has in store for them.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, homeland security and the safety of our men and women in uniform should be on the front of everyone's mind in Congress. Yet, we are here again this week discussing a Democrat bill that fails to provide our intelligence community the tools necessary to monitor terrorist activity. The Democrat RESTORE bill does nothing to streamline a process that is hampered by endless red tape and severely slows the reaction time between Washington and our battlefield commanders. Intelligence opportunities sometimes exist for minutes, and we need the flexibility to monitor activity that can save lives. The article in the New York Post yesterday is a perfect example. The current law delayed a rescue mission by 10 hours. Our troops should never have to wait 10 hours for permission to rescue them. I urge my Democrat colleagues to reconsider the RESTORE Act. We should focus our efforts on a bipartisan approach to our national security, not on legislating defeat.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 3572. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today to pay tribute to Rev. Wallace S. Hartsfield, a family man, community activist, and man of God. Rev. Hartsfield was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 12, 1929. After a 3-year tour of duty with the United States Army, he went on to receive a bachelor of arts degree from Clark College, now Clark Atlanta University. Three years later, in 1957, he received a Master of Divinity degree. The list of honorary degrees Rev. Hartsfield has earned is long and distinguished. They include a Doctor of Divinity from both Western Baptist Bible College in Kansas City, Missouri, and Virginia Seminary and College of Lyncher, Virginia. While his list of academic accomplishments is impressive, the work he has done since the end of his formal education is even more so. His first pastorate was in Pickens, South Carolina, and he served in the States of Kansas, Florida, and Georgia before settling into a position at the Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church located in Kansas City, Missouri, a place he has preached for over 40 years. Rev. Hartsfield will retire on January 1, 2008, as senior pastor. During his long service to the church, he became affectionately known as the dean of Kansas City Ministers; and the cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Cleaver, has nicknamed him the Godfather of Preachers because of the knowledge he possesses and his impressive oratory skills. He has become a mentor not only for those in the local ministry, but for community leaders as well. His steadfast dedication to Kansas City and the surrounding area have helped solidify the community and shape it into what it is today. However, his leadership and influence have extended well beyond the boundaries of his duty as a minister. He has fought to promote, protect, and ensure civil liberties for all races, not only at home but across the Nation. And he served as president of the greater Kansas City chapter of Operation PUSH, an organization dedicated to the promotion of religious and social development and human rights. He is a former chairman of the Congress of National Black Churches that represents over 65,000 churches. He has also served in many positions within the National Baptist Convention of America. The reverend was appointed by the Governor to serve as commissioner on the Missouri Highway Commission and was at the forefront of efforts to construct the Metropolitan Homes, a 60-unit low-income housing development. Despite all of his work and the demands for his time and attention, they did not detract from his love for his family. The reverend just celebrated his 50th anniversary with his wife, Matilda Hopkins. They are the proud parents of four children. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me, Mr. Cleaver, and all of the members of the Missouri delegation in congratulating Rev. Hartsfield on his retirement, wish him well in his new endeavors, and join us in supporting the naming of the post office facility on Blue Parkway in Kansas City in his honor. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 3297, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It is an honor for me to speak today about an American hero who showed great bravery and loyalty to his country well beyond his 19 years. On August 9, 2005, a roadside bomb took the life of Nate DeTample, extinguishing his hopes and dreams, an ending to what, by all accounts, was an exemplary life. During his high school years, Nate DeTample was remembered as an impressive young man and an extremely nice guy. His personality was such that he always reached out to others with a handshake and asked how they were doing. He showed great leadership and ability as a wrestler for Pennsbury High School. One of his coaches remembered him as a hard worker and always being the first to practice. It was Nate's dream to become a police officer, much like his father, Glenn, a detective for the Lower Makefield Police Department. With this dream in mind, Nate joined the National Guard after he graduated and headed off to college at Shippensburg University, where he majored in criminal justice. He was, however, called to serve his country before he could complete his first year of study. Some might have complained, but Nate believed in the mission and served to the best of his abilities. Upon learning of Nate's death, the flag at the Lower Makefield Police Department was flown at half mast. This was a fitting tribute for someone who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country and his community. It is also a fitting tribute that we give the post office on West Trenton Avenue in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, his name so that we may not forget his courage, his bravery and the price he paid for us. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this fitting tribute. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 2089, to designate the U.S. Postal Service location at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans as the Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office. From the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, to the Chinese Bandits who laid the groundwork for U.S. air superiority in the Asian theater in World War II, to LTG Russell Honore's leadership of the military response to Hurricane Katrina, Louisianans have been at the forefront of defending this country from the time of its founding to this very day. Louisiana's fighters have always been known for being a little tougher, a little wilder, a little crazier, if you will, than their counterparts from elsewhere. It made them perfect for some missions, but not so perfect for others. But the end result always has been that they have been quick in the Bayou State to take up arms whenever their country needed them. Consider Claire Chennault. In 1937, Chennault, a captain in the U.S. Army Air Corps, progenitor of the Air Force, resigned his commission to go to China on behalf of Madam Chaing Kai-shek to help the Chinese build an air force to fend off the Japanese. He did not leave until World War II ended in 1945. In the interim, he helped organize an air force that featured strategically located airfields and an air raid warning system built from scratch that protected all of what was then known as Free China. Without his work, American air power could not have functioned in China. Later, Chennault was to describe the air raid warning system as a vast spider net of people, radios, telephones, and telegraph lines that covered all of Free China accessible to enemy aircraft. In addition to continuous intelligence of enemy attacks, the net served to locate and guide lost friendly planes, direct aid to friendly pilots who had crashed or bailed out, and helped guide our technical intelligence experts to wrecks or crashed enemy aircraft. In other words, something out of nothing. The same as the muskets Louisianans used to fend off the British in New Orleans, and General Honore used to help rebuild Louisiana after Katrina. It is a tradition well worth honoring, and this measure does just that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, fiscal responsibility is the cornerstone of a strong economic plan, and House Republicans are dedicated to ensuring that American taxpayers are getting the best product for their money. Unfortunately, I can't say my Democrat colleagues feel the same way. We are 3 weeks into fiscal year 2008, and for the first time in a long time Congress has not sent the President a single appropriations bill. One of these bills funds our veterans, and they deserve the benefits they were promised; yet politics has taken over the Democrat leadership, and their failure is costing veterans over $4 billion in new benefits. The Democrat majority also has failed to deliver on promised earmark transparency that would shed light on every earmark, and we're continuing to see abuses within the system. At almost every opportunity, the Democrat leadership has increased spending and increased taxes to pay for these spending binges. It's time to get back on track to finding commonsense solutions and stop using taxpayer dollars like it's an unlimited source of money.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that recognition, and I appreciate the Republican leader giving me this opportunity tonight to participate in our Special Order. I am here tonight to talk about something that happened last week in the Foreign Relations Committee and to talk about something that is proposed to happen here in the House between now and the middle of November when we are supposed to be taking a break for Thanksgiving. I am here to talk about House Resolution 106, the Armenian genocide resolution. I am, as I have said before here many times, an extremely proud Member of the House of Representatives. I am so pleased to be able to represent the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina. However, when I came here, I took an oath, an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the Constitution. I did not take an oath to say that I would ignore the good of the United States for the good of the Fifth District of North Carolina. I thought that everyone who came here understood that our Number 1 responsibility is to work together as a group on behalf of the entire United States of America. Certainly we should do all we can to represent our districts, and I believe that every Member does that. But there are times when we must put aside provincial interest for the good of this country. I am very disappointed that last week the Foreign Relations Committee voted out of that committee a resolution that I think puts the good of the United States in second place to the good of a small interest group. We should never do that as Members of Congress. We should assume that the oath that we take is like the doctor's oath, above all, do no harm. The resolution that was passed out of that committee last week does harm to the United States of America and does harm to people in Turkey and in other parts of the world. That is not what we should be about. The action that was taken last week and the proposed action for a vote on the floor by the entire House has been called by many others the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I agree with that. I am particularly concerned that the Speaker of the House is the person pushing this resolution. She is third in line to be President of the United States. And exhibiting behavior that shows such provincial interest does not give me great comfort in thinking that if something were to happen and the Speaker were to assume the Presidency, that she would have the presence of mind to do what needs to be done for the good of this country. It is simply not being exhibited by her behaviors, by pressing this resolution and by other things that she has done. I am quite concerned about it. Many people have written this Speaker, many editorials have been written saying, don't do this. This will do harm to the United States. This will do harm to Armenians. This is not the right thing to do. I want to talk a little bit about the history of Turkey, our relationship with Turkey, and give a little bit of background to people who may not be so familiar with Turkey as a country and with what has happened there and talk about why, again, this resolution is so wrong not just at this time, but at any time in the history of this country. The Republic of Turkey was formally established on October 29, 1923, with the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was the visionary leader of modern Turkey and became its first president. You see, Turkey wasn't even a country in 1915 at the time that the events that are being discussed in House Resolution 106 are talked about. The fall of the Ottoman Empire was occurring during that period of time. And so bringing these charges against Turkey is wrong because Turkey didn't exist as a country. Turkey is the only secular pluralistic westward-looking democracy with a predominantly Muslim population. I have been to Turkey. I have been to Turkey several times. I have gotten to know the Turkish people and know them for the wonderfully warm, kind, intelligent and entrepreneurial people that they are. We are so fortunate to have them as our ally. Turkey has a significant and constructive physical and influential reach in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The United States and Turkey share common values of democracy, diversity, tolerance, social mobility, the separation of religious and civic life. Anatolia, the home of the Republic of Turkey, has been the cradle of civilizations for millennia. The city-states of the Lycian Federation located in Patara, Turkey, inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States as they wrote the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, there is a figure of Suleyman here in the House Chamber. We recognize Suleyman as one of the great lawgivers of the world. Again, the United States and Turkey have been close friends and allies for more than half a century. Turkish Americans are leaders in many walks of life, ranging from the arts, science, academia and business, and have a proud heritage. Turkish Americans are good-will ambassadors of the friendship between the United States and Turkey. In celebrating their rich cultural heritage, Turkish Americans enrich society in the United States and the United States' understanding of that part of the world. Mr. Speaker, Turkey is becoming a reliable energy hub for the Western world, in a highly volatile region, completing the East-West Energy Corridor. For decades, Turkey has stood as the bulwark of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the southeastern flank of the alliance, and guarded a long common border with the Soviet Union. Turkey has become an important partner of the United States in facing new, major challenges, such as international terrorism, ethnic and religious extremism and fundamentalism, energy and security and diversity, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international organized crime, including drug and human trafficking. This has been especially true since the Cold War ended. In July, 2006, the United States and Turkey signed a ``shared vision document'' outlining a strategic vision for bilateral cooperation and coordination on a wide range of international matters of common concern. In 2006, and so far in 2007, Turkey has been the 30th largest market for United States exports and the 44th largest source of imports. Mr. Speaker, Turkey continues to play an important role in Afghanistan, having twice commanded the International Security Assistance Force, and maintains a provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan which builds hospitals, schools and roads. It plays a crucial role in helping supply services and equipment to United States forces in Iraq. Turkey, again, has had an extraordinarily proud history and has been a very close collaborator with the United States in doing good things all over the world, but especially in its part of the world. We as Americans need to recognize the important role that Turkey has played, again, from the early millennium, and the importance that it plays in keeping peace in that part of the world. I had the opportunity to go to Turkey in May of this year, along with five other Members of Congress. There were three Democrats and three Republicans. We visited the Armenian Patriarch and we visited the Jewish community while we were there. We visited all the major players in the Turkish government while we were there. Turkey this year has gone through some challenges to its constitution. It has worked out those challenges. It has held elections. It has gone through some crises and handled them extremely well. We are very proud of the way that all of those things have been handled. When we talked with people in Turkey, we heard over and over and over again how devastating this resolution would be to our relationship with the Turkish people. We heard from the Armenians in Turkey that this was a mistake. They told us over and over again that this is something people in the United States are pushing, that Armenians in the United States are pushing. They said ``We do not want this done. We are working out our differences here in Turkey, and working them out very well. Please do not pass this resolution.'' My three Democratic colleagues who went on that trip are all opposed to this resolution. The Republicans are opposed to it. This is a mistake. The Speaker should not be pandering to people in her own district and risking the friendship that we have with Turkey, and indeed risking our military endeavors in the Middle East. But that is what she's doing. Again, I want to say that many people have called this the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I think that that is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some other people who have expressed their interest and concern and opposition to this resolution. Eight former Secretaries of State, Democrats and Republicans, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi. I want to quote from that letter, dated September 25, 2007: ``We are writing to express concern that H. Res. 106 could soon be put to a vote. Passage of the resolution would harm our foreign policy objectives to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would also strain our relations with Turkey and would endanger our national security interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. During our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each supported Presidential Statements recognizing the mass killings and forced exile of Armenians. It has been longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the administration continues to urge the Turkish government to re-examine its history and to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation, including normalizing relations and opening the border. ``There are some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging each other. We believe that a public statement by the U.S. Congress at this juncture is likely to undermine what has been painstakingly achieved to date.'' They go on to say: ``We must also recognize the important contributions Turkey is making to U.S. national security, including security and stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States continues to rely on Turkey for its geostrategic importance. Turkey is an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and build security. By providing the U.S. military with access to Turkish airspace, military bases and the border crossing with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the trans-shipment of vital cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops, coalition partners and Iraqi civilians. ``Turkish troops serve shoulder to shoulder with distinction with U.S. and other NATO allies in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub for non-OPEC oil and gas, and remains key to our efforts to help the Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by providing alternative supply sources and routes around Russia and Iran. ``It is our view that passage of this resolution could quickly extend beyond symbolic significance. The popularly-elected Turkish Grand National Assembly might react strongly to a House resolution, as it did to a French National Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge you to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.'' It is signed by eight former Secretaries of State, and I will submit this for the record with their signatures. There is another letter sent to the Speaker of the House by three former Secretaries of Defense dated September 7, 2007. ``We write today to convey our deep concern regarding the damage that passage of H. Res. 106 could do to relations between the United States and Turkey, a long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical role in supporting the U.S. national security interests in the Balkans, greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and Afghanistan. ``The depth and breadth of our defense and security relationship with Turkey are considerable, and, as former Secretaries of Defense, we value Turkey's friendship and partnership. Turkey makes numerous and substantial contributions to U.S. goals and interests abroad, including its close relationship with Israel, its deployment of military forces to the Balkans and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat terrorism and support democracy in Afghanistan. ``Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own country, the reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of H. Res. 106 would be considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106 would have a direct detrimental effect on the operational capability, safety and well-being of our armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because the Turkish parliament would likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air base at Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the Habur Gate. The Turkish parliament would also likely retract blanket flight clearances for U.S. military overflights, which are vital to transporting supplies and fuel to our troops. ``We also believe the increasingly open debate about this issue in Turkey would surely be restricted by negative public reaction to U.S. congressional action. We are also concerned that any potential steps toward better relations between Turkey and Armenia will be set back by any action in the U.S. Congress. ``In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest that anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took place as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part of the last century. As President Bush and other presidents before him have done, we recognize the need to acknowledge and learn from the tragedy. ``We respect that this issue is of great concern to you, and hope that you can consider other appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate and honor the memory of the victims, without doing damage to our contemporary relations with modern Turkey.'' Again, I will submit this letter for the Record. Editorials have come out in most of the major newspapers, newspapers that are not generally opposed to the Speaker. The Washington Post editorial was titled ``Worse Than Irrelevant.'' ``A congressional resolution about massacres in Turkey 90 years ago endangers present day U.S. security. It is easy to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against Armenians during World War I as frivolous,'' and ``genocide'' is in quotations. ``Though the subject is a serious one, more than 1 million Armenians died, House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have petty and parochial interests. ``The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians, and therefore its government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal wave of anti-Americanism in the country.'' I am going to submit this entire editorial also, because it refers again to some of the letters that I have already read. But the Washington Post has said this is worse than irrelevant, because it will do harm. Again, what we should practice here is the same thing that doctors practice: Above all else, do no harm. There is an excerpt from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2007. ``History is messy enough without politicians getting into the act. As a general rule, legislatures in far-off countries ought to think carefully before passing judgment on another people's history. When their sights turn in that direction, it is a fair bet that points are to be scored with powerful domestic lobbies. Playing with history often complicates the implementation of foreign policy goals as well. Politicians are paid to think about the future, not the past. Many would say, why are we doing this? Why should the Congress not be dealing with the future, instead of the past?'' I question that too, and I am going to come back to that in a minute in terms of what may be one of the real underlying reasons for all of these things coming out. Some have said that Congress rarely holds the key to America's foreign relations with a critical ally. But now with Turkey, the only Muslim country in the world allied with the United States and NATO, the future of Turkish-American relations are very much in the hands of the Congress. This is from a survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, an organization that did a survey in Turkey earlier this year. It was the first nationwide public survey of Turkey on the issue and what the survey found was that it would actually set back the cause it purports to achieve, namely Turkey's recognition of its own past and reconciliation with Armenia today. I have a chart on this showing 78 percent of the Turkish people who were surveyed opposed this resolution, any congressional resolution dealing with the Armenian situation. Almost three-quarters of them felt that passage of an Armenian regulation resolution would worsen their opinion of the United States. Only 7 percent favored no action by the government or favored such a resolution. And three-quarters of Turks, though, would accept scholarship by independent historians on what occurred between Turks and Armenians during 1915. Also, Turks do not consider the U.S. Congress a neutral judge of this issue. Instead, they see the resolution as driven by anti-Muslim feelings and American domestic politics. And 73 percent of Turks think a resolution will have the opposite effect and actually worsen relations between Turkey and Armenia. Again, this was a poll done in January and February of this year by Terror Free Tomorrow and the ARI Foundation. These are groups that wanted to study this issue to gather information to help people be informed of what the effect would be. The survey was done all over the country of Turkey, and the views that were held were held firmly regardless of age, income, education, or even their present view of the United States. And 84 percent of those who now have a very favorable opinion of the United States responded that their opinion would deteriorate if the resolution were to pass. And of course the resolution has passed in the committee and the Speaker has said that she will bring it to the floor for a vote which most people in Turkey believe would be a terrible, terrible mistake. Turkey again is a stable, moderate Muslim democracy. It is our most strategic and valuable Muslim ally. This resolution would help the cause of those extremists in Turkey who wish to reduce the nation's ties with the United States. It would discredit those within Turkey who continue to call for greater openness and plurality. The Turkish people who answered the survey felt that it would alienate the Armenians and the Turks who through fits and starts have been slowly moving toward reconciliation of this important and divisive historical question. It could scuttle dialogue to establish a joint commission to examine the events of 1915. Turkey is a country of considerable nationalism. The passage of this resolution would likely produce a nationalistic backlash against the United States. The whole issue of probing and making amends for the wrongs of history would be completely lost in this onslaught of Turkish nationalism. It would probably dramatically and perhaps permanently damage U.S. relations with Turkey. As the Turkish community of Turkey recently said in a statement: ``What happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire during World War I--death, destruction, displacement--was a terrible tragedy, but eminent historians do not agree whether the term `genocide' is the appropriate description of that tragedy.'' I certainly agree with that. In another article by the Washington Post it said: ``It is true that Turkey's military and political class has been slow to come to terms with the history and virulent nationalism, but Turkish writers and intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude and formal and informal talks between Turks and Armenians are making slow progress. A resolution by Congress would probably torpedo rather than help such efforts. Given that reality and the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the Armenian resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.'' Now I want to go to a piece that has been written that I certainly hope is not true. Jed Babbin, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration, has written in Human Events magazine: ``According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is the transshipment point for about 70 percent of all air cargo, including 33 percent of the fuel going to supply U.S. forces in Iraq. Included are about 95 percent of the new MRAP, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, designed to save the lives of American troops. ``Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a nonbinding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.'' And Mr. Boehner has said if the Turks cut off our ability to use Incirlik, there is no question this could jeopardize our troops on the ground in Iraq. And, frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrat string of back-door attempts to force a retreat against the war against al Qaeda, it is certainly the most dangerous.'' Mr. Babbin comes to a chilling conclusion in his analysis of the resolution and its impact on our Nation's relations with the nation of Turkey. This is what gives me great pause. He writes: ``Speaker Pelosi is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event. The House of Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time of war and possibly interdicting supplies to U.S. troops.'' If his prediction proves true, it will be a low point for the history of this noble body. I hope that what Mr. Babbin is saying is not true. I hope that this is not an attempt by the Speaker to sabotage our efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan because it puts our troops in harm's way and we have been hearing over and over again that this is not what she wants or that others in the majority want. But it would have the effect of doing that. We as Members of Congress should never take a position that would in any way put our troops in harm's way. I am urging the Speaker to rethink her statements that she will put this resolution, H. Res. 106, on the floor for a vote. It is a nonbinding resolution. It will go nowhere else. People outside here don't understand how these resolutions work, but it would not go to the Senate to be passed. It would not go to the President to be vetoed as I feel certain the President would veto if it went there. It is a resolution only from the House of Representatives. This is a body that is capable of doing so much good, but we also have the capability of doing harm. We should practice again what physicians take an oath to do: Above all, do no harm. I urge the Speaker: rethink your commitment to put H. Res. 106 on the floor for a vote. Realize the significant responsibility that has been given to you not just as a Member of the House of Representatives but as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an extraordinarily great honor, the first woman in this country to be named Speaker of the House. What message are we sending to our troops if we pass such a resolution or even consider such a resolution that puts our troops in harm's way, damages our relationship with a country that has been such a wonderful ally to us and does damage to our relationship for a long, long time to a government that has been working very hard to do the right things, to promote democracy in the Middle East, to shore up other countries that are working to promote democracy. What messages are those going to send to other people. I urge the Speaker to rethink her commitment to put this resolution on the floor. I urge the Speaker to get above petty and parochial interests, to think about the tremendous responsibility she bears as the Speaker of the House. We are not often involved in foreign relations on the scale that we are being asked to be involved in the House at this time. It is an awesome responsibility. We all should remember that we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and to defend this country. Bringing such a resolution to the floor will do damage to our country, to our relationship with a valued ally, and I believe ultimately will do harm to our efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. I urge the Speaker to rise above again petty parochialism, come to the realization that this is an extremely serious matter that needs to be dealt with in a very different way than it has been dealt with thus far, and reject petty parochialism in favor of looking to the larger issue, looking to the future, not to the past, and helping the Armenians and the Turks come to grips with this difference of opinion that they have, resolve it within their own country, keep the United States looking for those things that are important to the United States, not getting involved with the internal affairs of other countries and promoting peace and stability in the Middle East. Let us let the 110th Congress not be thought of as passing the most irresponsible resolution that could be passed in this session of Congress. Let us focus on positive things, things that will move this country forward and not things that will do harm to this country, to other countries and, most of all, not to our troops serving overseas, protecting us so we can be here to practice the free speech that they make possible for us. I will insert the material I previously referred to in the Record at this point. TCA Issue Paper 25 October 1, 2007, Former Secretaries of State and Defense Object to H. Res. 106 The following letters have been sent to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, by former U.S. Secretaries of State and former U.S. Secretaries of Defense voicing their objection to House Resolution 106, which asks for U.S. recognition of Armenian allegations of genocide. Letter by Secretaries of State to Speaker Pelosi September 25, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: We are writing to express concern that H. Res. 106 could soon be put to a vote. Passage of the resolution would harm our foreign policy objectives to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would also strain our relations with Turkey, and would endanger our national security interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. During our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each supported Presidential statements recognizing the mass killings and forced exile of Armenians. It has been longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the Administration continues to urge the Turkish government to reexamine its history and to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation, including normalizing relations and opening the border. There are some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging each other. We believe that a public statement by the U.S. Congress at this juncture is likely to undermine what has been painstakingly achieved to date. We must also recognize the important contributions Turkey is making to U.S. national security, including security and stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States continues to rely on Turkey for its geo-strategic importance. Turkey is an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and build security. By providing the U.S. military with access to Turkish airspace, military bases, and the border crossing with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the transshipment of vital cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops, coalition partners, and Iraqi civilians. Turkish troops serve shoulder-to- shoulder with distinction with U.S. and other NATO allies in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub for non-OPEC oil and gas and remains key to our efforts to help the Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by providing alternative supply sources and routes around Russia and Iran. It is our view that passage of this resolution could quickly extend beyond symbolic significance. The popularly elected Turkish Grand National Assembly might react strongly to a House resolution, as it did to a French National Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge you to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor. Sincerely, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., George P. Shultz, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Madeleine K. Albright, Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Colin L. Powell.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, America's economy is increasingly complex. While we hear reports of uncertainty, we also see many fundamental signs of health in the economy. The latest good news is the recent jobs report that found the economy added 110,000 jobs in September and 89,000 jobs in August, a massive turnaround from the previously reported loss of 4,000 jobs in August. With 200,000 new jobs added to the economy in the last 2 months, we once again have proof that Republican economic policies of cutting taxes to spur growth are still working. But we cannot keep our economy thriving on the tax cuts of yesterday. Congress must work to keep taxes low for America's working families. We have already seen a Democratic budget that assumes a tax increase of nearly $400 billion. If there are signs of uncertainty about the future of our economy, such a financial hit to American taxpayers would undoubtedly undermine the positive steps Republicans took to ensure economic growth and stability. Everyone wants a strong U.S. economy. Let's keep it that way by preserving low taxes and not preying on the wallets of the families that work hard to keep this economy humming.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the last few days have brought terrific news for American workers and taxpayers. Today, the markets closed at new record highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 14,164; the S&P at 1,565. Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures: 110,000 jobs created in September. September 2007, is the 49th consecutive month of job growth, setting a new record for the longest uninterrupted expansion of the U.S. labor market. Since August 2003, our economy has created more than 8.1 million jobs, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent. We also learned last week that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Federal deficit came in at $161 billion for the just- completed fiscal year, down significantly from last year's deficit of $248 billion. The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted today that ``since 2004 deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid 3-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2 percent or about half the average of the last 50 years.'' A deficit at 1.2 percent share of the economy. In the words of the Associated Press, ``The fiscal picture is the best it's been since 2001.'' Taken together, this shows the American economy remains strong, a strength derived from the hard work of the American people and Republican pro-growth, low-tax policies. But as sure as the sun is going to rise in the morning and set in the evening, House Democrats are going to do their best to jeopardize our economic growth through higher taxes and spending increases. The Wall Street Journal warned this morning that the Democrat ``Congress is already gearing up to splurge again, with its $35 billion expansion in the children's health program, a $286 billion 5-year farm bill, $23 billion in water projects, and $22 billion more in non-defense discretionary spending. Combine this blowout with slowing revenue growth due to the housing recession, and the deficit may not fall again in 2008. This is all the more reason for President Bush to finally use his veto pen on spending bills.'' And that's just spending. Democrats continue to treat higher tax as a cure-all. Frustrated by their inability to choke of funds for our troops in harm's way, last week top Democrats on the Appropriations Committee proposed a $150 billion war tax. This is just the latest. Consider some of the recent Democrat tax hike proposals: A 50 cent increase per gallon of Federal gas tax hike from the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. A 5-cent increase per gallon of Federal gas tax hike from the Transportation Committee chairman. A massive $392.5 billion tax increase on middle-class families in their fiscal year 2008 budget. More than $15 billion in new energy taxes passed in July that will raise gasoline prices on consumers. A $7.5 billion tax increase in their farm bill which threatens 5.1 million American jobs and greater investment in the U.S. It seems every time they propose to raise taxes, the deficit falls to historic lows. Each time they refuse to rein in spending, job creation breaks a new record. Each time they refuse to live up to their promise of fiscal responsibility, the stock market closes at record highs. That's bad news for Democrats and terrific news for the American people. Let's support the Republican policies that have made this success possible and let us see it continue.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, Congress's SCHIP legislation is seriously flawed. It takes a bipartisan program that was working well and turns it into a huge new entitlement. It is a bold step towards government expansion into socialized medicine. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2 million children who are already covered by private insurance will switch to the SCHIP program under the proposed expansion. This is more than one in three of the projected new enrollees. In plain terms, this means we are providing incentives for people to drop their health insurance in favor of government-funded health care. And many of the people who will be dropping their health insurance will be making as much as $60,000. This doesn't make sense. The government has no business luring Americans onto the Federal health care rolls and making them dependent on the government to provide health care. Call it what you want, but this $35 billion expansion is not just about getting health care for kids. It is the early stages of a massive socialized health system that slowly erodes individual control in favor of government control of your health care. We don't need to be doing that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I am very grateful to you, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Price. I was enjoying listening to you all speak about this issue and helping to educate the American people about what we are dealing with here, particularly as it relates to the numbers that Congressman Hensarling is so good at doing. It probably won't surprise anybody that a September Gallup Poll revealed that Americans' trust in the Federal Government is at a low ebb. Today, most Americans trust the Federal Government less than they did during the Watergate scandal. At the same time, a new Reuter's poll found that Congress has an all-time low approval rating of 11 percent. I am extraordinarily proud to represent the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina in the Congress. I am not proud that is the way that Americans feel, though, about the Congress of the United States. I think there are many reasons that people feel that way about the Congress. I think that one of the main reasons that people feel that way is because last year the Democrats who ran for office and who became the new majority in this Congress after 12 years made a lot of promises. Republicans were not perfect in the 12 years they were in control of the Congress. Lots of mistakes were made. Republicans, some Republicans, forgot their way, lost their way and strayed from the conservative principles that got them into the majority. Democrats promised they would be different. They would run the most bipartisan, most fiscally conservative Congress that had ever been seen. They promised lots and lots of things, and they have broken all of those promises. That's why I think that the attitude toward the American people is so negative toward the Congress these days. They are disappointed. You know, as children we are brought up to believe the promises that are made to us. I think one of the greatest disappointments people have is when they are promised something, particularly by their elected officials, and then the elected officials break those promises. I think that is what has happened. What we are seeing here is, time after time, things that the Democrats said in the campaign last year, they have gone back on. I am going to give one quote here from Speaker Pelosi from 9-16-06 at a news conference: ``We have to have the fullest possible disclosure, and it has to be on earmarks in appropriations, in authorizations and in taxation. And it has to be across the board, with no escape hatches.'' In fact, what has happened is the Republicans had to take the Democrats kicking and screaming into revealing what their earmarks were. In fact, I was here on the floor with an amendment on the floor for 22 hours back in June when we were dealing with the homeland security bill to say to the Democrats: It is time you lived up to your promise. You've got to disclose these earmarks. They had planned not to disclose any of those earmarks until after the bills were passed, and then they were going to publish them in the month of August and let people try to figure out where the earmarks were. So I think, again, a major part of the problem that we are having with the attitude of the American people towards Congress is they are disappointed in us. Republicans last year passed legislation that made all of our earmarks transparent. There are differences of opinion on whether we should have earmarks or not. I think the Constitution gives us not just the right but the responsibility to spend money the way we think it should be spent through the Congress. That is our responsibility. However, everything should be transparent. Everything should be out there. If I ask for special project money, I should be proud enough of that money to say where it is going. But not everybody wants to do that. What the Democrats have done is they have hidden their earmarks in legislation. We finally were able to force them into revealing earmarks in appropriations bills, but not even in all appropriations bills have they disclosed them. Reference has been made tonight to earmarks in the SCHIP bill last week. Every time a bill passes this House practically, we find there are earmarks buried in those bills written in such a way it is very difficult to discern where those earmarks are. Republicans don't believe in that. We believe if you are going to have earmarks, they need to be transparent, and I think that is the direction in which we should be going. And I believe doing that will help the American people feel better toward what the Congress is doing, and we need to build trust with the American people in order for us to be able to do the work we need to do. But what the Democrats have been doing is trading earmarks for votes. Again, it seems impossible to think that with the majority they have they would need to do that, but they have been doing it. What they are doing is taking taxpayer money, money that we confiscate from the taxpayers of this country, and then spend it on projects that we think are projects that should be funded. We don't need to be doing that, and we particularly don't need to be doing that unless we are willing to show exactly where we are doing it. What is happening is, again, we forced them to say we are going to do it on appropriations bills, but they still have not agreed to do them on authorizing bills or on tax bills. But we have to have that. We have to have transparency and truth in all of the legislation that we have passing out of this House. I support the discharge petition that has been signed. I was one of the first people to come here and sign that discharge petition. It is going to be very difficult, but we are going to be putting the Democrats who call themselves the Blue Dogs, call themselves conservatives, this is going to be a defining moment for them. Are you really a conservative or are you just a tax-and-spend liberal who tries to fool the people in your district that are conservative when you don't put your name on the line to bring these bills up so that we can see exactly how you are going to vote on them. You can talk a good game, but the real point is: Are you willing to vote for this legislation? Are you willing to sign a discharge petition? And so far none have been willing to do that. We are on the first day of a new fiscal year, and we have a reckoning with the American people. No appropriations bills have passed the Congress this year. We are operating on a continuing resolution. I agree, a continuing resolution that keeps spending at last year's level is better than increasing spending. But the Democratic majority have not lived up to their promises. They have broken every single one. It is time we call them to account. I want to thank Congresswoman Blackburn for leading this hour tonight and for bringing this matter to the public yet again, because I think taking care of this matter of earmarks, taking care of this pork barrel spending is something that the American people want us to do, and it is high time we did it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest and oldest logistics companies in the State of North Carolina. Holland Transfer Company in Statesville, North Carolina embodies the ethics of good business that separates great companies from the rest. This week, Holland Transfer celebrates its 100th anniversary and its longstanding commitment to running a customer service-centered business. This company has transported goods and materials to North Carolina businesses since 1907 and is the oldest carrier in the State. In the 100 years since its founding, Holland has built a strong reputation as a company that its customers can depend on to provide high-quality service without having to worry about getting shortchanged. Not many companies reach such a 100-year benchmark. In fact, it is doubtful that when Holland Transfer Company began with a team of horses and a single wagon that its founder, S.R. Holland, envisioned a company that today is a major part of the Statesville community. Today, Holland Transfer embodies Christian values as part of its company character. These values are an integral part of what has made Holland Transfer successful for 100 years. I wish this fine company and all its employees all the best and many more years of doing business the right way. It is businesses like Holland Transfer that make this country great.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much. I appreciate the leadership that the three of you have given to this issue tonight and appreciate the opportunity to be involved with this discussion. I'm so pleased to be a part of the Constitution Caucus and am glad that we have the opportunities that we have to bring up issues as they relate to the Constitution and to provide an alternative. And we've had lots and lots of opportunities in this session of the Congress so far. I appreciate your mentioning voting rights for the citizens of D.C. I think that that bill having passed out of the House has to be one of the worst things that's happened in this House in a long time because it's so clearly unconstitutional. And I think, again, that it's up to us constantly to be reminding the people of this country and the people of this body that we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that is our primary responsibility. And when Members of this House don't follow their oath, then it's important for us to talk about it. I am opposed to H.R. 811 for many reasons. I support its main goal, which is to create a paper trail. I think having a verifiable record of how a person voted is important. But this bill is extraordinarily flawed. Number one, it creates several new mandates on States before the 2008 election. It forces States to meet totally unrealistic time lines that cannot be met. It's an example, again, I think, of the arrogance of this body in this session. I think that one of the things the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of this country feared so much was too much control by the Federal Government. And what we are seeing happening in this session of the Congress is more and more control being taken over by the Federal Government, and more and more decisions being pushed into Washington, as opposed to being pushed into the State, or being left at the State and local levels. And my colleagues have talked a little bit about that as it relates to different States have given some historical background on how things have been done in the past. But I think, again, it's important that we acknowledge that our government governs best that governs least. And the more decisions that we leave at the local and State levels, the better off this country's going to be. And if we know that, we know by numbers too. We don't even have to try to prove it from a philosophical level. Twenty-seven States, including North Carolina, that I represent, have already implemented their own paper trail system, and another 13 are currently considering legislation. We should allow the States to do this and do it the way they need to be doing it. I have heard nothing but negative comments about this bill. Nobody has contacted me asking me to support it. And many groups that have a vested interest in this issue have contacted us. Most of us have been contacted by the Election Technology Council, and they've said that it would take 54 months for proper research development and implementation on machinery requirements to get this bill into effect, and there's only going to be 15 months. We've had problems since 2000 in terms of verifying various elections in this country. This bill would be a nightmare if it were to pass, because the local election boards would have great difficulty with implementing it, and it would call into question all kinds of elections, I fear, and create chaos at the local level. We don't need that. The feeling of the American people right now toward Congress is, their opinion of us is the lowest it's ever been. And we don't need to be doing things to give them an even lower opinion of ourselves. What we need to do is get out of the way and not engage ourselves in activities that we have no business being engaged in. This is not something that we need to do from a point of view of the Constitution. It is something that should be left at the local level. It is not something that we need to do in terms of financing. It's going to be a very, very expensive proposition. We do not need to be adding to the deficit. We don't need to be doing any more Federal spending than is absolutely necessary. And we need to show the American people that we don't think that we should be running everything out of the District of Columbia when we have State and local officials perfectly capable, much more capable than we are to do this. We don't need to take away the ability of the locals to determine their needs. And, again, I want to thank my colleagues for starting this conversation here tonight and getting it going to explain to people why many of us are concerned about H.R. 811. Even though we want verifiable evidence of a person's vote, this is not the right way to go, and we need to look for alternatives to this.