Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey, Congressman Gingrey. I appreciate your starting off this hour this evening on this important issue. I also appreciate your having gone to Wake Forest to visit the Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Some of the most important research that is happening in the area of stem cell research is occurring at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University. And I am very proud to represent them here in the Congress. I am going to talk a little bit about what they are doing, but I want to reiterate some of the things that you have been saying. I got out my file today on this and looked back at my notes, and it was almost 2 years ago that I stood on this floor one evening, a little earlier than this, and spoke for about 40 minutes about the issue of stem cell research. And I have told this story many, many times to people, because many may wonder why we are here speaking sometimes to very few of our colleagues who are here in the Chamber. But I tell this story because it was about 9 o'clock at night, and as I said, I spoke for about 40 minutes. And when I got back to my office, the staffer said to me, you just had a call from a gentleman from Maryland who had never watched C-SPAN before, was channel surfing and saw this woman standing on the floor of the House and wondered how in the world did she get to be on the floor of the House when he thought only Members of Congress could speak on the floor of the House. And I didn't look like I was a Member of Congress, so he stopped the channel surfing and watched and listened to me talk about the issue of stem cell research and called my office and said that he was so grateful for that because he had not understood the issue like I had explained it. And he wanted to just call and thank me for that. And that has been one of the things that has kept me going and doing these Special Orders at night, thinking that even if we only reach a few people who are watching, it is important to do that, and it is particularly important on this issue. And I think how you described, Dr. Gingrey, the way the survey question should be asked, explaining to people exactly what is going to happen as a result of the research, is very, very important because we all know you get about whatever results you want to from a survey depending on how you ask the question. But I think describing what stem cell research is, is extremely important, and talking about what is being done. You have presented some facts and figures there already, and I want to do it again. I just think that every time we talk about it, we need to talk about it. People who are pro-life support stem cell research. I support stem cell research. You do. Every other person here who considers himself or herself a pro-lifer supports stem cell research. But what we want is research that does not require the killing of human life. That is what is important to us. We also know, as you have pointed out, that a lot of money is being spent on embryonic stem cell research. A lot of Federal dollars are being spent on that. And I think, frankly, that we are paying more than our fair share for research that many people find to be morally repugnant. You gave some statistics. Mine are not long-term statistics. I have the 2006 numbers. In 2006 NIH spent $38 million on embryonic stem cell research, compared to $200 million on human nonembryonic stem cell research, adult and cord blood research. That is very important research. That is the research that has given us some results in terms of curing disease. We have gotten no positive results from embryonic stem cell research, and that is the point I think that needs to be made over and over again. And one of the reasons I am very excited about the research that Dr. Atala and his team are doing is because they are doing research that doesn't require the destruction of human life. Dr. Atala, who came to Wake Forest from Harvard and brought a large team, as you said, with him, is a tissue engineering specialist, and he has found that amniotic fluid stem cells have those pluripotent properties that you pointed out earlier and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. And I know that he talked to you about the research, particularly in growing bladders, that has occurred there and the tremendously positive response that he has gotten.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the patriotic efforts of Brownie Scout Troop 114 of Liberty Grove Baptist Church. This group of 18 young women has demonstrated a tangible commitment to supporting our troops stationed in Iraq. Last month they collected donations to send nearly 250 boxes of Girl Scout cookies to the brave men and women from their community who are serving in Iraq. They pounded the pavement to sell cookies and find like-minded people who were willing to join them in sending cookies to a local North Carolina National Guard unit stationed near Tikrit, Iraq. I applaud the thoughtful and committed patriotism of these girls who invested their time to selflessly raise money and then send a token of appreciation to our Nation's troops. The troops that are receiving the famous Girl Scout cookies are members of the headquarters 105th Engineer Group from Winston-Salem. For these men and women, there is no small act of kindness. No, this is much more than that. For our troops on the front line of the war on terror, to receive a package of cookies from a local Brownie Scout troop is like receiving a breath of fresh air from home. Whether or not these young women knew it, they were communicating to our soldiers that there are people who still care for our troops' welfare. They communicated that the youngest generation still values sacrifice and service to country. I come to the floor today to celebrate this concentrated act of patriotic kindness and to honor the young ladies who have taken ownership of our Nation's great tradition of offering support to our troops serving abroad. Their example highlights what our great Nation is capable of producing in its youth. We cannot emphasize enough how proud we are that these Scouts made this effort to brighten the days of hundreds of soldiers in Iraq. What may seem like a small token of gratitude will live on in the memory of the many troops who, in the coming weeks, will enjoy a box of Girl Scout cookies in the deserts of Iraq. I have no doubt that these men and women will look back with great fondness as they remember the day when the mail call brought them an unexpected box of sweets and a reminder that their community and their country stands behind them in this difficult time. The members of the Brownie troop who sent this gift of baked goods are Alexandra Dillard, Reva Combs, Laken Harrold, Allison Livengood, Allie Barker, Lauren Johnson, Daniella Meeza, Kristina Meeza, Acacia Key, Charlotte York, Cheyenne Byrd, Alexis Baldwin, Erin McGee, Angela Nardini, Karlie Cranfill, Caitlyn Minton and Hope Brown. It is my hope that their example is reproduced by many others, and that the soldiers who receive the fruit of their labors feel honored and respected by this act of young-hearted kindness.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we honor the lifetime achievements of Ernest Gallo, one of the most celebrated American winemakers of the last century. Ernest Gallo was the eldest of three brothers, born in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California to Italian immigrants. He and his brothers grew up learning about vineyards and winemaking from their father. Upon their parents' untimely death in 1933, Ernest and his brother Julio took control of the family business. Learning from library-issued pamphlets on winemaking, their goal was to make their company nationally known for affordable and quality wine. They founded E. & J. Gallo Winery with a humble investment of $5,900. Over time they went on to develop one of the largest wine empires in the world, now employing 4,600 workers and selling to 90 different countries. In fact, his winery currently sells one out of every four bottles of wine that Americans now consume. Along with founding E. & J. Gallo Winery, Ernest Gallo often supported the industry through philanthropic work. He founded the Gallo Center for the Arts in Modesto. He established the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center at the University of California at San Francisco, which conducts numerous studies and research for genetic, biochemical, and neurobiological aspects of alcohol abuse, as well as health care and education related to alcohol use. Along with great financial success, Ernest Gallo and his winery won numerous prestigious awards, including the wine industry's highest honor, the American Society of Enologists Merit Award, in 1964 for outstanding leadership in the industry. They won the Gold Vine Award, the 1983 Distinguished Service Award from Wine Spectator, and the Winery of the Year Award in both 1996 and 1998 from the San Francisco International Wine Competition. After a long and successful career as a winemaker, businessman, and philanthropist, Gallo passed away on March 6 at the age of 97 at his home in Modesto, California. His many distinguished accomplishments in the wine industry and his strong community involvement deserve to be recognized and honored by the Congress. I urge all Members to support H. Con. Res. 88. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time also.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today many Americans do not know how to balance a checkbook, intelligently invest their money or financially plan for their retirement. Studies have shown that few young adults living in this country know how to responsibly use a credit card. This is a time when debt is on the rise and savings have dropped to negative 1 percent of personal income. It is clear that teaching financial literacy is imperative for individuals to learn how to manage their money, credit and debt. While many States require high schools to teach financial education, increased economic education is still necessary. H. Res. 273 recognizes the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month and raises awareness of the importance of financial education. It is our hope that the President calls on the government, States and other organizations to observe the month with relevant programs and activities supporting financial education. Learning about saving and investing is especially important for today's young generation because of the uncertainty of the future of Social Security. More so than ever, private savings play a larger role in determining one's retirement. While there may be Social Security reform in the coming years, everyone must be able to adequately plan their savings for the future. Financial education has proven to be very effective. Simple projects such as stock market simulations help young people understand how to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. It is our hope they will retain these skills when they begin investing their own money. Organizations such as the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Finance Literacy help spread awareness, especially in school-age children. The National Council on Economic Education has established many programs which give teachers the tools to teach their students basic economic skills and help them apply their knowledge to daily life. These groups recognize the need for more widespread financial literacy, but it is necessary for Congress to place more emphasis on this idea and encourage other organizations to begin to participate in this movement as well. With a solid background knowledge of financial literacy, we can raise America's youth to become responsible employees, heads of households, investors, entrepreneurs and business leaders. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois (Ms. Biggert), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA, is the largest and oldest American-based, Greek-heritage, grass-roots membership organization. It was created on July 26, 1922, in response to the alarming number of local and national groups whose missions were based on racism. The founders of AHEPA were Greek immigrants who strove to find ways to adapt to their new country and honor their heritage and cultural ideals. Their mission is to promote Hellenism, education, philanthropy, civic responsibility and family and individual excellence. These efforts are made through community service and volunteerism. It is an organization with over 1.3 million participants, making it the largest association for American citizens of Greek ancestry. AHEPA's commitment to education is one of its strongest components. Over $4 million is endowed at the local, district and national levels toward the use of scholarships, and a half million dollars is awarded annually to thousands of students. By providing these scholarships, it affords students the opportunities to educate and be educated on the rich, cultural history of relations between Greece and the United States. Other AHEPA achievements include securing funding for the ``Tribute to Olympism'' sculpture in Atlanta, Georgia, the creation of the George C. Marshall statue at the United States Embassy located in Athens, Greece, and the Federal grant of $500 million providing affordable housing to senior citizens. A few of AHEPA's philanthropic successes include the restoration of the Statue of Liberty at Ellis Island, and they continue to send care packages to our troops through the USO. In their 85th year, the American Hellenic Education Progressive Association continues to promote its ideals of ancient Greece through community service and volunteerism. The association has grown tremendously over the years, and it is to be congratulated for its charitable contributions to society both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Con. Res. 71, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Lieutenant Todd Jason Bryant was a proud and loyal American who served his country in fighting the war on terror. He made the ultimate sacrifice, defending freedom and liberty, when he lost his life on October 31, 2003, in Iraq. Todd Jason Bryant was born in Long Beach, California, on January 14, 1980. As a young student, he was very athletic and always involved in school activities. During high school, he played football and golf, and also played the tuba in the marching band. He was the youngest of three and was determined to follow in his siblings' path by enlisting in the military. At 17, he joined the Army Reserves and completed boot camp before graduating from high school. He received his nomination to West Point Academy from the sponsor of this bill, Congressman Ken Calvert. He graduated from West Point in 2003 with a degree in political science. He had said before his death that he dreamed of being either a Member of Congress or a high school football coach. His military training took him to installations in Kentucky and Kansas. Only 9 days before Lieutenant Bryant was sent to support Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, he happily wed Jenifer Reardon in Pittston, Pennsylvania. On Friday, October 31, 2003, at the age of 23, Lieutenant Bryant was killed when a rocket-propelled grenade struck his Humvee while on patrol in Fallujah. Lieutenant Todd Bryant was an ambitious man who was able to accomplish much in his short but meaningful lifetime. Among his military awards are the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. Lieutenant Bryant will always be remembered as a fun-loving, humorous, cheerful, proud and loyal friend, husband, son and brother. He brought joy to all those around him, easily making friends through his contagious laughter. Lieutenant Bryant was honored to serve his country, and he served it well. Let us honor his ultimate sacrifice by renaming this post office for him.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague. He is in his first term in Congress, but he speaks very, very eloquently of this issue and other issues. I am very grateful to him for his sharing his concerns and his perspective on this. As I said earlier, when people ask me what is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, I say, well, Republicans think that you should keep more of your money and spend it and take care of yourself; and Democrats want to take more of your money away from you and give it to the government. And let me give you an example of what is happening. I don't have to just talk about that in the abstract; I can talk about it in concrete terms. The tax decreases that were put through by a Republican Congress and advocated by a Republican President are due to expire in 2010 because of the rules of the Senate, which would not allow those tax cuts to be made permanent. Now, 2 weeks ago, the Democrats, who are now in a majority here in the House, and our Constitution requires that spending bills and budget bills have to begin in the House, they passed their budget. It passed, and it assumes that the 2001/2003 tax cuts will expire. The effect of that will be to impose the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $400 billion over 5 years, mainly to finance their immense new spending. And as my colleague from Nebraska said, we have to be very much concerned about the long term, and we are concerned about the long term. Now, if the Republican tax relief is not extended, what happens when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2010? Well, here's what happens: the tax rates are going to go higher. In 2010, the top income tax rate will be 35 percent. The Democrats propose that that tax rate goes to 39.6 percent in 2011. The capital gains tax, 15 percent in 2010, 20 percent immediately thereafter. The tax on dividends, from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. The death tax: the death tax has been gradually going down since the tax cuts of 2001/2003. In the year 2010, the death tax will be zero. In 2011, it goes back to 55 percent. I am particularly offended by the death tax, and I think most Americans are. It is probably the third time that that same income is going to be taxed when you impose a death tax, because we are paying taxes on our income, if you have an opportunity to invest any of that money you are going to pay capital gains tax on it, and then you are going to pay 55 percent on whatever is left over. Again, I think it is a particularly offensive tax to most Americans. But how do the Democrats, who talk so much about the value of children, act about the child tax credit? The child tax credit went to $1,000 under the tax cuts of 2001/2003. It will be cut back to $500. We all know that you can't raise children even on $1,000 as a tax credit, let alone on $500. The lowest tax bracket, hurting the lowest income people in our country, and Democrats say that they stand for the little people and they want to help the low-income people in this country, but what they propose to do is take the taxes on the lowest income people in our country and go from 10 percent to 15 percent. I think, again, that is an abomination. Why in the world do we want to burden those folks who are making the lowest income in this country? Another part of the problem that we have in this country is the fact that our Tax Code is so complicated. We believe now that more than 60 percent of tax returns are prepared by a professional. If you add the number of Americans who use computer tax software to file a return, the proportion of people who seek outside help rises to 90 percent. We shouldn't live in a country where the Tax Code is so complicated that the average American citizen cannot complete his or her income tax forms. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that we spend about 6.4 billion hours, and we did in 2006, complying with the Federal Tax Code. That many hours is the equivalent of a 40-hour work week for every employed person in America. Take your pick: do your taxes or go on a week-long vacation. While the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have lowered taxes across the board and encouraged investments that lead to job creation, we are still saddled with an incomprehensible Tax Code that costs more than $265 billion a year to comply with. As a supporter of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, I pledge to work towards scrapping the Tax Code in order to build a new one that promotes transparency and common sense. By signing on to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, I have also promised to work to balance the budget, to exercise the fiscal discipline needed to rein in the growth of the Federal Government, and to protect the Social Security trust fund from congressional raiding. Let me say something about Social Security here, even though we're talking about taxes today. Many people don't understand the or origin of the Social Security fund. After the Depression, President Roosevelt was desperate to raise money for the social programs that he wanted to institute in this country, but he knew that if he wanted to raise taxes that would raise a hew and cry among the people. At that time, 1936/1937, the average life expectancy of Americans was 59 years. People still weren't living very long in this country. We had come a long way from the early part of the century, but still life expectancy was only 59 years of age. So they came up with a scheme to take money away from Americans and have it available to spend on social programs, and they came up with a Social Security fund. It was for every American to pay a small amount. It was designed to provide a retirement income, or at least that is the way it was sold to the American people. But what most people didn't realize again at the time, the life expectancy was 59 years of age. And when did they set Social Security up to be redeemed? Age 65. The idea was that they would take in a lot of money to develop the programs that they wanted to develop, and that very few people would ever draw on Social Security for their retirement. So that's why the average age was set at 65, way beyond the average life expectancy for Americans at the time. And immediately the money was going into other programs other than into what most Americans thought would happen, which was a fund to pay for Social Security. That has continued to the present time under both Democrats and, I am sorry to say, under Republicans. Rather than putting that money into a special fund and leaving it alone just to pay for Social Security, most of that money is going into paying for government programs, and those programs have become dependent on that Social Security money, which is why you find people very reluctant to create that mythical lock box that has been talked about so much. But we now have groups who are trying very hard to make sure that the money being paid into Social Security stays in the Social Security account. That's what I believe in, and I think that is what most Americans believe in. The President proposed personal accounts so that people could take an interest in where their Social Security money was going and manage that money better than the Federal Government has been able to manage it. That has been demonized as a way to do something bad with the Social Security fund. But if people had a way to manage their own money, they would get a lot more from Social Security. The average Social Security payment right now is about $1,000 a month, and I know of very, very few people who can live on that. And we know that Social Security is going to be in deep trouble in the next few years because there will be more people drawing on Social Security than are paying into Social Security. So not only are we going to have to come up with the money to pay for Social Security; we are going to have to either cut the funding that is dependent on the Social Security money or cut out programs or raise taxes. Republicans are opposed to raising taxes and continuing to fund those programs, most of which were begun in the 1930s. What people can do in this country is to sign an online petition with the grass-roots group Freedom Works to support the initiative of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. They can sign this petition at www.freedomworks.org/action/taxpayer. I am sure if you put in the words ``freedom works,'' you can probably find out how to get on to that. But we need to do everything we possibly can to keep the tax rate low, protect Social Security, and reduce the burden of government on our citizens. I want to go back over the effects of the Democrat tax hike, which were in the budget that the Democrats passed 2 weeks ago here. They will be raising the 10 percent tax rate bracket to 15 percent. More than 15 million individuals and families, who previously owed no taxes under the Republican plan, would now become subject to the individual income tax if the Democrats were successful in raising the 10 percent tax rate bracket to 15 percent and reducing or eliminating other low- income tax benefits. That budget eliminates the marriage penalty relief. Most Americans I think now know that if you are married and you file jointly, you pay a penalty for being married in this country. Twenty-three million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by approximately $500 when that goes into effect. As I said earlier, it would cut the child tax credit in half. Thirty-one million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by $859 when this goes into effect. Elderly couples with $40,000 in income would see their tax bill rise by 156 percent from $583 to $1,489. And a single parent with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see their tax benefits decline by 67 percent. With tax relief, the single parent qualifies to get back $2,214. With the Democrat tax hike, this single parent would get back only $799. So we would see a major impact on the American family with the effects of the budget that the Democrats passed here a couple of weeks ago. It is not the way we should be going in this country. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have brought us one of the most vibrant economies this country has ever seen. The stock market is at a new high. Home ownership is at a new high. Personal income is at a new high. Unemployment rates are at an all-time low. New business creations are at an all-time high. Job creations are at an all-time high. All of the things that should be positive in this country are positive; all of the things that should be negative are negative in terms of our economy, and those come as a result of the tax cuts that were made in 2001 and 2003. I personally cannot take any credit for that because I was not here, but I applaud those who voted for those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because they have had an extremely positive effect on our economy and on American families. I want to talk some more about the dysfunctional Tax Code that we have and the impact that it has on Americans. I mentioned earlier how much it costs to file income taxes and how much is being spent by Americans because they have to go to professionals to get their taxes done. But I want to put this into sort of an allegory. Can you imagine a business that with every passing year grows more difficult to manage, gets harder for its customers to understand, and becomes increasingly susceptible to theft? You would be right to think that such an operation would quickly go out of business. Unfortunately, this imaginary business is more of an apt description of the United States tax system. Every year the Federal Tax Code grows larger and more complex. New rules and guidelines are added. Deductions and special exemptions proliferate. As a result, each tax season more Americans are throwing up their hands in disgust and calling in a professional to do their taxes. According to the IRS, more than 60 percent of tax returns are prepared by a professional; and if you add the number of Americans who use computer tax software to file a return, the proportion of people who seek outside help rises to 90 percent. Congress puts out a little-known tax law report each session that serves as a chilling picture of the obscene complexity of our tax system. The most recent version entitled ``The General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 109th Congress'' runs to 806 pages and purports to explain the 109th Congress' changes to tax law. As you might imagine, it is mind-numbing. That we need a publication of this size simply to explain the 109th Congress' Tax Code additions is ample evidence that we have a massive problem on our hands. What ails our Tax Code is not just the fact that it is 7,000 pages long. Rather, the real ailment is the burden, above and beyond the actual financial burden of tax day, of complying with a chameleon Tax Code. As I said earlier, the government's Office of Management and Budget estimated that we spent about 6.4 billion hours in 2006 complying with the Federal Tax Code. That many hours is the equivalent of a 40-hour work week for every employed person in America. While the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have lowered taxes across the board and encouraged investments that lead to job creation, we are still saddled with an incomprehensible Tax Code that costs more than $265 billion to comply with each year. Our tax professionals can't even understand it. I am sure you have read and heard the horror stories about how 10 different people will call the IRS to ask for an interpretation of a rule, and get 10 different interpretations. That, again, is a really sad commentary on our Tax Code that you can't call 10 employees from the IRS and get the same answer from 10 different people on a code that millions of us are supposed to be adhering to because the way the Tax Code is written is so incomprehensible. While the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have lowered taxes across the board and encouraged investments that lead to job creation, we are still saddled with this incomprehensible Tax Code. The IRS reports that the tax gap, the difference between what people owe and what they pay is around $300 billion. This gap is composed of the cheaters and those who simply don't know any better because the system is too murky for the average taxpayer to accurately decipher. Realities like the tax gap, the 6 billion hours of annual compliance time, and the thousands of pages of rules and regulations have led me to join with the approximately 100 fiscal conservatives of the Republican Study Committee in support of the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We need a taxpayer bill of rights passed. Many States have passed a taxpayer bill of rights, and we need to do that at the Federal level. Those of us who have signed that pledge have pledged to work towards scrapping the Tax Code in order to build a new one that promotes transparency and commonsense. I have also promised to work to balance the budget. I have done that every chance that I have had since I have been in Congress, to exercise the fiscal discipline needed to rein in the growth of the Federal Government. I want to say that 2 years ago, when we dealt with the Hurricane Katrina relief, I am very proud to say that I pushed for an offset in Federal spending at that time. We were faced with spending outside the budget, $52 billion in one fell swoop, to offer relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We had no good plan for how that money was going to be spent, and we needed a plan. We did not have an offset set up when we first passed that $52 billion. I urged the Republican Study Committee to demand offsets. In just a few weeks' period of time, we were able to come up with $39 billion in offsets to the $52 billion. We weren't able to come up with $52 billion, but we came up with $39 billion. One of my colleagues who gives me the credit for that, calls me the ``mother of offsets.'' It is a title I wear proudly. All of us need to be doing that here in the Congress. We all need to make sure that when we ask for any funding, that we are looking for ways to offset that funding, and certainly any new funding. Unfortunately, the war supplemental that was passed 3 weeks ago did not have offsets in it because the rules here in the House say that emergency spending, such as the Katrina bill, don't have to have offsets in them; and yet our Democratic colleagues promised that in this session of Congress they would not do what the Republicans did and that was spend outside the budget and expand the growth of the Federal Government. They just ignored that. They had $24 billion in new spending, pork- barrel spending, I would call it, spending to buy votes to pass the war supplemental, which were outside the budget and expanded the scope of spending, violating all of the promises that they made last year to do PAYGO. They found ways to get around those promises to pay as you go and not expand spending by putting it within the supplemental which was supposedly for the war and is emergency spending. That, to me, is one of the most cynical things that a person can do. But as we file our taxes on April 17, we need to imagine the alternatives to piles of tax forms and schedules and endless hours calculating Uncle Sam's take. We need a system that is fair, simple and transparent. It is time for radical change in the way we collect taxes. The first step is ditching the leviathan code we have inherited from decades of congressional tinkering and start a real tax debate over how to collect taxes responsibly, efficiently and fairly. I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring forth legislation that will relieve the burden that so many Americans feel at this time of the year where they have to spend hours and hours and weeks at a time preparing their taxes and paying a lot more out to the Federal Government than we should be paying. Many years ago I read an article in the Wall Street Journal where they had done a survey of every segment of our society and asked, what do you think would a fair amount of money that you should be paying to the Federal Government in taxes. Most people felt 25 percent was about the fair amount that they should pay, and they would pay that willingly. But once you get beyond that, then people begin to begrudge it and avoid trying to pay their taxes. We have way too many people in this country at this stage of the game paying approximately 48 percent of all of their income in taxes at all three levels, so we are at twice the level that most people feel is the fair amount to pay. I think most people would say that much of their money is being wasted. Not only do they think that they should pay only approximately 25 percent, but they want to know that the Federal Government is spending their money wisely. I want to say that as far as I am concerned what we should be doing at the Federal level is funding primarily defense, the Federal system of interstate highways, and national parks. Beyond that, we should not be doing it. Our Constitution shows that the things that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and in the 10th amendment we say those things not mentioned in the Constitution are the responsibility of the States. What we have done at the Federal level is we have taken on many, many more responsibilities than the framers and the founders of this country envisioned that we would do. What we need to do is step back, look at what we are funding at the Federal Government level and say, is it constitutional, is it something that we should be funding, and if not, then how can we get out of funding this and allow the States to do it. If it is a project that is worthy to be funded, then the States and localities should be doing it and not the Federal Government. Our Federal Government was formed to provide for the defense of this Nation. The States and localities cannot do that; only the Federal Government can do it. That is our responsibility. When people talk about the fact that we are taking money from education and putting it into the war effort, that is not accurate. We should not be funding education at all at the Federal level because that is not one of the parts of the Constitution that we should be funding. So I say if we could take the Federal Government back to its roots, to those things that we should be funding, then we would be able to lower the tax burden tremendously because much of the money that is taken at the Federal level is wasted. President Jefferson said: ``The government which governs least governs best,'' and I think that is accurate.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the day that Americans are required to pay their taxes. It is the last possible day in this year that they can do that. We call it ``tax day.'' It is normally on April 15th, but because of the calendar and because today is a holiday in the District of Columbia, it has been delayed. I want to say something about the fact that our taxes are something that people feel obliged to pay the Federal Government and to State and local governments too, but many people do it grudgingly. We do it grudgingly because we feel concern about the way too many of our tax dollars are being spent. However, this year, taxpayers are paying less than they have paid before as a result of the tax cuts that have occurred in 2001 and 2003, tax cuts that were pushed through under a Republican Congress and asked for by a Republican President. Children often ask me when I speak to them in school groups, what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? I tell them that the most simple definition that I can give them is that Republicans believe that Americans should keep more of their money than Democrats do and that Democrats believe that very often the government is the answer to the problems that we have in this country, while Republicans think that individual Americans have the capability for solving most of their problems. So Republicans believe that the government that governs least governs best, and that is the philosophy that I have. The tax cuts that were instituted in 2001 and 2003 were designed for Americans to keep more of their money than the government had been taking from them, and those tax cuts have been very effective. We see that our economy is doing extremely well as a result of those tax cuts. We have the lowest unemployment rate in this country in many, many years, the highest home-ownership rate, the highest level of income in many, many years; and just on and on and on the economic indicators go that are very, very positive in this country. Those are as a result of the tax cuts. Democrats will talk about ``investing in government.'' Well, we don't invest in government when we give money to the government to spend. Our investments come from individual Americans who are entrepreneurs who create new jobs and create new businesses. That is where investments come from, and that is where a good return on investments come from. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of SGT Howard Plouff who was killed last month while answering the call for help from sheriffs deputies in Winston-Salem. Sergeant Plouff was known as an honorable man who selflessly served his family and community for more than 17 years in the Winston-Salem Police Department. He was dedicated to community development and service. He was an assistant coach in the Southwest Forsyth Little League and was a member of the Holy Family Catholic Church in Clemmons. His is a legacy of the spirit of service that permeates this great country, and I am saddened by the profound loss that his death will be to his family, his police colleagues, his friends and our community. He grew up on Long Island in New York City. He joined the Winston- Salem Police Department in 1989 and was promoted to sergeant in 1999. Sergeant Plouff's career as a police officer was punctuated by his commitment to serving our community in North Carolina with distinction and honor. He earned the respect of his fellow officers and did not hesitate to go above and beyond the call of duty. In fact, during his time with the Winston-Salem Police Department, he was awarded its highest honor, the Medal of Valor, in 2003 for helping to prevent the suicide of a woman who had threatened to jump to her death from her apartment building. His death leaves a gaping hole not only with his family but within the ranks of Winston-Salem's Police Department. He left behind a loving wife, Joyce, who is a third grade teacher at Southwest Elementary School, and his 13-year-old daughter, Brandy, and 11-year-old daughter, Holly. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Plouff's wife and daughters and his extended family. May God bless them and comfort them during this difficult time. The city of Winston-Salem is fortunate to have been served by such an honorable and brave officer. He was a blessing to the many whose lives he touched. He will be sorely missed.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I always come over here with the intentions of using my prepared remarks, and then I hear things being said by the other side and they usually grab my attention. I want to talk tonight a little bit about the Democrat budget, but something that one of my colleagues said just a few minutes ago needs to be repeated. He said, budgets are what you stand for and believe. Well, what the Democrats stand for and believe is greater government spending, taking more of your money and giving to the government. And he also said, this budget doesn't go as far as some wanted. Well, that is the truth, I am sure. I am sure there were many Democrats who wanted to raise taxes a whole lot more and spend a whole lot more of the American people's money than they are going to do, but they are going to do plenty of damage, even not going as far as some of them want to go. So the truth is, they told it to you tonight. The budget is what you stand for and believe; and what they stand for and believe is, again, taking more of your money and spending it. A lot of times I speak to school groups. I spoke to one on Monday. And they often ask me, What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? And I tell them that the short answer to that is Democrats believe that government is the answer to everything. Just have more government. Take more money from the American people and put it into government. Republicans think that Americans have survived very well on individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and individual responsibility, and we don't need the government to run our lives completely. So there is a big difference. Also, the Democrats think the government knows how to spend your money more than you know how to spend your money. Republicans think that you are quite intelligent enough to know how to spend your money and we don't need to take it away from you and give it to some bureaucrat to spend it for you. So that is the big difference. And I think, again, the Democrat budget illustrates that. It also illustrates how out of touch they are with the citizens of this country. As one of my colleagues said the other night, and I wish it had been my line, they promised change, but what they didn't tell you was it was going to be the change left in your pocket from taking your money away from you for increased taxes. Now, under the assumptions in the Democrats' proposed budget that is going to be voted on tomorrow, we are going to see a massive tax hike. In fact, you are going to see the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. The Democrat budget increases taxes by $392.5 billion over 5 years, shattering their last record tax increase of $240 billion in 1993, when they were last in control of the Congress. In fact, they would increase taxes by $231 billion in 2012 alone. Today, almost 100 million Americans from virtually every walk of life have a financial plan for their future that involves saving and investing, and millions more benefit from the countless jobs and opportunities that a capital marketplace creates. In addition, more than half of America's seniors receive dividend income every year and more than 30 percent receive capital gains income. Under the Democrat budget, these seniors will see a tax increase of an average of $1,100 on dividends and capital gains. Overall, 28 million American families will pay an additional $1,000 a year in new investment taxes as a result of the budget. Many of these people earn annual incomes of $50,000 and less. This is more than just a reckless policy that endangers the strength of our economy. I see it as a cause for serious concern for the livelihood of the people of North Carolina's Fifth District, whose tax bills would skyrocket under the proposed budget. In North Carolina alone, more than 3.1 million taxpayers would see their tax bill go up. It wouldn't be a little bump either. The average tax increase for those 3.1 million North Carolinians would be $2,671. This approach is completely backwards. We should be looking first to put money back into taxpayers' pockets, not taking it out. The current budget proposal is a squandered opportunity to reform spiraling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and to give Americans the permanent tax relief they deserve. Instead it allows widespread tax increases that hit middle-income families, low-income earners, families with children, small businesses, and many others. Some people would see more than a 100 percent increase in their taxes. For example, an elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see a tax increase of 156% in 2011--from $583 to $1,489. And a family of four with $60,000 in income would have a tax bill that would rise from $3,030 to $4,893 in 2011--an increase of more than $1,850, or 61%. And these increases are no accident. During the budget markup, Democrats rejected every one of a series of amendments that would have prevented tax increases. But ultimately, this budget proposal isn't a real surprise. It's business as usual for the Democrats and proves that their promises to be fiscally responsible are just empty rhetoric. If this budget is approved it will signal a return to the Democrats' beloved Tax-and- Spend model for government. For example, if you take one look at the more than $20 billion in pork that was added to last week's troop emergency funding bill, it becomes crystal clear where the Democrats stand on spending. And worse, they proved they don't mind using our troops as bargaining chips. Democrats have willfully abandoned their pledge of fiscal responsibility. They pledged to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules and spending restraint to curb the deficit. And then we get this budget, which would give us the largest tax increase in history and ignore the larger consequences for our economy. These massive tax increases would threaten to reverse the economic gains that have developed since adoption of the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. Job Growth--A total of 7.6 million new jobs have been created--an average of 168,500 per month. Unemployment Declines--The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.1 percent to 4.5 percent. Economic Growth--In the past 15 quarters, real gross domestic product [GDP] has grown an average of 3.5 percent per year. In the nine prior quarters, average GDP growth was an anemic 1.1 percent. Investment Growth--Business investment has increased for 15 straight quarters, reversing a previous nine-quarter decline. Stock Market Gains--Despite recent market corrections, the Dow Jones Industrial Average remains 41 percent above its 2003 level. Ignores Fiscal Benefits--These tax increases also threaten to reverse the substantial deficit reduction that has occurred in the past several years. Total federal tax revenue has increased from 16.5 percent of GDP in 2003 to 18.5 percent this year--exceeding the average percentage of the past four decades. Tax revenue grew by 14.6 percent in 2005, 11.5 percent in 2006, and 9.3 percent in the first five months of fiscal year 2007. Deficit Reduction. This revenue growth was the principal factor in reducing the budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to an estimated $214 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Raising the 10% Tax Rate Bracket to 15 percent--More than 5 million individuals and families who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax in 2011 if Democrats are successful in raising the 10% tax rate bracket to 15%, and reducing or eliminating other low-income tax benefits. Eliminates Marriage Penalty Relief--23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $466 in 2011. Cuts the Child Tax Credit in Half--31 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $859 in 2011. Every Working American Would be Affected by Democrats' Tax Hike--115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,795 in 2011; 83 million women would see their taxes rise, on average, by $2,068; 48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899; 12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082; 17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270; and taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the town of Kernersville, NC, which will celebrate its 136th anniversary this Saturday, March 31. Kernersville is a town with a rich heritage dating back hundreds of years. Known as Kerner's Crossroads in the mid-1800s, the town of Kernersville was officially incorporated on March 31, 1871. It had a small but respectable population of 147. Today, about 20,000 call Kernersville their home in the heart of North Carolina's Triad region. The town has experienced dramatic growth in recent years as it transitions from what was once a rural community to a town making its mark in the economically vibrant Triad area. In the midst of this transition, Kernersville has worked to preserve its unique small-town character and historic architecture. One of the most notable relics of Kernersville's historic flavor is an exceptional home called Korner's Folly. Some people have called it the strangest house ever built. Others have said it looks more like a small castle straight from the heart of Germany than a home built in the heart of North Carolina. But regardless, today it is a historic museum and serves to illustrate the unique place Kernersville holds in the Triad region. I applaud the vision of Kernersville's citizens to pursue commonsense growth policies without sacrificing the essence of what makes Kernersville Kernersville. Their efforts will ensure that this great town celebrates many more anniversaries, each one a tribute to an attractive community that offers a small town atmosphere with the benefits of a community nestled in the Triad.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as part of the Constitutional Caucus, we try every week to raise issues that are of concern to us, because dealing with the Constitution, observing the Constitution and honoring the Constitution is very, very important to us. It is the basis of everything that we do here in the Congress and should be the basis of every lawmaking body in our country. So tonight I want to talk a little bit about the first amendment and a concern that I have about an assault that has been made on the first amendment by a previous Congress. The first amendment clearly states that ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Our Founding Fathers understood the vital role that free speech played in the health and functioning of our democracy. They lived under the restrictions of colonial England, and were very intent on creating a new system of government that respected the right to speech and political expression. One of the strongest proponents of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Patrick Henry, said: ``Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.'' Today, as Mr. Henry advised 200 years ago, I look with suspicion at some of the legislation that has emerged from this body. I am suspicious that we have at times not given adequate attention to the ``public liberty'' that Patrick Henry so strongly urged us to guard. Congress must take great care when attempting to control political expression. But, unfortunately, this has not always been the case. In the past, Congress has created laws which restrict organizations' rights to participate in the electoral process. The First Amendment Restoration Act, H.R. 71, would restore America's first amendment rights by repealing the ``electioneering communication'' provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as BCRA. This provision stifles the speech rights of corporations, nonprofits and labor unions. They are prohibited from sponsoring no-PAC funded radio and TV advertisements that include any references to Federal candidates during the 30 days before primary elections and 60 days before general elections. This is a severe infringement on these organizations' constitutional rights to free speech. It communicates to them that they have no right to voice their views during elections. It is a clear violation of the first amendment to restrict the speech of organizations and limit what people can say about a candidate and when they may say it. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, upheld the constitutionality of these restrictions on groups in the days leading up to an election. But the Supreme Court has erred in the past. This bill offers a much-needed correction to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The 30/60 day BCRA provision was an attack on the primary purpose of the first amendment's free speech clause, which is the protection of political speech. This bill fully restores those rights which were hampered by BCRA. We must be vigilant and heed the words of America's founders. They knew firsthand the democracy-choking effect of restrictions placed on political speech. But the minute we begin to craft laws that hamper expression, we demonstrate we have forgotten the priceless lessons of liberty that have been fought for by the patriots who have gone before us. I urge my colleagues to support the First Amendment Restoration Act, H.R. 71.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank you, Congressman Hensarling. And I want to thank you for setting the stage for this discussion tonight. As you said, it is the beginning of many times when we need to be bringing this issue up. I also want to thank you for your leadership of the Republican Study Committee, our party group of conservatives that raises issues every day here on the floor and in committee meetings on the things that the American people believe in and that we fight for every day. Let me reiterate some of what you said and then add some points about North Carolina and raise some other issues that you have not yet gotten to. As you said, under the assumptions in this proposed budget, we will see the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. And I think we need to keep saying that over and over and over again. The Democrat budget increases taxes by $392.5 billion over 5 years, shattering their last record tax increase of $240 billion in 1993. In fact, they would raise taxes, increase taxes by $231 billion in 2012 alone. But the hits just keep coming; and as you pointed out, it is the same playbook that they used in 2003 all over again. It is more than just a reckless policy that endangers the strength of our economy; it is a cause for serious concern for the livelihood of the constituents of the Fifth District in North Carolina and, in fact, people all over North Carolina. We would see in North Carolina more than 3 million taxpayers whose bills would go up. And it wouldn't be just a little bump, either. The average tax increase for the 3.1 million North Carolinians would be $2,671. That is a lot of money. This stark reality underscores the truth of my Democrat colleagues' approach to the Federal budget. They know that the more money they can get out of Americans' pockets, the more money they can spend to expand the Federal Government. That is not what we need. This approach is completely backwards. We should be looking first to put money back into taxpayers' pockets, not taking it out. Furthermore, this current budget proposal is a squandered opportunity to reform spiraling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and to give Americans the permanent tax relief they deserve. Instead, it allows widespread tax increase that hit middle-income families, low- income earners, families with children, small businesses, and others. Some people would see more than a 100 percent increase in their taxes. For example, an elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see a tax increase of 156 percent in 2011, from $583 to $1,489. And a family of four with $60,000 in income would have a tax bill that would rise from $3,030 to $4,893 in 2011, an increase of more than $1,850, or 61 percent. And these increases are no accident. The Democrats were warned. During budget markup I know that my colleagues introduced many amendments which were all rejected, and these would have prevented the tax increases. But they would not listen. But the budget proposal again isn't a real surprise. It is business as usual for the Democrats and proves that their promises to be fiscally responsible are just empty rhetoric. If this budget is approved, it will signal a return to the Democrats' beloved tax and spend model for government. If you take a look also at the more than $20 billion in pork that was added to last week's troop emergency funding bill, it becomes crystal clear where the Democrats stand on spending. And, worse, they prove they don't mind using our troops as bargaining chips. Democrats have willfully abandoned their pledge of fiscal responsibility. We have talked about it before. They are being very hypocritical in terms of what they promised and what they have done. They pledged to follow pay-as-you-go spending rules and spending restraint to curb the deficit. And then we get this budget which would give us again the largest tax increase in the history of this country and ignore the larger consequences for our economy. These tax increase are going to threaten to reverse the substantial deficit reduction that has occurred in the past several years. We have increased tax revenue from 16.5 percent of GDP in 2003 to 18.5 percent this year, exceeding the average percentage of the past 4 decades. This is a result of those tax cuts that we passed. Tax revenue grew by 14.6 percent in 2005, 11.5 percent in 2006, and already 9.3 percent in the first 5 months of fiscal 2007. This revenue growth was the principle factor in reducing the budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to an estimated $214 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Let me give just a couple more examples of again how people are directly going to be affected by this tax increase and to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats who say all the time that they are trying to help low-income and middle-income people. It will raise the 10 percent tax rate bracket to 15 percent. This will give a tax increase to 5 million individuals and families who don't pay taxes now but would become subject to the individual income tax in 2011 if the Democrats are successful in raising the 10 percent tax bracket to 15 percent. It eliminates the marriage penalty relief that we have had; 23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by $466. It cuts the child tax credit in half; 31 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase on average by $859 in 2011. Every working American would be affected by the Democrats' tax hike. We have to bring this message to the American public and show them why the Republicans are fighting so hard against this budget that is going to be brought up by the Democrats. And, again, Congressman Hensarling, I applaud your efforts through the RSC and through the Budget Committee for helping us put together this Special Order and giving these facts about the largest single tax increase in American history being proposed by the Democrats.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about two issues tonight. I am going to start out by talking about the Democrat budget and the tax increases that they are proposing, and I want to talk a little bit about the emergency supplemental. The two are tied together in many ways in terms of the hypocrisy we are seeing come forth from the Democratic leadership. The House Budget Committee is in the midst of marking up the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. As it currently stands, the proposed budget assumes the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which have given us this vibrant economy that we have. It is going to create, therefore, a $392.5 billion tax increase, the largest tax increase in American history. It proposes no changes to slow the exploding growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that would result in deficit reduction. Those 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as I have said, have helped create a very vibrant economy. They produced real tax decreases in the tax burden on North Carolina's married couples, single parents and families. Almost every taxpayer in North Carolina, low income, single, married or self-employed would lose valuable tax cuts under the assumption in the Democrat budget proposal. It is not a real surprise, though. We knew this was going to happen. It is business as usual for the Democrats and proves that their promises to be fiscally responsible are just empty rhetoric. I have said before this is a smoke-and-mirrors Congress, and that is exactly what it is. It would return us to the Democrats' beloved tax-and-spend model for government. They have willfully abandoned their pledge for fiscal responsibility. They pledged to do PAYGO budget rules and spending restrain to curb the deficit, and they have done none of that. Last year, Republicans rejected $14 billion in nonemergency spending that the Senate tried to attach to the emergency troop funding bill, but the Democrats are doing just the opposite. Now I want to talk about the supplemental. The emergency supplemental, the Democrats said they would never try to coerce people into voting for legislation they didn't want to vote for. Last week they said they weren't whipping this bill, they were just trying to talk people into voting for it. Well, if this is gentle persuasion, I would hate to see what whipping a bill is. The Members on the Democrats are being threatened and coerced into voting for this. Their votes are being bought with millions and millions of dollars of pork barrel spending that has been put in the supplemental. It is really a slam against our troops. The proper role of the Federal Government is the defense of this Nation. We may not be completely happy with every way the dollar is being spent on defense, but if that is the case, then what we need to do is have true accountability. Using the word ``accountability'' doesn't make it so. We heard our colleagues here talking about that. If we wanted true accountability, we would be holding the kinds of hearings that would give us accountability. Instead, we have ``gotcha'' kinds of hearing. Every hearing here now is a gotcha kind of hearing. Don't take my word for the fact that this is a terrible bill that they are bringing up, what they are calling the emergency supplemental. The Los Angeles Times called for the bill to be vetoed. It said: ``It is absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to micromanage the conflict and the evolution of Iraqi society with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.'' So in addition to the wasteful spending that is going into the emergency supplemental, we are hearing from even the liberal press that this bill does not deserve to pass. They are using our troops as bargaining chips. The Politico said: ``Democrat leaders see this emerging strategy as a way to encourage their liberal members to vote for the supplemental budget bill.'' They have willfully abandoned their pledge of fiscal responsibility, and we should not be allowing our troops to be used as a pawn in the hands of the Democrats to get funded programs they want to fund that they take off the budget because it is in the emergency supplemental. It is not a part of pay-as-you-go. Even the Democrat leaders concede that their own bill is flawed. Democrat whip James Clyburn has described his party's proposal as a ``bitter pill to swallow,'' again in the Politico. We should reject this bill. I believe we will reject this bill. We need to support our troops. We need to give them the reinforcements they deserve. We need to win this war on terror. The Democrats never talk about winning; they only talk about losing. That is not the American way. The American way is to take the challenges presented to us, face them squarely, and win and do the things that are right.

Ms. FOXX

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the longevity and the genius of our Nation's Constitution and to one of the principal framers of this incredible document, James Madison. As a member of the Constitutional Caucus, I want to do my part in sharing with people each week here items about the Constitution that we think, in the caucus, are very important. Madison understood the almost insurmountable task that drafting a Constitution presented to the Constitutional Convention. After the Constitution was completed, Madison looked back at the ideals that were contained in it and marveled that that body as diverse as the Constitutional Convention could have produced a document that did so much to preserve liberty and provide for a form of government that would stand the test of time. He wrote in Federalist Paper No. 37 that ``among the difficulties encountered by the Convention, a very important one must have lain, in combining the requisite stability and energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form. Without substantially this part of their undertaking they would have very imperfectly fulfilled the object of their appointment or the expectation of the public.'' This founding member of our government knew that there would be a tension between granting maximum liberty to the people and ensuring that the government was given the capacity to execute its critical duties. The greatness of the preamble to the Constitution rests in part in how eloquently and succinctly it enumerates these duties to ``establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' Madison wrote: ``The genius of republican liberty seems to demand, on one side, not only that all powers should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence by the people by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few but in a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the hands in which the power is lodged shall continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of electors, and the frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men. Whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand.'' He knew what we take for granted today, one, that liberty is an essential ingredient for stability and prosperity; and, two, that if government does not see its foremost task is to preserve liberty for the people it serves, then it will soon fail. In discussing the preamble we should pause to take note of the fact that our Constitution was the result, not of monarchial fiat or one man's scheme to craft a new government, but of a Constitutional Convention, a body overflowing with competing philosophies and conflicting viewpoints. But these founders found common ground in our Constitution. Madison was in awe of this reality. ``The real wonder,'' he wrote, ``is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that almighty hand which had been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.'' Madison notes that the Convention's end product, our Nation's Constitution, would not have been possible under the normal conditions that prevail in most political bodies. It makes me wonder if such an achievement could ever be possible in today's fractious climate. But Madison chalks this achievement up to two dynamics. He writes: ``The first is that the Convention must have enjoyed in a very singular degree an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities, the diseases most incident to deliberative bodies and most apt to contaminate their proceedings. The second conclusion is that all the deputations composing the conventions were either satisfactorily accommodated by the final act or were induced to accede to it by deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interest to the public good and by despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays or by new experiments.'' His observations on the crafting of this great document which establishes our framework for government and secures the blessings of liberties to ourselves and our posterity should serve to remind us of how careful we must be to adhere to the boundaries it creates for the Federal Government. His insight into the process behind the framing of our Constitution might also remind the Members of this body of our duty to serve the people and to maintain, as Madison said, ``a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good.''