Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week House Republicans voted to pass the fiscal year 2007 House budget resolution. I was pleased to support a reasonable budget that will fund our top priorities, continue our program policies, and increase accountability within Federal Government programs. I was especially pleased to see this budget will help cut the Federal deficit in half by 2009 without implementing any tax increases. Yet, in keeping with their record of being the party of no, Democrats voted ``no'' on this budget. They voted ``no'' to even the smallest attempts on holding the line on spending, and they voted ``no'' to reforming outdated and ineffective government programs. You see, Democrats would rather just raise taxes on hardworking families. Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that House Republicans are going to continue to work to keep taxes low and maintain the pro-growth economic policies that have created 32 consecutive months of job growth. After all, if there is something we should all be saying ``no'' to, it is the Democrats' tax and spend mentality.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 165, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, which is usually full of hyperbole, has suddenly dissolved down into one simple word. No. It is no to energy solutions. It is no to immigration reform. It is no to tax relief. Last year Republicans passed not one but two energy bills, the Gasoline for America's Security Act, and the Energy Policy Act. More recently, we passed the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. And the Democrats response: No. Last year Republicans passed not one but two immigration reform bills, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, and the REAL ID Act. And the Democrats response: No. Finally, just last week, Republicans approved a tax conference agreement that will help keep the Bush economic boom going and prevent a massive tax increase. The Democrats response: No. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats favorite new slogan is ``America Can Do Better.'' The American people have a clear choice in November: The party that is accomplishing things, or the party that stands on the sidelines and says ``no.'' Yes, America can do better, better than the party of no.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to express the heartfelt condolences of a grateful Nation and to honor the life of Army Specialist David N. Timmons, Jr. of Lewisville, North Carolina. Specialist Timmons passed away on May 5, 2006, while serving in Afghanistan. Specialist Timmons served our country as a calvary scout assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York. His strong patriotism and desire to make a difference led him to join the army after attending Forsythe Technical Community College. Specialist Timmons was a loving son and brother. He leaves behind his father, David Timmons, Sr.; his stepmother, Cynthia Timmons; and his sister, Shalante Timmons. May God bless them and comfort them during this very difficult time. We owe this brave soldier and his family a tremendous debt of gratitude for his selfless service and sacrifice. Our country could not maintain its freedom and security without heroes like Specialist Timmons who make the ultimate sacrifice. Americans, as well as Afghanis, owe their liberty to Specialist Timmons and his fallen comrades who came before him. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Army Specialist David N. Timmons, Jr.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week President Bush laid out a plan to strengthen our border security, and I commend him for focusing on this vital issue. There is nothing more important to me than the safety and security of this country. Border security is the starting point for ensuring that all Americans remain safe. Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with those who wish to live the American dream. America is a Nation of immigrants, but we must never forget that we are also a Nation of laws. Immigration laws exist to provide the necessary steps for safe and legal entry into this country. And we must be able to enforce them. Illegal immigration is a major problem that is having a very negative effect on our education, health care, Social Security, taxes, employment, wages, crime and countless other areas of our daily lives. Immigration laws exist to provide the steps for safe and legal entry into this country, and we must enforce them. I support doing whatever it takes to secure our border and enforce our laws, including deploying members of our National Guard to our southern border. I also support denying government benefits to illegal aliens, making English our official language, and cracking down on those who knowingly hire illegal workers. However I do not support a guest worker program that has amnesty components or that leads to citizenship for those who break our laws.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. North Carolina is home to 1.2 million square acres of national forest, with the majority of those acres being located in the western North Carolina mountains. Our forests are visited by over 6 million tourists each year and generate millions of dollars for the local economies. People from all over the country and other nations travel to cities and towns in North Carolina and my district to see the wonderful natural resources our forests hold, and many of the towns in my district depend on that tourism industry to provide jobs and economic growth. With that said, Madam Chairman, you can understand my eagerness to protect and sustain these national treasures. In order to protect and sustain our National Forests and lands, Madam Chairman, Congress has passed environmental laws designed to guard against man-made encroachment. However, we cannot legislate against natural disasters. Even in the mountains of North Carolina, we are susceptible to hurricane damage, flooding and tornadoes, which destroy thousands of acres of National Forest. When Hurricane Hugo swept through North Carolina, it damaged more than 2.7 million acres of forest in 26 counties, with almost complete destruction of 68,000 acres. Timber losses to the State were valued at $250 million. To make matters worse, only very little timber was able to be salvaged due to the fact that forestry experts were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of dead trees and there was no real plan to deal with such a catastrophe. By the time the forestry officials jumped through all the environmental hoops, most of the timber was either splintered or decayed, rendering it unusable. Madam Chairman, we witnessed this exact same incident again last year, but on a larger scale. When Hurricane Katrina hit, millions of acres of forest were downed and destroyed, creating dangerous scenarios for disease, infestations and forest fires. Once again, because we had no plan in place for the recovery, forestry officials were forced to sit by and watch millions of dollars of boardfeet rot. If H.R. 4200 were law, the Forest Service and private companies would have cleaned up the damage and salvaged the good timber. We cannot allow the lessons of Hurricane Hugo and Katrina to be forgotten. We must design and implement a plan to deal with such scenarios. Today, Madam Chairman, we have a chance to learn from our misfortunes and guard against losing so much again. H.R. 4200 is a common sense approach to a problem the United States faces yearly. The Forest Service needs the tool of rapid damage assessment, so they can quickly restore landscapes and prevent more forests from decaying and becoming fuel for uncontrollable wildfires. Research is also needed to expand and enhance knowledge on post-catastrophe treatments. This bill is critical to stopping disease and infestations from spreading, preventing wildfires, and maintaining healthy forests. I would like to reassure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that H.R. 4200 is not designed to circumvent existing environmental laws. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The provisions in this bill can only be used in case of a severe natural disaster to our national forests. The bill does not affect national parks, wilderness areas, or national monuments. The bill does not override existing environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill simply allows the forest service to apply common sense techniques in the case of a natural disaster. It's about time the federal government put some common sense into environmental cleanup and maintenance in my opinion. In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Chairman Goodlatte for their work on this bill. Both their Committees held numerous hearings on the bill and carefully crafted this measure with the input of local governments and environmental groups. The bill increases collaboration among federal, state, and private interested parties. The bill enjoys wide bipartisan support and will benefit the entire country, all while saving the federal government money. Again, the bill makes sound, environmental sense and I support final passage of the bill.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there are two clearly defined philosophies at work in Washington. On one side are conservatives, such as my RSC colleagues and I, who want to cut government spending and rein in the Federal deficit. On the other side are liberals, who believe that more government spending is the answer to all our problems, and these liberals will raise your taxes to pay for it. I am pleased to be a part of this group of conservatives who today are proving that Republicans are indeed the party of fiscal discipline, reform, and accountability. Our budget proposal provides a general framework on how we can hold the line on spending, balance our budget within 5 years, pay down our national debt, and maintain tax relief for American families all at the same time. Like every family across America, we need to make tough budget decisions and cut back on wasteful spending. That is not easy, but it is the right thing to do. After all, if your family was far into debt and was spending out of control, you would have to cut wasteful or unnecessary purchases. With this budget we have a unique opportunity to streamline our government, reform ineffective and outdated Federal programs, cut spending, and provide greater accountability for the American people. Let us get to work.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, House Republicans took action to block tax increases on working families, seniors and small businesses by voting to pass the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. It was an honor to join my colleagues in working to help every American family keep more of their hard-earned money. After all, Republicans know that individual households know how to spend their own money much better than the Federal Government does. Tax relief, along with other pro-growth policies, is helping the U.S. economy grow at a fiery pace. Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce reported that the U.S. gross domestic product, GDP, grew 4.8 percent in the first quarter of this year. Our economy has created more than 5 million good-paying jobs since August 2003, and the unemployment is lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Despite the Democrats' efforts to paint a gloomy picture, Americans are reaping the benefits of our tax cuts and are thoroughly enjoying the success of our economic boom.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, if all the American people listened to the Democrats and what they say here night after night, day after day on the floor, you would think that we lived in the worst country in the world. It is just amazing to me that people are risking their lives every day to get into this country when you hear what they have to say, because from their perspective all Republicans are evil. All Republicans are liars. All Republicans are no good, and this is the worst place in the world to be living. And yet we have one of the best economies that the country has ever had, and as I said, people are risking their lives every day to get into this country. I think because it is the greatest country in the world. And frankly, I think that it is not good for this country, for our colleagues to constantly, constantly be saying negative things about it. We are not perfect. Nobody is perfect. The President is not perfect. No Member of Congress is perfect. No elected official is perfect. But we certainly do work hard trying to have a good country where the basic instincts of the people are good and people are trying to do good for their neighbor as well as for their country. And frankly, I get a little tired of it and I know a lot of my constituents tell me that they are tired of it too. I want to come here tonight and talk a little bit about positive things. I think that while we can all acknowledge that we are not perfect and the country is not perfect, we do not have to dwell on the negative all the time. And I want to talk a little bit about our economy tonight and some other things relating to the economy and the impact that actions of the President and the Republican Congress have had on the economy. I am going to put up one chart to start with because I want to keep with our theme that a group of us have come up with so that we can present the truth. The Truth Squad is here tonight. Just part of the Truth Squad is here, but we are going to try to keep our record of getting out the truth to the American people. The economy is strong and it is continuing to grow; 138,000 jobs were created last month alone. That is April 2006. In the past 12 months, 2 million new jobs have been created; and since August of 2003, more than 5.2 million jobs have been created. Our unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The GDP grew at a strong 4.8 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year. This follows economic growth of 3.5 percent in 2005, the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation. Over the past 12 months, employment increased in 48 States and four States set record-low unemployment rates. Now, our colleagues on the other side would say, well, you know, yeah, there are new jobs being created, but they are not good jobs. They are just service jobs; they are no good. So I thought I would share a little bit about where those jobs are. Between May 2003 and March 2006, job growth in key sectors, the five key sectors, in transportation, 197,000 new jobs; in the financial area, 294,000 jobs; in construction, 808,000 jobs; in education and health services, 1,039,000 jobs; in professional and business services, 1,288,000 jobs. Now, those do not sound like bad jobs to me. And they must not be real bad jobs since our unemployment rate is only 4.7 percent. It must mean that Americans like those jobs pretty well because they are taking them. Now, our tax policies, Republican tax policies, have spurred this economic momentum. Republicans have reduced income taxes for every American who pays income taxes. Republicans doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, cut taxes on capital gains and dividend, created incentives for small businesses to purchase new equipment and hire new workers, and put the death tax on the path to extinction. Together this tax relief has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers and businesses. Now I have said this before, there is an easy explanation or easy definition for the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats think that the government knows how to spend your money better than you know how to spend your money. Republicans believe that you know how to spend your money better than the government knows how to spend it. We do not want to take any more of your money than we absolutely have to to do the things that Americans cannot do for themselves. The Democrats want to take all of your money. If you listened to their leader this weekend, she talked about no deficit, no deficit if Democrats were in charge. But when pressed to say how she would get rid of the deficit, she really could not quite bring herself to say raise taxes, but the commentators pointed out that is the only way you can keep spending and do away with the deficit, and especially spend more as they have said on this floor they want to do and in committees. They want to spend billions more dollars, and all that would do would be to add to the deficit. Now, I want to share a chart that shows some information about what Americans pay in taxes because, as I mentioned, the tax cuts benefit all Americans. Let me put this one up first. I will start at the lower- income levels. The top 20 percent of people in this country pay 87 percent of all Federal income taxes. And if you look at the chart, people who make between 10 and $20,000 a year get a rebate of $686. They do not pay anything in taxes. In fact, people earning more are actually giving some of their money to these people in the form of a rebate, mostly earned income tax credit. People making between 20 and $30,000 get a rebate of $183. People earning between 30 and 40,000 pay approximately $1,000 a year in taxes. People earning between 75 and 100,000 pay approximately $7,500 in taxes. Now let's look at the higher incomes. People making between 100 and $200,000 pay almost $16,000 in income taxes. People who make more than a million dollars pay $609,670 in taxes. So as I said earlier, the top 20 percent pay 87 percent of all Federal income taxes. This information is very widely understood and produced so it is not something Republicans are making up. These are the facts, again, coming from the Truth Squad. But if the Democrats in Congress had had their way, they would have let tax relief expire. Earlier this week we were able to extend the tax relief that had been put in place 3 years ago because we know that cutting those taxes is what is going to keep our economy going forward. And we did not want to see a tax hike on all Americans. Middle Americans would have been hit with that tax hike as well as all other Americans. But the Democrats all voted against that bill, or most of them voted against the bill, I think we did pick up a few, but they understand what this is all about. They understand that the economy depends on you having more of your money in your hands and not the government having that money. But they do not want to vote for tax cuts because they want to keep their mantra going that all we are doing is giving tax cuts to the rich. Well, it is the wealthier people that are paying the taxes and the people who are not paying any taxes are not going to get those tax cuts. They will wind up, probably many of them, getting more in rebates. Well, early on Saturday morning, I got up and turned on the TV and I heard the last few minutes of the ``Neil Cavuto Show'' and it really struck a nerve with me, something that I had been thinking about that was going on in this country, and he presented some information that I want to share with you tonight as well as some information from a study being done, that has been done by a very well respected organization in this country. Neil Cavuto called it ``the greatest story never told.'' He talked about how this very, very positive economic news is not getting out and not being presented to the American public by and large by the news media. Now, we know that some of our news media do give us fair and balanced reporting. However, some of our media has failed to share the good news with the American public. And so people depend, they are working hard. They are doing their jobs. They are depending on hearing what is going on in the country and forming their opinions from it. But our economy is humming along under this Republican Congress and the leadership of President Bush, but the American people are not hearing that. They are hearing a very slanted story that affects what they think about the economy. So despite one of the strongest economies in recent history and last month we collected the largest amount of money in revenue, the second highest that has ever been reported and collected in this country, that did not get reported very well. Neil Cavuto said this weekend this quote: ``I think it's the greatest story never told: an economy that is humming but most in the media insist we are bumming.'' Many in the media would report that ``only'' 138,000 new jobs were created last month. Well, 138,000, that is a whole lot of jobs. I do not understand why some in the media continually put qualifiers like ``only'' in front of such an accomplishment. You know, I have spoken before on the floor about the importance of language. Our language is very, very important. It governs our perception of things. When we have done our best to try to cut spending here, we have been merely trying to cut the rate of spending and the rate of increases, but the Democrats say we are engaging in massive budget cuts. Another example I could use is just the words ``unemployment rate'' or ``employment rate.'' We talk all the time about the unemployment rate. Our unemployment rate right now is about 4.7 percent. So the employment rate is 95.3 percent. Again, you get the perception if you are always putting the emphasis on the negative, then that is what you are going to think about, but our employment rate is 95.3 percent. I want to give you some other examples of the way some in the media try to influence the way we think about things through the use of their language. When is the last time that you have heard the media follow the statistic about our unemployment rate with the phrase that I used earlier, lower than the unemployment rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? You almost never hear that in the media, and you will never hear again an employment rate of 95.3 percent because that sounds way too positive. Now, I am not the only one who is concerned about this issue. As I listened to Mr. Cavuto this weekend, and it was very, very early in the morning when I heard it, but it really struck a nerve for me. I was thinking back to the comparison of the way many in the media compared things that were happening in the Clinton presidency with what is being said now. I do not have a whole lot of real positive things to say about the Clinton presidency, but during parts of his time in office, our economy was strong and, in many ways, similar to the economic surge we are experiencing today. However, I seem to remember that during the Clinton presidency, the good news about the economy was everywhere, often shouted from the rooftops by the media to anyone who would listen. Now, during the Bush presidency, the economy is just as strong and, in some cases, even stronger, but many in the media are nowhere to be seen. I am not the only one, again, who has noticed the difference in coverage between the Clinton days and today. The Media Research Center is the largest media watchdog organization in America. It was formed in 1987, and it has made media bias a household term, tracking it and printing the compiled evidence daily. The founder and president of the Media Research Center is Brent Bozell, a nationally syndicated writer whose work appears in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the LA Times and the National Review. So let me talk a little bit about one economy and two spins. In a recent report, the MRC compared economic conditions during the Clinton presidency and the Bush spit. Amazing: Economic conditions portrayed as positive during Clinton were presented as negative for Bush. For example, economic growth under President Clinton averaged 2.2 percent; under President Bush, 3.7 percent. Many in the media have given President Bush consistently negative press about perceived poor job creation and unemployment, especially in the summer of 2004, but their reports were overwhelmingly positive when President Clinton ran for reelection in the summer of 1996 under similar circumstances. Let me give you some highlights of the report. Clinton, good; Bush, bad. Stories about jobs during Bill Clinton's reelection campaign were positive 85 percent of the time, more than six times as often as they were for Bush, despite similar economic data. Reporters praised the Clinton unemployment rate of 5.6 percent as low, but they downplayed a 5.4 percent rate under Bush and called job growth anemic. Now, let me repeat that. The unemployment rate in 2004, when President Bush was running for reelection, was 5.4 percent, lower than the unemployment rate was under President Clinton when he was running for reelection, but many in the media portrayed the unemployment rate under President Bush as something a lot worse than it was under President Clinton. How do they make good news become bad news? Under Bush, reporters presented good economic data as bad news stories by minimizing positive achievements and emphasizing people who might be out of work or regions of the United States that were still ``struggling.'' The opposite approach was taken under President Clinton. Then, reporters explained away a 2/10ths of 1 percent rise in unemployment as minor. The media's slanted scorecard is presented in a chart in Brent Bozell's report on this. In 1996, they did a list of the stories for Mr. Clinton. Positive stories: On ABC, 4; CBS, 6; CNN, 3; NBC 4; New York Times, 12; Washington Post, 6. These are positive stories. Negative stories: ABC, 1; CBS, 0; CNN, 3; NBC 0; New York Times, 1; Washington Post, 1. A total of 35 positive stories, 6 negative ones. Now, President Bush in 2004, positive stories: ABC, 1; CBS, 0; CNN, 1; NBC, 1; New York Times, 1; Washington Post, 2. Six positive stories. Negative stories about President Bush and the economy: ABC, 6; CBS, 7; CNN, 4; NBC, 4; New York Times, 10, Washington Post, 7. A total of 38, a flip-flop. Actually, more negative stories in 2004 when the economy is actually better off than it was in 1996. Thirty-eight negatives for President Bush, six positives. Thirty-five positives for President Clinton, six negatives. I am a former college professor and president and sort of teacher all my life. So I always like to look for the data when you can get it. Again, my gut was telling me this, and I think the American people see this, but it is always great when you have got the data to back up what you are thinking about. While the business press reflected the strong economy, much of mainstream media coverage of employment did not. The reporting under Clinton was overwhelmingly positive. For Bush, it was overwhelmingly negative. Eighty-five percent of the stories portrayed the economy under Clinton in a good light. Only 13 percent of the stories gave the employment situation under Bush the same treatment. Many in the media commenting about employment and job growth during the Bush reelection campaign tell the whole story. They used terms like ``poor,'' ``stalled,'' ``struggling,'' or ``lackluster.'' Comments during the similar time period during the Clinton presidency were the exact opposite. Many in the media instead used terms like ``showing its muscle,'' ``encouraging,'' ``surprisingly strong'' and ``impressive, but not excessive.'' I have come to the floor many times and talked about, again, the importance of language in our country. To everybody, actually, language is very important, and in many ways, we are not as precise with our language in this country as some other languages are, but I think it is important that we point out the bias that occurs in much of our media about what is happening in the economy. It is one of the reasons why the Truth Squad has been so concerned about getting out the truth. We realized that we have challenges presented to us. Not only do our colleagues misrepresent the facts, but we have many in the media where a lot of Americans get their information about the economy and form their opinions are being presented negative kind of information. Now, I want to give a couple of more charts to show some other positive things that are occurring in the economy that have been put together by members of the Truth Squad. Since the President signed the Jobs and Growth Act in May 2003, this is an example of how the GDP has gone up. Again, that is a result of our having cut taxes, letting people keep more of their money. It works to cut taxes. Again, if you listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would think that cutting taxes is the beginning of Armageddon, but cutting taxes is what helps make this economy grow. If the government has your money to spend, it is not investing it. It is spending the money. It is not an investment. People do the investments in the private sector, not in the government. Again, this chart shows when the President signed the Jobs and Growth Act and what happened with unemployment. We see unemployment going down. We see job growth going up and going up significantly. This is not a small little line going up here. This is major in terms of what we have seen, the job growth, in this country since we cut taxes, and I am really proud that Republicans have understood that and voted this week to extend many of those tax cuts. What we need to do now is to work to get the death tax made permanent. We heard a lot from businesspeople this week about that. They can then plan their lives, plan for investments, plan to know what they are going to be able to do, so that businesses can stay in the families. That is one of the biggest challenges still facing us, and if we can get the Senate to understand more about economics and what that means to us, then hopefully we will make that permanent. Now, let me give you a couple of other charts. Again, we can tie this very directly to the Jobs and Growth Act, and you can see how that spurred business investment and how that went up. This is before President Bush came into office. You can see that the economy was beginning to slow down, and then, of course, we had 9/11 and we saw investments go down. Once we got the tax cuts made, we see investment going up, and that is what we needed to do in this country to get the economy growing. The last one shows revenue growth and what we project revenue growth to be in the next 5 years. We expect it to grow at the rate of 5.3 percent in the next 5 years. The President has promised that he would cut the deficit in half by 2009, and we think we can do even better than that, especially with the revenue that came in last month, the second highest amount in the history of this country. So cutting taxes spurs growth in the economy. That is the economic lesson here, and it is the facts. We can point to it. We can see it, and I think it is, again, very, very unfortunate that it is so difficult to get that message out to the American people, but I can promise you that there is a group of us that is going to continue to do that, despite the fact that our colleagues are always shouting gloom and doom and the fact that many in the media do not want you to know that there are a lot of positive things happening in this country and many of them are related to the tax cuts that the Republicans have put into place.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Kansas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Davis amendment. Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing, nurturing and saving lives, should not be forced into the business of ending lives. This amendment, plain and simple, turns these facilities into abortion clinics by repealing a prolife provision, a prolife provision which was signed into law by President Clinton as part of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1996. This amendment contradicts fundamental U.S. military values such as honor, courage and taking responsibility for one's own actions. We believe that life begins at conception and that it is sacred. As Members of Congress, we should do all we can to protect life. That is what our military hospitals are doing. Instead, while we stand here today, opportunist pro-abortion Members are once again belittling and devaluing the sanctity of human life. If this inappropriate amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayers' hard-earned dollars be used to perform abortions on demand on our military bases, but our military medical personnel would be forced to perform abortions against their will. Instead of equipping our armed services personnel with the tools needed to operate and treat wounded or ill troops and defend America, this amendment would mandate that our military personnel perform abortions and kill human fetuses. This is unacceptable. This amendment must be rejected today, just as it has been in the past five Congresses. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting human life by voting against the Davis amendment.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you can't say the Democrats haven't tried their hardest. When it comes to the Medicare prescription drug benefit, they have complained, criticized and have held town hall meetings to encourage seniors not to sign up. Luckily for America's seniors, they have decided to listen to the facts instead of the negative spin. Recently the Department of Health and Human Services reported that more than 30 million Medicare beneficiaries are now getting coverage and saving money on their prescription drugs. This surpasses their expectations of 28 to 30 million enrollees in the first year. I suppose adding to the Democrats' frustration are recent polls showing broad support for the new benefit, as well as amazing success stories of seniors who are now reaping big savings in their prescription drug costs. For example, a recent AARP poll revealed that nearly 8 in 10, that is nearly 78 percent of those enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan, say the new benefit is either meeting or exceeding their expectations. Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the Democrats put as much effort into encouraging, rather than discouraging seniors, we would have enrolled 30 million much sooner.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored to be here today. I am honored because the mere consideration of this bill represents the greatness of our Republican democracy. At this time 2 years ago, I dreamed of coming before this House and working for the people of the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina. Here I am today promoting a bill I wrote to help those very constituents who deserve it the most. Just over a year ago, the family of Army Specialist Michael Hensley from my district in Clemmons, North Carolina, contacted me with a problem that his son and many of our other brave soldiers are facing. Specialist Hensley wanted to do the responsible thing by making the maximum allowable contribution to his individual retirement account, but found out that because of the nature of his wages, he would not be able to contribute to his nest egg this year. Thanks to the Republican leadership of this House, we stand here this afternoon to solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, our current Tax Code wrongfully prohibits many of our brave men and women serving in combat zones from taking advantage of individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. Most soldiers serving in these combat zones are paid in wages designated as military hazard pay. As deployment times have grown longer and longer, many soldiers now serve entire calendar years overseas, making their yearly compensation consist of hazard pay exclusively. These wages are not taxed, nor should they be. However, since this compensation is nontaxable, the wages are not eligible for IRA contributions. That is entirely unfair. As we all know, IRAs are an excellent tool for responsible retirement savings, and responsible retirement savings should be encouraged for everyone, but especially for those who take up arms in war zones and fight for our freedom. The men and women defending America in harm's way overseas should not be excluded from fully participating in the important retirement investment opportunity that IRAs provide because of a glitch in our Tax Code. H.R. 1499, the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities, or HERO Act, will correct this serious injustice. The HERO Act simply designates combat hazard pay earned by a member of the Armed Forces as eligible for contribution to retirement accounts. The legislation, which is endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association and the Military Officers Association of America, would not actually tax these wages. It would merely allow them to be invested in the same retirement accounts available to all Americans. To quote the Military Officers Association of America in their letter of support for the bill: ``This change makes perfect sense in view of all we are asking our servicemembers to do in the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.'' I could not have said it better myself. Mr. Speaker, our heroes defending America overseas certainly deserve the same access to retirement savings that we receive. In fact, we should be encouraging and even facilitating retirement savings whenever possible. Americans need to take responsibility for and control of their retirement. Those responsible enough to save their hard-earned wages should be rewarded, not burdened with taxes and regulations. I would like to thank our Republican majority leader, John Boehner, as well as Chairman Bill Thomas, for recognizing the importance of this bill and for expeditiously bringing it to the floor of this House. I would also like to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter for his service to our Nation in Vietnam, for his excellent leadership on the House Armed Services Committee and for cosponsoring and supporting this great bill. His commitment to our troops is to be applauded. Lastly, I would like to thank Congressman Sam Johnson for his 29 years of service to our Nation and for his cosponsorship of this bill and his assistance in the Ways and Means Committee to bring the bill to the floor of the House. Congressman Johnson is a true hero, having served as a prisoner of war. It is an honor to have him as a cosponsor and to have had his strong support throughout the effort to get this bill passed. I urge all my colleagues to help right this fundamental wrong by voting for this straightforward, commonsense legislation.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1499, the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act. I introduced this bill after learning our current Tax Code prohibits many of our men and women serving in combat zones from taking advantage of individual retirement accounts. Most of our troops serving in these combat zones are paid in wages designated as military hazard pay. These wages are not taxed, nor should they be. However, since this compensation is nontaxable, the wages are not eligible for IRA contributions. IRAs are an excellent tool for responsible retirement savings. Our troops defending America in harm's way should not be excluded from full participation in this important investment opportunity because of a glitch in our Tax Code. The HERO Act will correct this glitch by designating combat hazard pay earned by members of the Armed Forces as eligible for contribution to retirement accounts. This bill has been endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association and the MOAA. I encourage my colleagues to support this important bill this afternoon and give our troops the opportunity they deserve to save for their future.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am a very, very proud cosponsor of H.R. 3499. I served for 12 years on a school board in Wataugwa County in North Carolina and often felt very oppressed by Federal rules and regulations. When I was on the school board, and even after that, I have checked and double-checked and about 7 percent of the money that North Carolina schools get comes from the Federal Government, but about 99 percent of the rules and regulations that come into the school system come from the Federal Government. I think passing H.R. 3499 would be one of the best things this Congress or any Congress could do. It would force State legislatures and thereby force school boards and county commissioners to make a decision as to whether or not they want to take the Federal money and the rules and regulations that go along with it. It would take us out of the business of saying that they have to do this. I think that it is high time that we change the way we do business between the Federal Government and the State governments. I want to just remind us, and my colleague has paraphrased the words of the Constitution, but I do not think that we can repeat the Constitution too often. I know there are a lot of young people in the audience and some not so young people in the gallery today. I hope you will take the time to read your Constitution at least once a year, and probably more often than that. I want to read the preamble because my colleague from Texas keeps mentioning the first three words, ``we the people.'' That is extremely important. I am so proud that my grandson recently has memorized this. He is only in the third grade, but I am so pleased that his teacher has encouraged that. This is what the preamble says: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Now there are lots of important words. Every word in this Constitution is important. Every single word is important, and the Framers were extremely careful about how they wrote the Constitution. But the important words to me in terms of the 10th amendment are ``provide for the common defense.'' That is the number one goal and the number one role of the Federal Government. That is what we are here for, to provide for the common defense. It is our job to make sure that this country stays free. If we do that, everything else will fall into place. Now, what the 10th amendment says is the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Now I am not reading anything in between and I am not reading afterwards, but you will not find that the Constitution gave any power to the Federal Government for education. There is no role for the Federal Government in education except as has been alluded to, to make sure that we take care of persons who are disabled, and some people might even argue with that issue. But I think it is extremely important that we return to the way it used to be in this country and that is localities were very much in charge and in power regarding what happens with education. I am a person who came up through the public education system, as poor as any person you can imagine, but I got an excellent education. There was not unlimited dollars there when I came through school, but I got a good education. It is my contention that part of the problem with our educational system is we have too much Federal Government intervention. We need extremely high-quality education in this country if we are going to compete with the rest of the world, and we are competing with the rest of the world. And I believe we can do a great deal to restore high- quality education at the local level if we get the Federal Government out of education at the Federal level, or we insist that the States and the localities make not just conscious decisions to take the Federal money but very deliberate decisions to take Federal money. I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) for introducing this bill and for allowing me to sign on as a cosponsor and say we need to pass H.R. 3499.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, when it comes to our economy, denial is alive and well on the other side of the aisle. The Commerce Department reported Friday that the economy grew at 4.8 percent in the first quarter of 2006. This is the fastest pace in more than 2 years, and the economy has now grown for 18 straight quarters. The Conference Board's Index of Consumer Confidence also increased to the highest level since May, 2002. These reports indicate that the great news of our thriving economy has reached the American people. Despite the efforts of House Democrats to paint a gloomy picture, Americans are spending their money and thoroughly enjoying the success of our economic boom. Not only is our economy growing at a record pace, but in the past year the number of first-time jobless claims has fallen 6.5 percent, while the number of continuing claims is down 8 percent. Jobs were created in 48 States between March, 2005, and March, 2006, while jobless rates were down in 43 States. Madam Speaker, the good economic news is flowing in like a river, and it will continue as long as we pursue Republican pro-growth tax policies. And as hard as Democrats try, they just can't deny that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Whiteheart, for being named the 2006 ``Small Business Champion'' for North Carolina by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB. Mr. Whiteheart is the owner of Whiteheart Outdoor Advertising in Lewisville, North Carolina. He is also a Forsyth County Commissioner, a cattle farmer, a real estate broker, and the owner of several other successful companies including Tobacco Transport, Atlantic Storage Trailer Rental Company, Yadkin Valley Traders, Incorporated, and TFG Turf. Mr. Whiteheart is a successful small businessman who has given a great deal back to his community through his work in organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the Lewisville Civic Club. He is an outstanding role model for other entrepreneurs in our State and is a great spokesperson for small business issues. Mr. Whiteheart serves as the chairman of NFIB's North Carolina Leadership Council and helps the organization to support and recruit pro-small business candidates. The National Federation of Independent Business is North Carolina and the Nation's largest small business advocacy group. It is quite an honor for Mr. Whiteheart to be named ``Small Business Champion'' by this outstanding organization, and I congratulate him for his achievements.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in country line dancing there is a dance called the two-step. When it comes to energy policy, the Democrats have come up with their own dance, the four-step. Here is how it goes: First, Democrats do not acknowledge the supply component in the supply and demand principle of economics. When confronted with solutions to the supply problem, Democrats always vote ``no'' and drive up prices. Step two for Democrats is to scream about the evil of SUVs, even though they may be driven around in one. Step three for Democrats is to call for investigations, point fingers, call for investment in R&D that already exists, and say that if it weren't for those darn Republicans, we could get off oil tomorrow. Finally, step four for Democrats is repeating steps one, two and three until voters and the media stop paying attention. Mr. Speaker, if this sounds familiar, it should. Since President Clinton vetoed ANWR in 1995, Democrats have performed this dance when it comes to increasing our energy supply. But with gas reaching $3 a gallon, Democrats need to retire it and learn a new dance, but they should try to learn one that will actually increase our oil supply.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4995, offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), would designate the post office building in Tuckahoe, New York, as the ``Ronald Bucca Post Office.'' Ronald Bucca was nicknamed the ``Flying Fireman'' in 1986 after he fell spectacularly from a tenement fire escape, spun around a cable strung through a backyard, and lived to tell the tale. His specialty was rescuing frightened people from the smoke and flames of burning buildings during his 23 years as a firefighter. His last 9 years of service he acted as the fire marshal. He was also a former nurse and reservist in the United States Army Special Forces. Bucca was trained as an antiterrorist intelligence expert. And on September 11, 2001, Ronald Bucca responded to his call to duty and headed into the city toward the Twin Towers. In his quest to assist all those trying to flee the fiery scene that day, he lost his life on the 78th floor when the South Tower collapsed in flames. A valuable member of the fire department and the community, Ronald Bucca is sorely missed; and it is only appropriate that we honor him by passing H.R. 4995. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate my dear friend, Mr. C. Richard Vaughn of Mount Airy, North Carolina, for being awarded the 2006 Distinguished Citizen Award from the Old Hickory Council of Boy Scouts of America. This prestigious honor is given annually to one individual from Northwestern North Carolina who best exemplifies the ideals of scouting through contributions to community, State and country. In receiving this award, Richard joins an impressive fraternity of past recipients, including Senators Jesse Helms and Richard Burr. I have had the honor and privilege of knowing Richard for the past 12 years and can honestly say that there are very few people as deserving of this award as he is. Richard is a true asset to the State of North Carolina and the Town of Mount Airy. The driving force in his life is a strong desire to serve others and make his community a better place. Richard has truly exemplified the principles of Boy Scouting throughout his life from the time he was a young Eagle Scout. He has served our Nation as a First Lieutenant in the United States Army and has remained incredibly active in community and civic affairs throughout his adult life. He serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Central United Methodist Church in Mount Airy, as past president of the Mount Airy Museum of Regional History, as past president of the North Carolina State Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity, as past vice president of the United Fund of the Greater Mount Airy Chamber of Commerce, as president of the Reeves YMCA Community Center, as chairman of the Mount Airy Board of Education, as an executive committee member of the Old Hickory Council of Boy Scouts of America, and as the former Scoutmaster of Troop 596 of Mount Airy. He has also served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Granite Corporation, Chairman of Riverside Building Supply, Incorporated, and on the Board of Directors of Insteel Industries and United Plastics Corporation. He also serves on the Board of Trustees for North Carolina State University and is a past member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation and a past member of the Board of the North Carolina State Ports Authority. Richard attended North Carolina State University where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear engineering. Upon graduating, he served in the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps from 1961 to 1964. Afterward, he returned to Mount Airy and started working for his former Scoutmaster, Mr. John S. Clark, at the John S. Clark Construction Company. Richard has thrived in his nearly 40-year career at John S. Clark and has contributed greatly to the company's impressive growth and success. Now Richard serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the company. Mr. Speaker, Richard Vaughn has contributed greatly to his hometown, his State and his country, both civically and professionally. Richard and his lovely wife, Betty Kay, have also been excellent role models for their children and grandchildren. I commend him for his commitment to service and congratulate him for receiving the 2006 Distinguished Citizen Award.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hensarling for yielding. We all owe him a great debt for the work that he does in getting us this kind of information about what is happening with the budget. He has been a tremendous leader not just in the Republican Study Committee, where we talk about these things a great deal, but here on the floor, bringing the attention of the American people as well as the Members of Congress to these issues. I say over and over again, when I get a chance to do so in small groups and in large groups, that what we have to refocus on in this Congress is the role of the Congress and the role of the Federal Government. What has happened in this country is we have allowed the Federal Government to get its tentacles into all kinds of issues that it has no business being in. The Founders of this country were very, very concerned about the role of the Federal Government and wanted to keep a weak Federal Government and strong State governments. It made sense to do that. One of the ways that they did that was to spell out clearly what the responsibilities of the Federal Government would be and then say everything not mentioned here remains with the States. That is the 10th amendment of the Constitution. And we do not pay enough attention to that amendment, I think, on a day-to-day basis in this body; and we need to be doing that because we have gotten involved in things we should not be involved in. The number one role of the Federal Government is to provide for the defense of this country. However, what has happened is that over time Members of the Congress and the executive branch have decided that we should be like Santa Claus to the country and we should get involved in many, many other kinds of programs. We are very much involved in education. We are very much involved in health care through Medicare and Medicaid. We have the Social Security program, which is, I think, a cruel hoax on the American people. We have told the American people that we will provide for their retirement through the Social Security program; and as my colleague, Mr. Hensarling, has pointed out, we keep getting sobering information about the requirements we have established for ourselves and what mechanisms we have for taking care of those requirements. We have created, in the lexicon of our government, some terms that we need to get out of our lexicon. The word ``entitlement'' is something that is used a great deal. There is no such thing as an entitlement from the Federal Government, but we have created that over the years by our interest in creating power for ourselves here in the Congress. And it is a very insidious thing that has happened, which we need to do something about. We also talk all the time about mandatory spending. Mandatory spending is talked about in terms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are programs that are put on automatic pilot, and nobody ever deals with them. Oh, every year somebody comes up with a study such as Congressman Hensarling mentioned, and then people get nervous and then they stop talking about it. Our colleagues on the other side talk all the time about the deficit. But day after day after day, they talk about both the deficit and then how we are not spending enough money on various programs. We cannot have it both ways, but yet we continue to try to have it both ways, and we have tried to convince the American people that we can have it both ways. But we cannot do that. There is a big difference. The difference is that the folks on the other side think they know how to spend your money better than you know how to spend your money. Republicans have the opposite opinion. They think that you know how to spend your money better than the government knows how to spend your money. And to do that, we have made tax cuts in the last few years. I was not here when the major tax cut was made in 2001, but it is really responsible for why our economy is growing as well as it is growing. We have these terrible situations looming out there on the horizon, but the economy right now is doing well, and it is a direct result of the tax cuts, letting the people keep more money in their pockets. Frankly, we have got to do more of that. We have got to cut back on Federal spending. We have got to get the Federal Government out of many of the programs that it is involved in and set some priorities. Our number one priority has to be the defense of this Nation because State governments cannot do that and local governments cannot do that. We have to do that at the Federal level. That is our number one priority. Then if we have funds to do other things, we must set our priorities based on what are the proper roles of the Federal government. Frankly, those roles are very narrow. We have to get back to a situation where we examine every program that we fund in the Federal government against those priorities and against what is outlined in the Constitution for us to do. I am really proud again to be a small part of this presentation tonight where my colleagues are going to present the facts about where we stand with the budget and what we need to do to get our fiscal house in order in this country. We have seen socialism fail in Europe and in other countries. We know it doesn't work, and yet there are people in this country who think we can keep spending without regard to ever having to come to account for that spending. I am happy to tell you tonight you are going to understand some of the things that we are doing that are creating our problems and what we might do in this country to solve this problem of overspending and get ourselves back on track that will lead to economic healthiness, instead of economic sickness in this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4811, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), would designate the post office building in Harrison, Arkansas, as the John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building. Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt represented the Third District of Arkansas in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 90th Congress through the 102nd Congress. He was elected to 13 terms and served 26 years during the administrations of six Presidents. During his years in Congress, John Paul Hammerschmidt became known for his attention to individual constituent service and communication, his high voting and attendance record during congressional sessions during the business week, and routinely working weekends in Arkansas. Also, his legislative expertise in highways, airports, water supply and distribution systems, as well as veterans hospitals, will continue to benefit from his diligent stewardship long into the future. Since retiring from Congress, Hammerschmidt has continued to participate in Arkansas civil involvements as a private citizen, chairing the Northwest Arkansas Council and March of Dimes Arkansas Citizen of the Year Dinner. Because of his dedication to government at all levels, I ask all Members to honor his integrity and perseverance by passing H.R. 4811. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.