Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, along with the rising gas prices over the last few weeks, we have also seen the rise of Democratic demagoguery. For the moment, though, I would like the Democrats to put aside this demagoguery and answer a simple question: What have you done to help lower gas prices? I know that House Republicans have been working hard to lower the cost of gasoline over the mid- and long term. We have passed the Gasoline for America's Security Act which increases U.S. fuel supply by encouraging new refineries, bans price gouging, promotes conservation. House Republicans have also passed the Energy Policy Act which allows new domestic oil and gas exploration and development, increases conservation, and embraces new fuel choices. That is what the Republicans have done. The Democrats, on the other hand, have opposed building new refineries, have opposed drilling in ANWR and, in fact, voted against both of these bills. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have worked hard to address America's energy needs. And the Democrats? Well, I think we have our answer. They have not done much.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the Democrats sure do like to have their cake and eat it, too. Over and over again they complain about something, then turn right around and oppose any commonsense solutions offered by Republicans. Democrats whine about our deficit, but vote against slowing the growth of spending. They complain about our President's plan in Iraq, but they offer no alternatives. They say we need to increase border security, yet vote against the bills that would do just that. The list goes on and on. The Democrats' latest case of hypocrisy: they hold a press conference, complain about our rising energy prices, even though their actions have contributed directly to the problem. For a party that claims it is looking out for the best interests of the American people, it has a funny way of showing it. For decades the Democrats have fought to stop production of all forms of energy. They voted against increasing domestic energy supplies, which would not only lower prices, but create more jobs here at home. The Democrats have opposed Republican efforts to lessen the tax burden at the pump. They have opposed nuclear energy and renewable fuels. They have opposed cracking down on price gouging. Madam Speaker, Republicans have been working hard to address rising energy prices, yet all the Democrats do is vote ``no.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Price. I appreciate very much again your leadership in bringing the information from the Truth Squad here to the floor of the House and am pleased to join you and Congresswoman Blackburn tonight to talk about energy prices. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats sure do like to have their cake and eat it too. Over and over again they complain about something and then turn right around and oppose any commonsense solutions offered by Republicans. I think you have done a good job of talking about some of the issues related to the high price of gasoline. None of us likes to pay a high price for gasoline, and those of us who are Members of Congress who have large districts probably are affected by it as much as a lot of the average Americans are because of our ability to get out in the districts and travel and visit with our constituents. But Democrats have a way of talking about things and doing something differently. They are giving us a hard time now about the high price of gasoline. They talk about the deficit, they whine about the deficit, but they vote against slowing the growth of spending. They complain about the President's plan in Iraq, but they offer no alternatives. They say we need to increase border security, but they vote against the bills that would do just that. The list goes on and on. The Democrats' latest case of hypocrisy is that they hold a press conference to complain about our rising energy prices, even though their actions have contributed directly to the problem. For a party that claims it is looking out for the best interests of the American people, it has a funny way of showing it. For decades the Democrats have fought to stop production of all forms of energy. They voted against increasing domestic energy supplies, which would not only lower prices but create more jobs here at home. They have opposed Republican efforts to lessen the tax burden at the pump. They have opposed nuclear energy and renewable fuels. They have opposed cracking down on price gouging. Republicans have been working hard, Mr. Speaker, to address rising energy prices, but all the Democrats do is vote ``no,'' and we don't think that ``no'' is an energy policy. Democrats have traditionally, again, and consistently opposed all GOP efforts to increase domestic energy production. For nearly three decades environmental extremists and their liberal allies in Congress have fought to halt production of all forms of energy. In fact, Democrat obstructionists have repeatedly voted against Republican efforts to increase domestic supply, encourage innovation and technology advancement, and lower the tax burden Americans pay at the pump. Let me talk a little bit about the specifics on that. Five times Democrats have had a chance to vote for comprehensive energy reform for programs to expand the use of nuclear energy and renewable fuels, and five times they said no. And this is just in recent years. July 25, 2005, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on agreeing to the conference report. It passed the House by a recorded vote of 275- 256, but 124 Democrats voted ``no.'' June 15, 2004, H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act of 2004, on passage, 152 Democrats voted ``no.'' It passed by 244-178. November 18, 2003, H.R. 6, Energy Conservation Research and Development, on agreeing to the conference report, 154 Democrats voted ``no.'' So they have consistently voted ``no'' on issues that would help us increase the energy supply. We think that folks need to ask the minority leader some questions about rising gas prices and her record on that, and the Democrats' record on it. They have fashioned an abysmal record on energy issues that are important to the American public, yet now they have the temerity to complain about the strain of rising gas prices. Here are some questions that need to be asked. In the face of rising gas prices for working families, why have you and your Capitol Hill Democrats consistently opposed measures designed to increase the supply of American energy? With world energy prices rising because of increased demand, why did 124 of your House Democrats vote against the energy bill in 2005 to encourage the expansion of clean nuclear energy supplies? Question number three that could be asked: In the face of rising gas prices for Americans, why did 196 of your House Democrats vote against the 2005 energy bill that would have streamlined the process of refinery expansion and construction that is so critical to the future of America's energy infrastructure? Question number four: With gas prices for working Americans on the rise, why do you oppose major labor organizations, such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who actively petitioned the Congress to increase domestic energy supplies to create jobs for their workers? And last but not least, the fifth question: In the face of rising gas prices for working families, why do you and the Democrats continue to vote ``no'' on every responsible proposal that would put Americans to work producing more of our own American energy to lower prices? Again, the Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to talk about the problem and put it off on us, but they want to avoid coming up with a way to solve the problem. We need to ask these questions of the Democrats and put them on the spot about why gas prices are so high. They are responsible for it, because they have refused to allow us to come up with ways to provide alternative energy. I hope Americans will write their Members of Congress, particularly the Democrats, and say to them: Why are you doing this? Why do you want gas prices to be so high and hurt working Americans? Congressman Price, I think I am going to let you tidy up this session, since you have done such a great job of it, and thank you for letting me be a part of it.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, last week House Republicans hosted over 200 Medicare part D events across the country to educate seniors on this new prescription drug plan and to help them enroll. I hosted two successful Medicare part D enrollment workshops in North Carolina's Fifth Congressional District and was pleased to help many of my constituents sign up to get coverage and save money on their prescriptions. This is a program that is working for most seniors, and early problems are quickly being corrected. Recently the Washington Post and ABC News reported that of the 30 million-plus seniors who have already enrolled, three-quarters said that the paperwork was easy to complete, and nearly two-thirds say that Medicare part D saved them money. It is important for seniors interested in this program to enroll by May 15. Seniors do not have to be experts on Medicare to enroll. They can simply call 1-800-MEDICARE or visit medicare.gov for information and personalized assistance. These resources are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If Medicare part D can help you or your loved ones, don't miss this opportunity.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize and congratulate Miss Kelly Nicole Bryant for being selected to represent the State of North Carolina in the 2006 National Cherry Blossom Festival. Kelly has strong ties to North Carolina's Fifth District, as she is the granddaughter of Juanita Bryant and the late Frank Bryant of Boonville. Kelly has already represented our state at the festival's traditional Japanese lantern lighting ceremony. She has attended several embassy parties and has toured the White House and Kennedy Center. Tonight, I am looking forward to meeting Kelly at the National Cherry Blossom Congressional Reception. I wish her well for the remainder of her stay in Washington. On Saturday she will represent North Carolina in the National Cherry Blossom Parade. Kelly is a junior at East Carolina University, where she is majoring in Political Science and minoring in history. She is on the Dean's List and is a Member of the National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Kelly has made a positive difference in her community by volunteering for the Exploris Museum, Habitat for Humanity, Relay for Life and the Race for the Cure. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Miss Kelly Bryant for being an outstanding representative for the State of North Carolina.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our national security depends on strong border security. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what they are doing here. Without properly securing our borders, we are vulnerable to terrorists and others who may come here seeking to harm Americans. And nothing is more important than maintaining the safety and security of our citizens. I am proud of House Republicans for taking the lead in finding solutions to this very serious problem. Last year my Republican colleagues and I passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act. Republicans also passed the REAL ID Act, which would establish rigorous proof of identity requirements for driver's licenses and ID cards in order to help keep terrorists from having easy access to fraudulent IDs like they had on 9/11. Now, the Democrats apparently have a newfound commitment to increasing our border security. That is great, but the American people sure could have used their support when the House was taking up these border security bills last year: 164 Democrats voted ``no'' to the Border Security Act, and 152 voted ``no'' to the REAL ID Act. Actions sure do speak louder than words.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware that I am the only thing standing between everybody going home tonight, so while I have 30 minutes, I am not sure that I am going to use all of them. But I have been listening to some of the things being said tonight. I listened to them last week when I was in the Chair. And I get pretty wrought up about some of those things. And so I am going to talk a little bit about some of the comments that have been made tonight and present some facts. Now, I don't have tonight with me our great poster that says ``The Truth Squad''. But I am going to leave this white chart up here for just a few minutes. So imagine that that says on it ``The Truth Squad''. I couldn't find the poster tonight. I am sort of filling in for someone else tonight. But I want to say that, you know, I am a rather plainspoken person. I come from the mountains of North Carolina and generally am known as pretty plainspoken. And tonight, when I was listening to some of the rhetoric that was going on over here, I thought, one of the first things I want to say, if you believe that the Democrats will do a better job of providing for national security, then I have got some swamp land in New Mexico for sale for a great price for you. I have not been a big watcher of C-SPAN before I came to the House of Representatives. I know we have got a lot of great folks who watch it, and I am grateful to you for doing that. But my guess is that there have been more untruths told in this Chamber in the past 15 months than maybe any other period of time in the history of this country. I have been watching it and I know other people have been too. That is what caused us to form the Truth Squad so that we could come out and set the facts straight. I get very concerned when people play fast and loose with the truth and particularly when they play fast and loose with talking about national security. You see, I take that very, very seriously; and I think most of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do too. The role of the Federal Government is to provide for the national security of this Nation. We were savagely attacked on 9/11, and we have responded to that, I think, in an appropriate way. These are people that hate us, that hate our way of life, and that want to take us back to the 5th century and have us live the way they live. I do not think the American people want to do that. I think the American people love their freedom and want to maintain that freedom, and we are interested in helping other people gain their freedom. What I am curious about, the Democrats get up here and say, We could provide better for the national security. I just have a couple of questions to ask them: Where were they and their President when the World Trade Center was first hit? Where were they and their President when we got hit several other times and we could have had a response to that? My guess is if we had had a Democratic President when we were facing 9/11, we would still be negotiating at the U.N. somewhere and pretty soon we would be losing our freedoms in this country. I do get a little upset about it. I think that they are absolutely ridiculous in the things that they say about how they would keep us safer than the Republicans have kept us safe. We are in a terrible time. We did not ask for the war. We are not imperialistic people, but we know how to protect ourselves when we are attacked, and we are going to continue to do that. The Democrats are Johnny-come-latelies on all of this stuff. They know that the American people see the Republican Party as the party that will protect us and protect our freedoms, and that is the number one role of the Federal Government and that is where our money should be spent. So I am very happy for us to be doing our job when it comes to national security. And we are going to be working on all of those things. Our budget will address that. Our budget has addressed that, and we will continue to do that. I want to make another comment to sort of clear up the facts tonight, comments made about the fact that we did not pass President Bush's budget today and somehow or another that is terrible. Well, we have never passed President Bush's budget, and there is no intention of passing President Bush's budget now. The President does submit a budget. The Constitution requires him to do so. However, it is the Congress's responsibility to take that budget and to look at what is proposed and then to come up with our own budget. And we will do that. But to be so duplicitous as to say that we are going to rubber-stamp the President's budget is just unbelievable to me. To talk about cutting student loans, as my colleague says here all the time, Representative Price of Georgia, you can have your opinions, but you cannot make up the facts. And there is no way that you can distort the facts in what we have done for the education budget and particularly the higher education budget. They talk all the time about what they would do, what they would do, what they would do. Well, I want to show you what they would have done had we let the Democrats have their way in Appropriations Committee meetings and in Budget Committee meetings. I am going to turn this chart around now. For all their rhetoric about cutting spending and doing something about the deficit, during the markup of the budget, they proposed new spending of $26.9 billion and new taxes of $19.3 billion. How much savings? Zero. Now, they can get up on the floor of the House and they can say lots of things, but when we bring out the facts, the comments that they make just do not hold true. They think people are just going to ignore what they really do and believe what they say. I said this the other night: our motto in the State of North Carolina is to be, rather than to seem. Some day I am going to figure out a clever way to show how the Democrats want to seem, rather than to be, instead of reversing that. But that is what they want to do. They want the American people to believe that what they are saying is true when they live a totally different kind of life-style. And I think it is very important that every time this happens that we respond to it. It is very, very important that we do that and not let them get by with it. I want to say a couple of things about the effect of what we have done in terms of cutting taxes. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats think they know how to spend your money better than you do and the Republicans think that the American people know how to spend their money better than the Federal Government knows how to spend it. So we want the American people to keep more of their money than they have been. So the Republicans instituted tax cuts, and what we have done is we see that tax receipts rebound with record increases based on tax cuts. They want you to believe that all the ills of the world have come as a result of tax cuts. Well, the good things that have happened in this economy, most of them have come as a result of our having cut taxes. We want to let you keep your money in your pocket and spend it the way you want to and not turn it over to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who waste a lot of it and then spend a little bit of it maybe on some good things. That is not the way it ought to be. We want you to keep your money. Let me show one other chart here that I have to talk about the projected growth of revenue and what will happen. We need to make the tax cuts that were instituted permanent, and that is one of the things that we need to be able to do so that we can keep this economy going in the right direction. And this is what will happen with tax relief made permanent. And, yes, indeed, we can cut the deficit in half by 2009, which is when the President said that it would be cut in half, and there is another chart over there to show that. They just very, very cavalierly leave out certain things when they are talking, like the President said that the deficit would be cut in half. The President did not say the deficit would be cut in half this year. He said very clearly in 2009. And it will be if we can make the tax cuts permanent. The biggest fight we are having around here is how do we make those tax cuts permanent and keep that money in your pocket instead of putting it into the hands of people who will not spend it nearly as well as you do. And you notice again that the Democrats are very, very selective in the things that they tell you in terms of their own actions and the things that they have done. They are fond of quoting third sources, and I want to quote something for you too tonight that you probably will not hear about in the mainstream media, the best friend of the Democrats. But Roll Call, one of the local newspapers here in town that is read primarily inside the Beltway, April 6, states: ``House Democrats have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds over the past several years on the party's annual retreats. Democrats have used official money to pay for a portion of their retreats for at least a decade. And a review of disbursement reports from the chief administrative officer shows that the House Democratic Caucus has spent more than $200,000 directly out of the caucus's official budget since 2003 on chartered jets, rented buses, entertainers, brochures, staff travel, and a host of other retreat expenses.'' These are not allowed. The Republicans do not do that. We pay for our retreats ourselves. But you are never going to hear this again from the mainstream media because they do not want you to know about the way Democrats abuse taxpayer funds. I want to talk just a little bit tonight about some of the good and great things that have been done in this session of the Congress. It is the ``do big things Congress.'' The Democrats would like you to believe that we have not accomplished a great deal. They are focused tonight on the budget. We did not get the budget passed. Well, we do not have any deadline for doing that until the end of the session, actually. But we set ourselves to task at doing that, and we will do that. And it will be a good budget when we do it, and it will cut spending, which is what we need to be doing. And it will rein in some of the spending that is on automatic pilot because programs set up under Democratic administrations are difficult to cut back. We passed the energy bill, H.R. 6, which brings America's energy system into the 21st century, signed into law by the President. We passed the highway bill, which creates millions of new jobs and improves public transportation and highways and other things all across the country, public law. We passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which provides $39.732 billion in savings by reforming the government, reducing the deficit, and renewing our commitment to hardworking American taxpayers. How many Democrats voted for reducing the deficit? Zero. None of them. They can stand up here again and talk all they want, but they have got to walk the walk. And when it comes to that, they just do not do it. We have passed liability reform, several liability reform bills. We have passed class action reform legislation to reduce frivolous lawsuits, to reduce all this money going into the hands of the trial lawyers. We have passed a Combat Meth Act. Methamphetamines are a terrible scourge on our country, and we are doing something about that. We passed the PATRIOT Act, again, something that we need to do to protect Americans, to allow our government to do proper investigations of the people who may be harming us. What did the Democrats do? They bragged that they killed it. We passed a United Nations Reform Act in the House with very little support from Democrats. We are mandating budget oversight, accountability, and ethics into U.N. reforms. You do not hear that coming out of the Democrats. We passed the Health Act, making positive changes to the health care liability system. We have extended the death tax repeal permanently. Help from the Democrats, very little. We passed the Tax Relief Extension Act. We are going to extend the tax provisions expiring in 2005. No Democrats helping with that. We passed the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, enhancing the workforce investment system of the Nation. We have passed lots and lots of bills. We passed in December the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. Any help from the Democrats? No. We are working hard to protect the American people in the way that they should be protected. And one of the ways that we need to be doing that is to be reducing the spending of the Federal Government and reducing the burden on hardworking Americans. We also need to make sure that we maintain our freedom so that we can do all the other things that we want to do. That is what the Republicans are doing. What you hear out of the Democrats is a lot of empty rhetoric, and I am afraid that it just won't wash anymore, because the Truth Squad is going to be around all the time calling their hand on the things that they are saying that are simply not true.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that affects millions of Americans-affordable medications. Millions of Americans lack health insurance and cannot access these vital innovations. While the government looks for sensible ways to help the 45 million uninsured citizens there are private-sector programs in place that are helping millions of Americans no matter where you live. One program I have shared with my constituents is the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA). The PPA is a national clearinghouse that links uninsured and underinsured people to patient assistant programs that offer drugs for free or nearly free. America's pharmaceutical research companies, along with 1,300 community and patient organizations launched the PPA in April 2005 and have since helped more than 1.9 million patients. Given the rising cost of prescription drugs, any attempts made by the private sector to alleviate the burdensome costs should be applauded. It is refreshing that this private-sector program has been so successful and committed to helping Americans in need access life- saving medicines. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in proclaiming April 5 ``Patient Assistance Day'' and do their part on this day to inform their constituents about the great service the PPA provides to Americans in need. I have also included a statement from the Partnership for Prescription Assistance about ``Patient Assistance Day'' and an article from the Charlotte Observer that discusses the PPA's many successes in North Carolina. [From the Charlotte Observer, Mar. 21, 2006] Partnership for Prescription Assistance Launches National ``Patient Assistance Day'' Celebration on April 5, 2006 Washington, D.C.--The Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA), a national program sponsored by America's pharmaceutical research companies to help patients in need access prescription medicines will commemorate its one-year anniversary by launching the first annual ``Patient Assistance Day'' on April 5, 2006 and announcing a major enhancement to the program. The celebration will consist of educational activities across the country to raise awareness of and help educate the public about patient assistance programs. The PPA has helped nearly 2 million patients to date, but millions more can benefit. ``The PPA is an overwhelming success'' said Billy Tauzin, President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. ``But our job isn't done. We are declaring April 5 `Patient Assistance Day'--a day when all Americans can join with us to help patients in need.'' Through a toll-free number (l-888-4PPA-NOW) and user- friendly Web site (www.pparx.org), the PPA provides a single point of access to more than 475 public and private patient assistance programs that could provide help on more than 2,500 medicines, including a wide range of generic medicines. ``We are calling on all Americans to help us spread the word,'' said Montel Williams. Emmy award-winning TV talk show host and National PPA Spokesman. ``All of us know someone who needs assistance. Help could be as close as a single phone call to our toll free number.'' More than 1,300 national and local organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Urban League, United Way of America, Easter Seals and the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, have partnered with America's pharmaceutical companies to make the PPA a success. For additional information on patient assistance programs that may meet their needs, patients should call toll-free 1- 888-4PP A-NOW (1-888-477-2669) to speak with a trained specialist or visit www.pparx.org.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, last week I sat on this House floor and did something I never thought I would do: I praised the New York Times for accurately reporting the facts about the success of the new Medicare prescription drug program. They say lightening never strikes the same place twice, so you can imagine my surprise when the New York Times ran an April 3 editorial that said aboout Medicare part D: ``Complaints and call waiting times are diminishing, and many uninsured patients are clearly saving money on their drug purchases.'' It is refreshing that the mainstream media is finally beginning to acknowledge that millions of seniors are saving thousands of dollars a year on their prescriptions under Medicare part D. This benefit has already lowered average monthly premiums from $37 to $25, and those seniors with limited incomes will incur nearly no expenses at all. It is a real shame that my Democratic colleagues refuse to admit that this benefit is making a positive difference. Instead, they prefer to bash the program and scare seniors into thinking it is ``confusing.'' The Main Street press is finally starting to pay attention to millions of our seniors' success stories. It is about time that Democrats remove their ear plugs and start paying attention, too.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Under this historic program, seniors are receiving the drugs they need at reduced cost. So far, more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries are now getting coverage and saving money on their prescription drugs. Even more amazing is that 380,000 new beneficiaries are signing up each week. This is a program that is working for most seniors, and any early problems are quickly being corrected. The new drug coverage offers more and better choices at a lower cost. Premiums have been lowered to an average of $25 a month, down from the $37 that was previously estimated. Yet Democrats continue their coordinated campaign of confusion. On the one hand they are telling seniors that the prescription drug program is a disaster, and then in the same breath they are urging them to sign up. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of someone turning to you and saying, ``Hey, this milk tastes bad. Try it.'' Seniors are hearing from Democrats that the milk is bad, yet they are being asked to taste it. It is no wonder some seniors are confused. I would be, too.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, after many months, the Democrats have managed to release their so-called national security agenda; and one of the things their agenda calls for is improving border security. Last year, House Republicans passed the Border Protection, Anti- Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act as well as the REAL ID Act. How do these bills protect our borders? First, the Border Security Act increases penalties for illegal immigration and holds violators accountable to restore the integrity of our Nation's borders, reestablishes respect for our laws, and helps ensure that terrorists cannot enter the United States. Second, the REAL ID Act federally standardizes the requirements for applying and issuing State identification cards because the 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between them 13 valid driver's licenses and 21 State-issued ID cards. How did the Democrats vote on these issues? 164 of them opposed the Border Security Act and 152 opposed the REAL ID Act. So Democrats now want to improve border security? Here is a tip for them: start voting for legislation that does exactly that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Majority Leader Boehner and the Education and Workforce Committee staff for their hard work on and dedication to the College Access and Opportunity Act. For many reasons the United States must have a highly educated workforce. This legislation does just that by strengthening math, science and foreign language instruction. It includes incentives to recruit and better prepare more teachers in these critical areas. Most importantly, to adhere to the initial purpose of the Higher Education Act of 1965, this bill further offers low-income and middle- income youth the opportunity to better themselves and their socioeconomic status through a variety of important reforms. This bill repeals duplicative and unnecessary programs and removes barriers for a greater number of potential, not to mention current, students. Two additional parts of the bill about which I am particularly excited are, one, protecting the privacy of students; and, two, helping TRIO programs better demonstrate their effectiveness and results. In the committee markup, I was able to work with the chairman and staff to offer an amendment ensuring that a unit record database with students' personal information would not be allowed. Privacy of the individual is one of the main tenets on which our great Nation was founded. I was also able to offer an amendment in committee that would improve and strengthen TRIO programs. As a former director of Upward Bound Special Services programs at a large State university in North Carolina, I know these programs firsthand and how they have helped many achieve their goals of a higher education. I am a believer in the TRIO programs, and that is why I am committed to making them stronger. There is nothing in current law that provides a way for these programs to demonstrate their effectiveness. If we want to help these programs prove that they are doing all that we know they are, we must institute accountability measures so their purpose and effectiveness will not continue to be questioned. As a former community college president, university administrator and instructor, I am deeply committed to our students and to seeing that they get the full value of their education. The bottom line is, this bill is much needed and provides greater access for those of lesser means who need it; and I am simply appalled at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the misrepresentation of this bill and the good things that it would do for the students of this country.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much, Congressman Price. It is very good to be on the Official Truth Squad with you and to bring facts out that need to be brought out. I heard your comments about illegal immigration, and I share those concerns with you. As we talked about homeland security, national security begins with border security. That is very important. I think what we have to make sure that people understand all the time, the Federal Government was formed to provide for the defense of this Nation. It began by the States joining together to get our freedom from England, but we stay together for the defense of this Nation. Local government, State governments, cannot provide for the defense of this Nation. We are the most free country in the world. We are, in my opinion, the greatest country in the world. We are not perfect. None of us who serve in Congress, none of us in the executive branch, are perfect people. But the Republican party is focused on the issue of national security. We, as Republicans, understand that if we don't maintain our freedom, then nothing else matters. The way we maintain our freedom is to make sure that we have strong borders and that we protect against attacks like the ones that hit us on September 11, 2001. We are focused on that, and I think that the administration has done a great job of keeping us from being attacked again. What are the Democrats doing in that respect? Today, they managed to release their so-called ``national security agenda.'' We have been waiting for this plan that they say they are going to roll out where they say they can do things better. One of the things their agenda calls for is improving border security. Now it is really curious that is what they say. They think they can tell the American people something that the American people will believe, and that we will ignore what they have done. Let me talk about what Republicans have done and what the Democrat reaction has been to that. Last year, House Republicans passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, as well as the REAL ID Act. How do these bills protect our border? The Border Security Act increases penalties for illegal immigration and holds violators accountable to restore the integrity of our Nation's borders, reestablish respect for our laws, and help ensure that terrorists cannot enter the United States. The REAL ID Act federally standardizes the requirements for applying and issuing State identification cards, because the 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between them 13 valid driver's licenses and 21 State-issued ID cards. How do the Democrats vote on these issues? They are telling you now that they want to protect the border, and that is a part of their national security agenda. Well, 164 of the Democrats opposed the Border Security Act, and 152 opposed the REAL ID Act. So the Democrats now want to improve border security? Here is a tip for them, Mr. Speaker. They need to start voting for legislation that does exactly that. They need to quit talking and start doing. Today, when I was listening to them doing 1 minutes, something occurred to me, the motto of the State of North Carolinas is Esse Quam Videre, To Be Rather Than to Seem. I kept thinking that the Democrats never want to admit what they are, but rather they want people to think that they are something else. I think that they are the antithesis of the motto for North Carolina, To Be Rather Than to Seem, because they just want to seem to be something that they are not at all. Earlier tonight, I heard somebody say, the Democrats will never agree to what their real agenda is, because it is so much opposed to the values of average Americans that if they admit to their real agenda, admit to their real values, they can't ever get elected again. I think that it is very important that we continue to talk about border security and other things as it relates to national security. The Democrats also voted against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security helps prevent domestic terrorist attacks and assists the recovery and response efforts in the event of a terrorist attack. It passed the House 261- 161. One hundred twenty Democrats opposed. Last night we mentioned the PATRIOT Act conference report that strengthens our national security by giving law enforcement the tools they need to wage the war on terror and includes new oversight measures so that security and liberty remain balanced. It passed the House 251- 174 with 157 Democrats opposing. The Democratic leader in the Senate bragged that they had killed the PATRIOT Act, and then when the PATRIOT Act came back, they short of sheepishly voted for it, wanting everybody to think that it was all okay and to forget about their bragging that they had killed the PATRIOT Act. What about intelligence votes that weakened our national security before September 11? We might not have had September 11 if we had had an even stronger national security and if the Democrats had gotten on board with making sure that we could do all that we needed to do. In 1998, Representative Pelosi was one of only 31 Representatives who voted against authorizing appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government for the CIA and related agencies. Several bills are outlined there. In 1996, she and 153 House Democrats voted to reduce the total amount authorized by the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization by 4.9 percent. Even when Pelosi and the Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives, they voted to cut intelligence authorization by $500 million. We are going to present every chance we get the facts about what the Democrats have done. We are going to present the facts through the Official Truth Squad. We are not going to let them get by with seeming rather than being. And I think that that is very, very important. I want to quote our Majority Leader Boehner today in a statement that he made: ``While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. ``While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens and secure our communities. ``While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society. When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else, ``no.'' A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security.'' Those are the comments from Majority Leader Boehner today. I endorse what he has said. I think he has hit the nail right on the head. Someone else said that the Democrats say, ``Do as we say, not as we do, on national security.'' That is another, I think, thing that we need to point out to the American people every chance that we get. Again, we have to protect the freedom of this country. That is what allows us to do all the other great things that we do. Without national security, without freedom, we can't do any of the other good things. We are trying to bring freedom to other countries just as we have it here. It may take a little bit longer than it did in this country because of the very different cultural basis that we came from, but it is going to happen. We are going to help export freedom all over this world and that is going to help keep Americans free because that is what we have to do. Representative Price, again, I want to thank you for the work that you are doing on helping us get out the facts and making sure that the Truth Squad presents the truth every night, and I would like to now turn my time back over to you.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats are scheduled to host a media stunt to unveil their so-called strategy on national security issues. While I am sure that the Democrats will talk the talk, actions speak far louder than words. The American people need to look beyond the Democrats' spin and study their record on these issues. When they do, they will see the Democrats have no credibility, because they voted against many measures to keep our country safe. Cases in point: Republicans voted to pass the major border security bill in December, but Democrats, led by their minority leader, opposed the bill. Republicans voted to pass the PATRIOT Act to keep Americans safe, but Democrats, led by their minority leader, opposed the bill. Republicans voted to pass the REAL ID Act to make sure that people who received driver's licenses are here legally. The Democrats, led by their minority leader, again opposed the bill. If this was not bad enough, Democrats are trying to cut $60 billion from military weapons systems that keep our brave men and women in uniform safe. If Democrats want to talk the talk like they are for strong national security, then they need to start walking the walk.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Price. We are fortunate indeed to have you doing yeoman's work on the Truth Squad and making sure that we are organized every night and here to bring the truth to the American people, because they are certainly not hearing the truth from our colleagues across the aisle. Those of us who are freshmen, as the audience can see, very often are in the Chair at night, and we heard these untruths being said over and over and over again last fall and we spoke to the leadership and said, we need to do something about this. And the leadership threw that back to us and said, Well, what are you going to do? So the freshmen decided that we would take on this task and be here to present the facts, the facts as they are, indisputable facts. Earlier this evening, I came to this podium and spoke about Sergeant Anton Hiett from the little town of Mount Airy, in the Fifth District in Surry County, North Carolina, and about the fact that he had been killed in Afghanistan. I expressed my sorrow and concern for his family and my gratitude for his service. Sergeant Hiett represents the best of this country and the folks willing to serve our country in the military. We are really, really fortunate to have the best and the brightest in our military. We have an all-volunteer military now, and these folks are stepping forward to do what needs to be done to keep this country free. Our enlistments are up and our reenlistments are up. And no matter what the national media would like you to believe, things are going much better in Iraq and Afghanistan than you hear about in the news on a daily basis. So we are fortunate to have those folks. I have often come to this podium and spoken about the role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis national security. Anyone with just a moderate amount of history education will know that the Federal Government was formed to provide for the defense of this Nation. It was formed to break away from England, first of all, and then for the defense of the Nation. And that is our number one goal and our number one role. The Federal Government, unfortunately, over the last many years, has taken on many other roles, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the Federal Government is the only level of government that can deal with national security and the defense of this Nation. So it is entirely appropriate that our focus here in Congress is on national security and on the defense of this country. Night after night and day after day we hear the Democrats decry the amount of money being spent on national security and national defense. Well, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't have our freedom, nothing else matters. And maintaining that freedom is the number one role of the Federal Government and of our wonderful military out there willing to sacrifice every day so that we can remain free. I want to talk a little bit about something that is going to happen tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, on this issue of national security. Tomorrow, the Democrats are scheduled to host a media stunt to unveil their so- called ``strategy'' on national security issues. While I am sure that the Democrats will talk the talk, their actions speak far louder than words. The American people need to look beyond the Democrats' spin and study their record. Again, let's go to the facts, not what they try to tell us, and their record on this issue. When the American people do that, they will see that the Democrats have no credibility because they have voted against many measures to keep our country safe. I am going to give you some points on this. Republicans voted to pass a major border security bill in December, but Democrats, led by the minority leader, opposed the bill. Republicans believe that border security is national security. Republicans voted to pass the PATRIOT Act to keep Americans safe, but Democrats, led by their minority leader, opposed the bill. In fact, the minority leader over in the Senate boasted that he had killed the PATRIOT Act. Republicans voted to pass the REAL ID Act to make sure people who received drivers' licenses are here legally. But Democrats, led again by their minority leader, opposed the bill. And we all know that the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11/2001 had several drivers' licenses they were not entitled to, which led them to be able to do the horrific acts they were able to do. If this wasn't bad enough in terms of these things I have outlined that the Democrats have done just in this session alone, they are now trying to cut $60 billion from military weapons systems that keep our brave men and women in uniform safe. If Democrats want to talk the talk like they are for a strong national security, then they need to start walking the walk. They need to stop coming in here every day and criticizing our President for doing all that he can to keep this country free. They need to stop patronizing us for supporting our men and women in uniform, and they need to understand what the role of the Federal Government is, because it is obvious that they do not. National security is our number one issue, and as long as Republicans are in charge, we are going to see that it is our number one issue. We are going to see that this country remains free so that we can continue to do the great things that we have done. We are the greatest nation on earth. We are not perfect. Nobody ever said that we were. But we know how to get things done and we know how to allow for freedom, not just for this country but for others.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would stand on our House floor and say the words I am about to say, but here goes: the New York Times got it right. Yes, you heard me correctly. Over the weekend, the New York Times ran an article touting the success of the new Medicare prescription drug program with the headlines: ``For some who solve the puzzle, Medicare drug plan pays off.'' It is about time that the mainstream media started reporting on the success of the Medicare program. For months Republicans have been holding town halls and coming to this floor to discuss how this historic program is helping America's seniors save money on their prescription drugs. But the media and Democrats have turned a blind eye. They have ignored folks such as Virginia Shores who thought she heard her pharmacist wrong when he told her that with her new Medicare prescription drug card the cost of her prescriptions was only $50, down from $250. Well, I suppose every once in a blue moon the mainstream media gets something right. Perhaps now is the time for Democrats to take time off from their demagoguery and actually listen to seniors. It is amazing what you can learn. Just look at the New York Times.

Ms. FOXX

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 Sergeant Anton Hiett of Mount Airy, North Carolina. Sergeant Hiett passed away on March 12, 2006, while serving in Afghanistan. Sergeant Hiett served our country as a U.S. Army Reserve combat medic. His strong patriotism and desire to do what was right led him to join the military after graduating from North Surry High School. He began his career as an infantryman, but later decided that his calling was to care for his wounded comrades. Last year, Sergeant Hiett volunteered to go to Afghanistan because he felt compelled to help his country at war. Sergeant Hiett was a loving husband, father, son and brother. His friends describe him as someone ``having a big heart and always going the extra mile to help others.'' He leaves behind his wife, Misty Hiett, his 2-year-old daughter, Kyra Hiett, his parents, George and Angela Hiett, and three siblings. May God bless 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 Sergeant Hiett who made the ultimate sacrifice. Americans as well as Afghanis owe their liberty to Sergeant Hiett and his fallen comrades who came before him. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Sergeant Anton Hiett.

Ms. FOXX

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 Sergeant Anton Hiett of Mt. Airy, North Carolina. Sergeant Hiett passed away on March 12, 2006 while serving in Afghanistan. Sergeant Hiett served our country as a U.S. Army Reserve combat medic. His strong patriotism and desire to do what was right led him to join the military after graduating from North Surry High School. He began his career as an infantryman, but later decided that his calling was to care for his wounded comrades. Last year, Sergeant Hiett volunteered to go to Afghanistan because he felt compelled to help his country at war. Sergeant Hiett was a loving husband, father, son, and brother. His friends describe him as someone ``having a big heart and always going the extra mile to help others.'' He leaves behind his wife, Misty Hiett, his 2 year-old daughter, Kyra Hiett, his parents George and Angela Hiett, and three siblings. 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 Sergeant Hiett, who make the ultimate sacrifice. Americans, as well as Afghanis, owe their liberty to Sergeant Hiett and his fallen comrades who came before him. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Sergeant Anton Hiett.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, today we are just 60 days away from the deadline for seniors to sign up for the new Medicare part D prescription drug plan. This plan is giving seniors choices for prescription drug coverage that will cost less while offering more benefits. Millions of seniors who were without access to drugs are now getting them, and many are saving thousands of dollars a year. In fact, the typical senior could see his or her total drug expenses drop by nearly 50 percent. Those with limited income and resources could have nearly no expenses at all. It is a real shame that Democrats are trying to scare seniors away from enrolling in this program by saying it is complicated and confusing. Fortunately, their attempts to sabotage the program are failing. According to a recent article in The Washington Post, 80 percent of senior citizens polled say they had no trouble signing up for or using the Medicare prescription drug plan. Another poll conducted last week by Ayres, McHenry & Associates shows that 60 percent of seniors said that they were saving money by using the program. Madam Speaker, I trust the positive feedback from the actual folks using the program much more than the negative rhetoric of Democrats trying to turn this into a political issue.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, what I understand now is the two amendments were combined into one, for which I am very grateful. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the funding for the international broadcasting operations of Radio Free Europe section of this bill. I am sure there are many folks who can tell us the merits and great purpose of Radio Free Europe and our broadcasting overseas, but we can debate the merits of Radio Free Europe another time. It was my understanding that this war supplemental was supposed to be purely for emergency spending for the war. Providing essential equipment for our troops is one thing. Additional funding for additional international broadcasting is another. Mr. Chairman, many conservatives were disappointed that additional Katrina funding was added to this bill since the moneys approved last fall have not been spent totally. In fact, Mr. Chairman, of the $67.5 billion directly appropriated to Katrina and Rita relief, only $22.5 billion have been spent. Why are we allocating additional hard-earned tax dollars, when over half of the additional funding is yet to be spent? Furthermore, the Katrina spending approved did not have proper safeguards. I read article after article reporting stories of fraud and abuse of relief funds. The reason we read and hear these stories on the nightly news is because we did not move carefully enough the first time. Let's not make that mistake again with additional Katrina funding or other extraneous funding added that is not emergency funding for the war in Iraq. I urge Members to support my amendment and remove this funding, so we can debate the merits of the program in its proper setting. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this week a resolution was introduced in the United States Senate that would censure President Bush over the National Security Agency's surveillance program. We have seen the Democrats launch political stunts before, but this one certainly takes the cake. They have determined, on their own, that President Bush has broken the law by authorizing surveillance of al Qaeda communications. They are so intent on opposing everything that President Bush is for that they don't seem to realize or even care about the message this sends to the rest of the world as we fight the war on terror. The fact is, this is a necessary tool in the war on terror, and it is working. As General Michael Hayden, the principle Deputy Director of National Intelligence stated, ``We have learned information from this program that would not otherwise have been available. This information has helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.'' Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have put off releasing their agenda for months now. I guess I can see why, since it includes stripping away important tools to fight the war on terror. Perhaps the Democrats should go back to having no agenda.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Tom Ogburn, Jr., Executive Professor of Management and Director of the Family Business Center at the Wake Forest University Babcock Graduate School of Management. Mr. Ogburn has dedicated his life to serving his community of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and the students of Wake Forest MBA; and that is why I honor him today. Tom began his long and distinguished career in the Marketing Research Department of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and eventually became the Director of Global Research and the Marketing Director of the international company. He then spent 8 years as RJR's Vice President of Public Issues. He is also a successful entrepreneur and a gifted professional sculptor. In 1998, Tom joined the faculty of Wake Forest University and shortly thereafter became the Faculty Advisor of the Wake Forest MBA Case Competition, now known as the Wake Forest MBA Marketing Summit. Always quick to come up with exceptional creative ideas and never willing to settle for less than excellence, Tom challenged students to transform the event from a regional competition with a limited budget into the premiere nationally recognized event it is today. He has helped students form partnerships with an impressive list of corporate sponsors including Yahoo, Wachovia Wealth Management, EchoStar, Coca- Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, Lowe's and Heineken. He has also built and sustained relationships with some of the Nation's most outstanding marketing leaders. Tom and his wife, Anita, have been married since 1966; and both are natives of Winston-Salem. She is currently the Executive Director of the city's Ronald McDonald House. The Ogburns have two sons, Tate and Allen, both graduates of Wake Forest MBA, and one granddaughter, Virginia. February 9, 10 and 11 mark the 16th annual Wake Forest MBA Marketing Summit on the campus of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Hundreds of MBA students, faculty members and marketing executives gathered at the summit; and I am proud that such an exceptional event took place in my district. This event would not be possible without the dedication and commitment of Mr. Tom Ogburn, Jr. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Tom for his outstanding contributions to his community and to the students of Wake Forest MBA.