Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the two amendments I had, one would strike line 6 through 14 and the other lines 15 through 21. We submitted one amendment, and then I was told they had to be separated, and two amendments were submitted.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in their rush to be against everything that President Bush is for, Democrats have once again given us reason to question their timing and judgment. A resolution has been introduced in the Senate to censure the President for ordering the National Security Agency to intercept communications of suspected al Qaeda members or related terrorist groups. Apparently, this offends Democrats so much that they seek to scold the President in the midst of the war on terror. To them I ask: How would you monitor terrorist operatives who move to this country, blend in, and wait to strike? Do you think they hang a shingle on their front door reading ``Terrorist in Waiting''? The NSA program is one that provides the speed and agility that is needed as we fight this new kind of war. We must adapt, because in this day and age, terrorists move faster than any court possibly can. A span of just a few hours could make the difference between life and death. Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning the Democrats' patriotism, as they so often charge. We are, however, questioning their poor judgment. They are unwise in opposing what is clearly a vital tool against terrorist organizations and in allowing the censure resolution to the Senate floor which could damage the President as he fights this war on terror.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last month, the State of North Carolina lost a fine man, former North Carolina Representative Warren ``Pete'' Oldham. I had the privilege of serving with Pete in the North Carolina General Assembly. While we did not always agree on every issue, I always respected and admired him for his commitment to constituent service and doing what he believed was right. He was always a very pleasant and polite person. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pete Oldham for a life focused upon helping others. Pete wore many hats during his life. He was a loving husband and father, an athlete, a teacher, a coach, a referee, a university official, a church leader, a public servant and a gardener. Pete was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, to the late Reverend Philander and Minta Oldham. After serving in the Navy during World War II, he enrolled in Virginia Union University, in Richmond, Virginia, on a football scholarship. He transferred to Bluefield State College in Bluefield, West Virginia, where he graduated in 1951 with a bachelor of science degree in secondary education and majors in social studies and physical education. He then went on to receive a master of science degree in physical education in 1958 from West Virginia University, and his principal certification from North Carolina A&T State University in 1962. Pete was a teacher and coach at Atkins High School from 1951 to 1963. He then went to work at Winston-Salem State University for over 20 years, where he retired as the school's registrar. During his time at the university, Pete always reserved time to coach high school and college students in basketball and football. Pete was elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives in 1990 where we went on to become the co-chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations. Twelve years later, he retired from the Chamber to care for his wife who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He said, ``I made a vow and a commitment, and I intend to honor them.'' Pete leaves behind his loving wife, Gladys, and daughters Donna Oldham and Leslie Oldham Bolden. My thoughts and prayers are with the family during this difficult time. Mr. Speaker, the State of North Carolina is fortunate to have been served by former Representative Warren ``Pete'' Oldham. He touched the lives of many and he will be missed.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss the Medicare part D prescription drug plan, a historic program that renews our commitment to our Nation's seniors. This plan gives seniors choices for prescription drug coverage that will cost less while offering more benefits. It has brought Medicare, a program created 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Millions of seniors who were without access to drugs are now getting them and many are saving thousands of dollars a year. Clearly, people have liked what they have heard about the program as sign-ups for the third week of February amounted to 546,000 and the week before numbered 543,000. All told, almost 26 million people have signed up so far. The Democrats say that seniors are confused by this program. I am feeling a little bit confused myself, and here is why: Democrats are holding town halls for the sole purpose of criticizing this plan while at the same time telling seniors they should consider signing up. Well, I guess I can understand why they are confused. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing confusing about a program that will help Medicare beneficiaries pay for their prescription drugs while at the same time saving them money.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, a historic program that renews our commitment to our Nation's seniors. This plan gives seniors choices for prescription drug coverage that will cost less while offering more benefits. It has brought Medicare, a program created 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Millions of seniors who were without access to drugs are now getting them and many are saving thousands of dollars a year. Clearly, people have liked what they have heard about this program as sign-ups for the third week of February amounted to 546,000 and the week before, numbered 543,000. All told, almost 26 million people have signed up so far. The Democrats say that seniors are confused about this program. I'm feeling a little bit confused myself and here's why: Democrats are holding town halls for the sole purpose of criticizing this plan while at the same time telling seniors they should consider signing up. Well, I guess I can understand why they are confused. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing confusing about a program that will help Medicare beneficiaries pay for their prescription drugs while at the same time saving them money.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to introduce our guest chaplain, Reverend Richard ``Ricky'' Atkins, the head pastor of Courtney Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina, in the Fifth District. Reverend Atkins is a vital part of the religious community in northwest North Carolina's rural mountain region. Prior to leading 350 members at Courtney Baptist Church, he served at Zephyr Baptist Church in Dobson, North Carolina, from 1995 to 2000, and at Oak Grove Baptist Church in Madison, North Carolina, from 2000 to 2005. He graduated from Fruitland Bible Institute in 2000 with an associate's degree in biblical ministries. Reverend Atkins was born and raised in Mt. Airy, North Carolina. He is the son of Tommy and Rebecca Atkins, whose support was instrumental in helping him get to Washington today. Reverend Atkins and his wife, Debbie, currently reside in Yadkinville with their two children Alison and Lee. Reverend Atkins' life has been one of service to God and his community. Throughout the years he has brightened and enriched the lives of many others. It is an honor to have him serve as our guest chaplain. I hope that his words of prayer will remain with all of us as we do the people's work today.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am getting a bit tired of hearing some of my colleagues in the Democrat Party mislead the American people into thinking our economy is in poor shape. Here are the facts, plain and simple. Our economy has been growing for 17 straight quarters. The National Association for Business Economics predicts the economy will grow at a 4.5 percent rate in the first quarter of 2006. After inflation, disposable incomes increased 2.2 percent in the last 12 months. The Federal Reserve reported that the median net worth of U.S. households increased 1.5 percent between 2001 and 2004. January's unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, which is the lowest monthly rate since 2001 and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. There have been 29 consecutive months of job gains. Mr. Speaker, no amount of spin from the left can change the fact that our economy is growing stronger every day under Republican leadership.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, last week I was sitting in the Chair when some of this same material was being presented here on the floor. And I jotted down some notes, thinking, well, one of these days I hope I am going to have a chance to make some comments about some of those things that are being said, not knowing I was going to be asked tonight to come over here and use some of the Special Order, because a couple of my colleagues were called away who had planned to be here tonight. So I am doing this at sort of the last minute. But I found my notes from last week, and I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the comments that were made last week, again on this issue, and some of the comments that are being made tonight. I am astonished again at the hypocrisy that is evident here on the floor of this House every day. We have our Democratic colleagues standing up all of the time talking about how we need to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending, and how we have got a debt. But when we bring in bills and give them the opportunity to cut spending, they vote against them. Much of the spending that is occurring now is the result of Democratic programs that were begun in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, that have been put on automatic pilot. One of the first meetings I came to when I was elected to Congress last year, I heard people talking about mandatory spending and discretionary spending, and entitlements. And I got up and I said, you know, I have read the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution do I see the words mandatory spending, discretionary spending, or entitlements. A large part of the problem that we have in this Congress is that we have people who think in those terms. They think in terms of entitlement, and they have helped create in this society an entitlement mentality. And when the President proposes, and the Republicans propose to try to change that mentality, the Democrats vote against it. The President said last year, ``We have got a terrible problem with Social Security. The problem is that we are going to run out of money. There is not enough money in Social Security.'' And when the Social Security program was established back in the 1930s, nobody ever thought that anybody would get any money from it to begin with. The average age in those days was 59 years old. So they set Social Security up to be collected when people became 65, assuming nobody would collect from Social Security. But lo and behold, this country has prospered and people are living a lot longer. The average age now is about 78 years. People are thinking that they can retire at 65 and live on their Social Security, and that is just not possible. So the process makes a proposal, let us do something about Social Security. Let us explain to the American people that the Congress controlled by the Democrats for over 40 years, as they admitted tonight, spent that money as it came in, did not put it aside for Social Security. I am ashamed to say that Republicans have done the same thing. They came in and they spent the money on Social Security. But people are waking up to the problem and the President says, let us do something about it. Let us create personal Social Security accounts. Let us put people's Social Security money into an account with their name on it, give them some options about where that money is going to be invested, and let them know what they are going to get when they retire. No more of this fooling the American people into thinking that they have paid in a certain amount of money and it is going to let them live in the style to which they have become accustomed while they worked. It is a cruel hoax that has been perpetrated on the American people. The average Social Security payment now is $921. I do not know anybody who can live on $921 a month; but when we tried to bring in proposals to do something about it, the Democrats shot them down. The Democrats go out and use terrible language to scare people to legislate about what is going to happen with Social Security. They talk tonight about lack of accountability. We really do need accountability in this country. We need accountability for all of us. We have to individually be accountable, and the Congress needs to be accountable. And part of our attempt to be accountable is to explain to people what the problems were with Social Security. The Democrats just want to hide their head in the sand about it. They want to put the problem off and off and off. They do not want to deal with that. But it is a program that has developed an entitlement mentality in this country, and we have got to change that. They talk about lack of accountability, and they talk about that in terms of FEMA. And I wonder, all of these people are talking about that and criticizing FEMA tonight for not having a plan and not being accountable, all of them voted for the Katrina money, all of them voted to give that money out with no plan and with no sense of accountability. Just a very small number of us voted against that because we wanted a plan and we wanted accountability. Again, the hypocrisy is simply unbelievable when it comes to these folks. They talked last week about how local communities have become dependent on the Federal Government, the COPS program, education funding, all of these programs that are being funded at the State level and at the local level. Again, that has developed a sense of entitlement. When the Democrats were in charge of the Federal Government, they wanted people to come to them and ask for the money, and they wanted to be the people with largess in giving out that money. Unfortunately, we have developed that mentality in the country that local and State governments should be dependent on the Federal Government. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has any business being involved in education. And yet we are funding huge dollars in education and that, again, has developed a sense of entitlement for the local people. They think the Federal Government should be giving them this money. It is a real travesty because those dollars come to the Federal Government and just a portion of them go back to the local and State governments. Whereas, if we did not take that money to begin with and left it at the State and local levels, the folks would be gaining much, much more from it, and they would be able to spend that money the way they want to spend it instead of based on the ideas of Federal bureaucrats who want to do that or even, perish the thought, some Members of Congress who decide how it should be done. They went on and on and on about how any potential cuts would be cutting services at the local level. And yet they say we need to cut the deficit. I really hope that the American people are going to be smart enough to see that these folks are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want to cut the deficit, and yet they want to increase spending. They want to increase spending for things that are constitutionally Congress, things that the Federal Government has no business doing; and yet they want to put us deeper in debt, ultimately to have to raise taxes. They know that that is going to be the net result of it. And it is unbelievable to me how they can get on the floor every night and talk about that. They talked about Congress is living for today, leaving a burden to our children; we should be paying our own way. Well, again, last fall we had a reconciliation bill that would not only cut spending but cut the growth of spending. Did any Democrats vote for that? No. Not a single one. The only people who voted for that were Republicans and not all Republicans voted for that. But there were many, many of us who understood we have simply got to rein in the appetite of the Federal Government for spending. We simply cannot continue at the level at which we are going. And yet there are many people who are frightened to try to cut the Federal budget because they know that this will be used against them, that the issues will be distorted. When we cut growth, we are accused of cutting programs. We are not cutting programs. We are trying to cut growth. We made modest, modest changes in the spending for Medicaid in that reconciliation budget. We went from 7.3 percent growth to 7 percent. Modest changes. And what we tried to do was rein in the abuses. We tried to make sure that people would not be able to put their family members on long-term care for Medicaid and avoid paying for that themselves. Part of that mentality that has developed in this country is that we have an entitlement society. I talk to my colleagues a lot about the use of language, and I have said the words we use are important to us. When we stand up here and we talk about ``mandatory spending'' and ``discretionary spending'' as both Republicans and Democrats do, I will have to say then we are creating a mindset for people. We are saying there is such a thing as mandatory spending. And, again, if we look at the Constitution, which ought to be the basis for why we do everything in this country, we never see those words ``mandatory spending'' and ``discretionary spending.'' Congress is in charge of spending, and it is entirely appropriate that budget bills come out of the House of Representatives. That is our job and we should continue to do that. But we have got to break the habit of talking about discretionary and mandatory spending. The only mandatory spending that the Congress should be doing is to provide for a national defense. That is the main role of the Federal Government, and we have to remember that. We have to remember that it is our job as a Federal Government to provide for the defense of this country. State governments cannot do that. Local governments cannot do that. The Federal Government is the only government entity that can do that. That is why we are fighting a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and all over this world we are fighting a war on terrorism. We did not create the war. The war came to us. But it is our responsibility as a Federal Government to do that. I often wonder how we would have been able to have stayed in World War II, to win that war and to defeat the Nazis and to defeat fascism if we had had the kind of press that we have now and the kind of naysayers that we have on the other side of the aisle. They would have gotten us out of that war long before we won that war because of the kinds of approaches that they have. They do not understand the role of the Federal Government. They do not understand that that is what it is we should be about here. They want to do things that we have no business being involved in, providing 100,000 policemen across this Nation. We certainly do want to help the local governments solve their crime problems, but the way we can do that is get the Federal Government out of the way and let them do that at the local level, not by providing a pittance of money and then holding all kinds of strings attached to it and not allowing them to spend that money the way they need to spend it at the local level, just like we do in education, just like we do in other areas. Last week when my colleagues were here talking about things that we should be doing and should not be doing, they brought up the issue of health care and talked about how we should not be cutting any kinds of funds out of Medicare. They talked about the Medicare part D plan and how it is not saving taxpayer dollars. They are going out and holding town hall meetings and talking about what a bad program it is and then encouraging the people in their districts to sign up for it. So, again, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They talked last week about let us back up our promises by fully funding health care and education, and yet tonight they are standing up here and they are saying we have got to cut the deficit. We have got to cut back on spending. We are leaving a debt to our children. And I am quoting from last week again: ``We back up our promises by fully funding our health care and education priorities.'' What does that mean ``fully funding'' that? As far as I know, that is what socialists do. They fully fund their programs and keep people dependent on the Federal Government or on the type of centralized government that they have. They are saying that if we get out of doing business at the local and State level, then we are going to force the local and State agents or governments to raise taxes. Again, they do not understand the proper role of the Federal Government. It is up to the locals to decide what they want to do in education and what they want to do with policing. They talked about the Federal Government would renege on its fundamental commitment to community safety by cutting the money going out for the COPS program. Nowhere do I see again in the Constitution ``community safety.'' I do see where it is up to the Federal Government to provide for an army and for national defense, but it is not our job to be doing that. They say we are making progress in the battle against methamphetamines. Today in the PATRIOT Act we had the major methamphetamine legislation that is probably going to pass in this session of Congress, very, very important legislation worked on by many Members of Congress. Did they vote for it? No, they voted against it. Did they vote for the PATRIOT Act so that we could have the tools that we need to make sure that terrorists cannot come back here and do to us what happened on 9/11 because of a lack of effective dealing with that under the previous administration, ignoring all the signs that terrorists were going to be doing these kinds of things? No. They voted against it. They really do believe that nobody is paying attention or that the people who are paying attention are only going to be hearing some of what they need to be hearing. They think that we are not going to call their hand when they are being hypocritical and when they are out and out lying. Last week they talked about the higher education bill increasing the cost of college loans. That is absolutely wrong. What we are doing in the higher education act is to help students be able to get loans at a lower rate and have to pay back less money than they have had to pay back under Democratic administrations and under Democratic Congresses that want to make these loans more expensive and to keep people unsure of what it is they are paying for. They talk about the fact that many people in our country are poor because they have not had the opportunities to be as prosperous as others; but what they want to do, they say, is have the Federal Government make them not poor. Again, that is socialism as I understand it. What we have to do in this country is provide for opportunities to people. We are the freest country in the world. There is no place in the world where folks have the opportunities that they have in the United States of America. They can choose to go to college. They can choose to do any kind of work they want to do. They can do all kinds of things to create prosperity for themselves. The government is not going to create prosperity. There is one place last week, and I have to find the point that I was trying to make, where they talked about government investment in programs. Every time I hear that phrase ``government investment,'' it is like somebody scraping their fingernails across a blackboard for me. The government does not invest in programs. Government spends money. People invest in themselves and invest money, but the government does not do that. We do not get a payback on the money that the government spends. It is spent and it is gone. Now, the government has certain obligations; we all know that. Again, most of the obligations are at the local and State level, not at the Federal level, but what our colleagues would like you to believe is that the Federal Government can fix anything. They talk about the problems with Katrina and the problems with FEMA. I would contend that they, again, are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They believe that the Federal Government can fix everything so that what we should be doing is putting more money into FEMA, putting more money into these programs. The Federal Government is not equipped to do that. The Federal Government should not be the first responder. In the Katrina situation, all levels of government, in my opinion, failed. I think none of them were prepared for what happened, but it is wrong to expect the Federal Government to go in and act like a first responder. The Federal Government should go in and take care of those things that the State and local governments cannot take care of. Leaving all those buses parked in New Orleans, not getting people out when they were told to get out, that was the responsibility of the local and State governments. That was not the responsibility of FEMA. That was not the responsibility of the Federal Government, and yet, all that is lumped into the discussions of the failure of the Federal Government. I am sorry, but I just do not think we are going to take that blame at this level. There is plenty of blame to go around for what things the Federal Government does not do, but we are not going to take the blame of not being prepared and not taking care of those people in New Orleans. That was the responsibility of those local and State elected officials, and it is a real shame that they did not do that. I think I will use my glass as an illustration. I have got it just about half full. Some people would say it is half empty. I think that this is an illustration of the problem that our colleagues see. Everything they see about this country is negative, negative, negative, negative. They have almost nothing good to say about it. You hear them night after night after night talking about the United States and talking about our government. You hear them only condemning, only saying negative things. I happen to think that we live in the best country in the world and that we are doing a lot of things right. We are not a perfect country. None of us who are in elected office are perfect people, but we work hard at it, and we try to do the kinds of things that will make this country a better place. I think always talking down the country and talking in negative terms is a very bad thing to do, and our colleagues, along with their willing accomplices, the mainstream media, do that all the time. You never hear the good news about what is going on in the economy, but there are a lot of good things going on in the economy. All they do is talk about negative things, and I am frankly tired of hearing them say that. I want to point out some facts about the positive things about our economy. It has been growing for 17 straight quarters. You never hear that from the mainstream media. You never hear that from our colleagues. The National Association for Business Economics predicts the economy will grow at a 4.5 percent rate in the first quarter of 2006. What is responsible for that? It is not because of government spending. The government does not create that kind of prosperity. That is created because of tax cuts and slowing down the rate of spending. But the tax cuts that the President proposed and this Congress instituted in the last 3 years are what is responsible for the positive things that have been happening in our economy. After inflation, disposable incomes increased 2.2 percent in the last 12 months. You never hear that, again, out of our colleagues. The Federal Reserve has reported that the median net worth of U.S. households increased 1.5 percent between 2001 and 2004. That is great news. We never read about it in the media. January's unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Those are decades when Democrats were in control in the Congress. The unemployment rate was lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I think many of us can remember when interest rates in the 1970s were reaching 20 percent. It has been a long time since we have seen high interest rates and high inflation in this country. That has all come about in a Republican administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. There have been 29 consecutive months of job gains in this country. That has come about not because of government investment, additional government spending. That has come about because of cuts in taxes, which left the money in the hands of entrepreneurs and the people who create capital and create jobs, not coming from the government. Our folks on the other side of the aisle can continue to spend. They, again, and their willing colleagues in the media and in Hollywood, they can try to change what are the facts, the people from the left, but the economy is strong, and it is growing stronger every day under Republican leadership. Do I want to see spending cut even more? You are right. Do I want to see tax cuts made permanent? You are absolutely right. We need to do that. We need to make the tax cuts permanent, and we need to cut our spending so we put more money into the hands of the entrepreneurs and into the hands of business people who can truly create wealth, who can create jobs. The government cannot do that. I am asked a lot of times by school groups, what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Well, there are a lot of differences between us, but usually we are in a time crunch and I do not have a whole lot of time to explain all of the differences. So I tell folks I am going to give them the short version of what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. It really is sort of at the nub of the issue between what is the difference between us. Democrats think that government can solve all of our problems: Take all the money you can from the public, give it to the government, let the government solve our problems. Republicans believe that Americans work hard for their money and they should be allowed to keep as much money as they possibly can; the government should only step in to do those things that people cannot do for themselves. The Democrats have turned that on its head. It would be cradle to grave. Again, socialism. They would do their best to try to take care of everybody. It would not be a very pretty picture, though. We can already see that. The hand of government in so many things in our country now is taking away a lot of the incentive for people to work. It is creating, again, this culture of entitlement, which we have to get away from. The Declaration of Independence in our country talks about the pursuit of happiness, not the delivery of happiness to the people from the Federal Government. We are free to pursue happiness and pursue prosperity. There are some other good things about this economy that I want to share. Earlier this week, the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending shot up by nine-tenths of 1 percent in January, the strongest gain in 6 months. In addition, Americans' personal incomes rose by seven-tenths of 1 percent, the highest rate since September. Again, our economy has a positive momentum, and that momentum is the direct result of a pro-growth agenda from the Republican-led Congress and our Republican President. It is the Republicans who are proposing that we slow down the rate of spending and that we leave more money in the hands of the American people. We want to have improved fiscal responsibility and at the same time show our commitment to continuing economic growth. We are the party that is working to improve the lives of the American people by lowering taxes, enacting legal reform, decreasing government interference into the lives of entrepreneurs and small business owners. That is what we have to do. Democrats, on the other hand, want to continue to promote their tax- and-spend policies because they think they know how to spend the American people's hard-earned money better than they do. However, I think the Republicans know better than that and will prevail on this issue. I hear a lot from my constituents about the high cost of health care, and I have used this analogy before: when I grew up, I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina, extremely poor, no electricity, no running water. My family was very poor. There were no jobs in those days in that part of North Carolina, but my family could afford health care. Even though we had very little money, both my parents worked, and I began working when I was 12 years old; but health care was not as expensive as it is now, and everybody that I knew of could afford health care. But almost nobody had insurance. In fact, I guess only school teachers maybe who worked in our county, may have had health care through the State of North Carolina; but nobody else that I know of had health insurance, and so people could afford to go to the doctor when they got sick. Now, we didn't run to the doctor for every little thing; but when we truly needed health care, we could get it, and we could pay our bills for it. I remember that very, very clearly. However, what has happened in the last 50 years? Why has health care become so unaffordable for people? Why has the cost of health insurance gotten so high? I contend that the reason that has happened is because of the third-party payer. And the biggest third-party payer is the Federal Government. Any time you get the Federal Government involved in something, it is going to drive up the cost of that commodity. We know that. We have seen it happen in lots and lots of cases, but I do not think there is any case where it is more clearly the case than it is with health care. The fact that we have gotten involved in Medicare and Medicaid is driving up the cost of health care. We also see that Medicare and Medicaid determine what is going to be paid out in other programs, because that is the benchmark that insurance companies use. And so because people are getting their health care primarily from the government or from a third-party payer, folks are not scrutinizing how much it is costing. They do not care. They just say, okay, if an aspirin costs $150, that is okay, I am not paying for it. Insurance is paying for it. It is again a part of that entitlement mentality we have created and taking away the personal responsibility that we used to have so much of in this country. Because of government programs, we are diminishing the sense of personal responsibility and increasing the sense of entitlement. Slowly but surely, we are changing the entire culture of this country. When I served in the North Carolina senate, I had a good friend from Asheville, North Carolina, who served with me and who used a wonderful analogy many times, and I think it is a great one to use here. What he would say is: if you throw a frog in a pot of hot water, he will jump out of it. But if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and then you gradually turn up the heat a little at a time, pretty soon that frog will be cooked and he wouldn't even notice it. That is what has happened in this country over the years. We have turned up the role of the Federal Government, we have turned up the sense of dependency on the government, and what we are doing is we are creating major problems for our country. We are creating an entitlement mentality which we have to break ourselves away from or else we are going to find that we have a whole generation of people that think it is the government that should take care of them. That is what I think my Democratic colleagues want, because they believe in the power of the government. Republicans believe in the power of the individual and of individual responsibility. And I think this is a message we are going to have to keep telling. It is going to take a long time, I think, for it to get out and for it to be absorbed and for people to be able to see the wisdom; but it is something we are going to need to talk about more and more. And we have to talk about it honestly. We cannot continue the hypocrisy that is being used by our colleagues who talk on the one hand about decreasing spending but on the other hand taking care of everybody from the cradle to the grave and doing everything from the Federal Government level.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Price for yielding. I appreciate it very much, and as our colleagues have expressed to you before, we thank you for organizing these meetings and helping to get the Truth Squad out here. Many of us have been concerned for the past several months that there is a lot of disinformation out there and that the time has come for us to set the record straight, and I think that it is very important that we do so. Just saying things will not make them so, but if they are not responded to, then people will believe that they are so. I thought that our colleague, the gentlewoman from the State of Virginia (Mrs. Drake), was doing a great job of talking about several of the issues that I think are important, and talking about Ireland as a great success story is important to do. Our economy is doing great, and talking it down does not help our situation and our country. I think we do need to be positive and talk about how things are going great. I speak to a lot of school groups, and they will often ask me what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and I generally give them several things to think about. But as my colleague pointed out, the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is we believe that the public knows how to spend its money better than the government knows how to spend their money. That is sort of a short definition. If we left it up to the Democrats, they would basically be taking all the money from everybody and giving it to government bureaucrats to spend. I think the whole issue of family friendly taxes is very important too. We are not a party of extremely wealthy people, as we are portrayed to be. In fact, there is a lot more wealth on the other side than there is on our side, but they do a pretty good job of trying to hide that. I want to talk about some specific numbers also, in addition to talking about in general terms some things that may have already been said by some of my colleagues. I have been out meeting with constituents, so I am not sure of all the things that were said, and I hope I do not repeat too many of the same things. I think it is important to talk about the fact that our unemployment rate right now is 4.7 percent, the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and lower than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Just today I was talking to a man with a very large business down in North Carolina in the fifth district, and he was saying they could grow their business by 300 or 400 people if they could get the skilled workers that they need to grow that business. That is a very significant point for us. Our economy could be doing even better, but we do lack skilled folks. I talked with him and I will be working with the community college system down there to try to help him get the programs established that he needs so that they can get people with the backgrounds that they need. I am not sure if Congresswoman Drake mentioned this, but real household net worth right now is $51.1 trillion, an all-time high in this country. Our GDP, of course, is growing at a much higher rate than anybody thought it was going to grow. The fourth quarter grew at 1.6 percent, and the estimate had been 1.1 percent. This encouraging economic news is proof that lower taxes plus restrained Federal spending equals economic growth. That is a math equation that the Democrats just cannot seem to grasp. Maybe it is because they keep trying to substitute new variables and it just does not work. Taxing plus spending will never equal economic growth and prosperity. But the Republican formula of lower taxes and restrained Federal spending will always come out in favor of the American taxpayer and his checkbook, and that is what we need to be concentrating on. I am going to throw out a few more facts to go along with what we are trying to do through the Truth Squad. We have got high consumer confidence these days, too. It rose to 106.3 in January, the highest level in over 3 years. So we are doing our best to make sure people know the economy is doing well and to raise consumer confidence. We know that incomes rose in December, and we are up 1.4 percent in 2005. Again, very, very good news. Retail sales rose in December. We are up 6.4 percent in 2005 over 2004. Our manufacturing continues to expand. Manufacturing activity grew for the 32nd consecutive month in January. There is tremendous expansion out there, so we want that to continue to grow. Construction spending is at an all-time high. Construction spending rose 1 percent in the month of December alone. For 2005, spending reached a record $1.120 trillion, an increase of 8.9 percent over the previous record set in 2004. Housing starts continue to go up. So our economy is doing very well, and, again, it is based on the fact that Republicans believe in lower taxes and leaving more money in the pockets of American families. That is the way we can grow the economy. I hate hearing the words ``government investment.'' The government never invests. It spends. We have to get people to understand the language. As my colleagues know, language is a very important thing to us. How we use words is important because it gets people's minds set about what those words mean. We need to stop government spending, and we need to leave as much money as possible in the hands of the American taxpayers. We need to keep this economy growing vitally, and the way to do that is to keep Republicans in charge. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share more good news with the American people about our economy. Yesterday, the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending shot up by nine-tenths of a percent in January, which is the strongest gain in 6 months. In addition, Americans' personal incomes rose by seven-tenths of a percent, which is the highest rate since September. Clearly, our economy's positive momentum is a direct result of the pro-growth agenda of our President and our Republican-led Congress. We are the party that is holding the line on fiscal responsibility and showing our commitment to continuing economic growth. We are the party that is working to improve the lives of the American people by lowering taxes, enacting legal reform, and decreasing government interference in the lives of entrepreneurs and small business owners. Democrats, on the other hand, continue to promote their tax-and-spend policies, because they think they know how to spend your hard-earned money better than you do. My Republican colleagues and I know better than that.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the positive economic news that continues to pour in. These new numbers demonstrate that Republicans' pro-growth economic policies are working. January's unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, which is the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. There have been 29 consecutive months of job gains. The economy has created over 2 million jobs over the past 12 months. Real household net worth is at $51.1 trillion, an all-time high. And finally the Commerce Department just reported that the GDP grew at a 1.6 percent rate in the fourth quarter, up from an original estimate of 1.1 percent. This encouraging economic news is proof that lower taxes, plus restrained Federal spending, equals economic growth. However, this is a math equation that Democrats just cannot seem to grasp. Perhaps it is because they keep trying to substitute new variables: taxing plus spending will never equal economic growth and prosperity. However, the Republican formula of lower taxes plus restrained Federal spending will always come out in favor of the American taxpayers and their checkbooks.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in honor of one of my constituents, Mr. R. Philip Hanes of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, as we celebrate his 80th birthday. Mr. Hanes is a truly remarkable man who has accomplished more than most people could if given several lifetimes. He is the former chief executive officer of Hanes Companies, Incorporated. However, despite his tremendous success in the business world, he is best known for his passion, leadership, and support for the arts. As a leader of the American arts council movement that began in the 1950s, Mr. Hanes has served on the boards of over 50 national, State and local art agencies, most notably as the founding member of the National Council on the Arts and as the founder and first chairman of the North Carolina Arts Council. He has also served on the boards of many world-renowned organizations, such as the Museum of Modern Art, the New York City Ballet, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Kennedy Center For the Performing Arts, and too many others to list. Mr. Hanes, who attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and graduated from Yale University, was the founder of the Yale University Committee on Music, a board member at the Brevard School of Music, and an advisory council member at the Cornell University Graduate School of Business in the Arts Administration Division. He is the recipient of three Presidential appointments from Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Ford, three honorary degrees and 24 art awards. These awards include the National Medal of Arts presented by President Bush in 1991 for Mr. Hanes' role as a founder of community arts programs across the Nation. Mr. Hanes was instrumental in establishing the North Carolina School of the Arts; the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Arts, SECCA; and the Roger L. Stevens Center for the Performing Arts in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He was a founder of the North Carolina Governor's Council on Business, Arts and Humanities and a founder of the Winston-Salem Arts Council. In addition, he and his wife, Charlotte, are the namesakes of an art gallery at Wake Forest University. Mr. Hanes also played a tremendous role in bringing the Sparta Teapot Museum to northwest North Carolina. Sonny and Gloria Kamm of Los Angeles, California, had been collecting unique teapots for over 25 years and had been looking to relocate their collection to a community where it could make a serious economic impact. Some folks from the Penland School of Craft suggested that they consider northwest North Carolina and advised Mr. and Mrs. Kamm to talk to Philip Hanes. It turns out that on their return flight, a representative from the Penland School was randomly assigned a seat next to none other than Mr. Hanes. Mr. Hanes loved the idea of establishing a teapot museum in northwest North Carolina. He contacted the Kamms, pitched the idea and brought them to Sparta. And the rest is history. The planned Sparta Teapot Museum will be the permanent home for the Kamms' teapots. Their collection will help revitalize Sparta and the rest of Alleghany County, which saw four of its five largest employers close their doors. The museum will be the only specialty teapot museum in the country and will encourage economic development by drawing in a large number of tourists to Sparta each year. In addition to his accomplishments in the arts, Mr. Hanes' love for the great outdoors led him to establish three national conservation organizations and serve on the boards of 19 others. When he wasn't busy working on all these projects, Mr. Hanes somehow managed to find time to write a popular novel, ``How to Get Anyone to Do Anything.'' In his book, Mr. Hanes shares the wisdom he has gained throughout many years during his impressive career. Philip Hanes and his wife, Charlotte, are true treasures in the fifth district. I want to wish him a happy birthday and thank him for all of the wonderful things that he has done to help promote the arts and conservation in the State of North Carolina and throughout the country, and to wish him many, many more.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our economy is doing great. But Americans will not find that out from the Main Street media. New York Times, January 2006: the U.S. economy slowed sharply at the end of 2005. Atlanta Journal Constitution, January 2006: economic growth slows to a snail's pace. The New York Times again, January 2006: pockets of concern slow a strong U.S. economy. But what the facts show, the U.S. economy grew 3.1 percent during 2005. The unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, the lowest since July 2001. The Congressional Budget Office projects economic growth at 3.6 percent in 2006. Personal incomes grew above inflation last year in 49 out of 50 States. Two million jobs were created last year, and more Americans are working than ever before. Average weekly earnings grew faster in 2005 than the average growth during the Clinton years. Do not believe the headlines. Our economy is the envy of the industrialized world, and we are doing great.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Price. It is a real pleasure to be here tonight. I am grateful for the words of our colleagues earlier, Congressman Gohmert and Congresswoman Schmidt. I appreciate what they have said, and you. I am really proud to be a part of the Official Truth Squad. And while I did not hear all of the comments that were made just prior to our beginning our session here, I did want to respond to one thing that you said. That is that we all are entitled to our opinions, but the facts are the facts. And it is important that we get the facts straight here. And I think many of the things that we are responding to are things that have been purported to be facts which are not facts at all. And I think it is important that we set the record straight. I also noted tonight in the presentation by the Blue Dog Coalition that they are very concerned about the deficit, but they want to do away with the tax cuts and spend more money. The problem with the deficit is that we are spending too much, and we need to cut back on the spending. And that is a fundamental issue. I think it is pretty much a fundamental law of economics, which I do not think can be done away with simply by talking about it. I think that we are going to have to come to grips with it. As our colleague from Ohio was saying, it is such a great honor to be able to serve in this House. And I want to say that I grew up in a house in western North Carolina with no electricity, no running water, about as poor as anybody you will ever meet. And it is a true miracle that someone with my background could come here and represent the 5th District of North Carolina. And I am in awe every day of the fact that I have this great opportunity and am grateful for it. And I think about the way this country was formed, and I think it is important that we talk a little bit about that. I am troubled that so few people even know the basis of our government. People do not know the Constitution. They do not know the basis of our laws. They do not know the history of this country. And I want to talk some more about that, but I know we are not going to have as much time tonight as we had thought we would originally, so I am going to make a recommendation of a couple of books which I think are wonderful books to read. Anything by David McCullough is great. I know that he was being quoted earlier. I had a chance to read 1776 recently, which is the story of the first year of the revolution, and it is wonderful. And tonight I was reviewing the Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. And he talks a lot about the things that came together to make the United States possible, to make the Revolution possible. And I do want to quote one piece from Ellis, or maybe a couple of pieces from the book Founding Brothers. I do highly recommend it as something so easy to read. But he said, No one had ever established a republican government on the scale of the United States. And the overwhelming judgment of the most respected authorities was that it could not be done. Well, here we are over 200 years later proving that it can be done. But it is our job as representatives of the people to make sure that this wonderful experiment in liberty is sustained. And as, again, our colleague from Ohio said, it is a great honor to serve here. And some people may not know this, and I think it is important to know, that the only way anybody can serve in the United States House of Representatives is to be elected. People can be appointed to every other office in the United States, but they cannot be appointed to serve in the United States House of Representatives. One must be elected, and we are elected every 2 years. And I hope in this course of time, as we talk about the principles of this country, that we will do something that I do not think people do often enough, that is read the Constitution. I think it is helpful for us to reflect on the Constitution. And as we talk about the Truth Squad, I want to read two pieces from the Constitution tonight, and then turn it back to you, Mr. Price, to conclude our time here. But I think so often even the Constitution itself is not quoted accurately. And I think that part of our job should be to remind the people what the Constitution says, and how it is the basis for everything else that we do. Now I am going to read just the Preamble to the Constitution. And by the way, I borrowed this from the Parliamentarian. And I find it interesting that we tie back to Mr. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers. This is, in one manual, the Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives. As I understand it, in almost every elected body in the United States, they go back to Jefferson's Manual when there is any dispute on whether the rules apply or not. And so I think the fact that we do that is a great tribute to again our Founding Fathers and particularly Mr. Jefferson and the care he took with these things. Let me read the Preamble: ``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.'' I think that the key words for me here are ``provide for the common defense.'' That is the role of the Federal government. That is the number one role of the Federal government. We do want to promote the general welfare, but that is not the primary goal of the Federal government. It is to provide for the common defense. Promoting the general welfare can be done in lots of different ways. And I have heard some people on the other side say we should change those words around and say, provide for the general welfare and promote the common defense. I think that that is one of the problems that we are having in our country these days. And the other piece of the Constitution that I want to read tonight that I think is a part of tying back into our being the Official Truth Squad is amendment 1 to the Constitution: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' I find that in most days, when people want to quote the first amendment, they often quote that first phrase and leave out the second phrase. And I think that that is so important; I think it is a part of tying back again to the Truth Squad. Many times you hear people quote, ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,'' that says we should take the words ``In God We Trust'' off of our money, the words ``Under God'' out of our pledge. But what is so important is the second half of that sentence, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Unfortunately, those who would take away our freedoms are the ones who so often leave off the second half of that phrase. And it is extremely important that we not distort the words of the Constitution. And it is important I think that our Truth Squad remind people of those words so often, and I think we need to do that. I hope we will in our sharing things with the people talk more about the Constitution and how the truth of the Constitution itself has been distorted by some of our colleagues.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but I want to use all the tools in our arsenal to catch the terrorists and prevent another 9/11. That doesn't mean I advocate any infringements on the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Contrary to what some might have you believe, that is not what the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program is about. This program is not about domestic surveillance of law-abiding American citizens. The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is narrowly focused and is aimed only at international calls and targeted to track al Qaeda and other known terrorist groups. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in war right now, a war of the most unconventional means, and we need to be able to track, anticipate, and most importantly inhibit the actions of known terrorists who communicate with their comrades in the United States. Madam Speaker, we need to protect the President's lawful authority to intercept terrorist communications in this country, not demean it. Otherwise we won't have anything to protect or defend at all.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) very much for inaugurating the Truth Squad here tonight. I think it is high time that many of us came here to the well and shared the truth against many of the negative things that have been said night after night after night on this floor. I am very positive about our country. It is the greatest country in the world, and it is the only place I know of where people are dying to get into. We need to make sure that the positive things about this country are talked about. I want to talk a little bit tonight about the important role this Congress is going to continue to play in balancing our budget by spending our constituents' money wisely and by putting our national priorities in order. I also am looking forward to exposing this hypocrisy that has been exhibited here night after night by people who are quick to lament our Nation's problems but unwilling to take positive action towards solutions. The Congress must become a better steward of the taxpayers' dollars, and we must do it now. Our constituents deserve to send less of their hard-earned dollars to Washington and spend more on their families, businesses, and dreams. By cutting spending and cutting taxes, we will allow citizens to have more time with their families because they will not be having to work so much. Our constituents meticulously budget their dollars at their kitchen tables, and we owe it to them to do the same thing here in Washington. It is their dollars we spend, not ours. Cutting Federal spending is not an easy thing to do. We have seen this even as freshmen. However, it is the right thing to do, and my colleagues who join me here tonight recognize this important distinction and important responsibility to do what is right over what is easy. We had the chance recently to slow the growth of Federal spending, and I am proud that this House did the right thing by passing the Deficit Reduction Act. However, those very same Democrats who come here night after night and complain about the deficit were unwilling to roll up their sleeves and get to work to actually solve the problem. They had their chance to contribute to a solution with the Deficit Reduction Act, but they took the easy way out by voting against the bill. The Deficit Reduction Act is one of the long-term solutions for the future that we are supporting. It is easy to hand out money willy-nilly. However, it is not easy to find areas to reduce chronic spending; but reduce Federal spending we must, and we must demand more accountability for that spending. My constituents work hard, and more of them are working than ever before. More people are working all over this country than ever before. They have adapted to our changing economy; and as a result of sound economic policy, more of them are in good jobs than ever before. We have reduced the tax burden on American workers and small businesses, and our economy is strong. The money coming into the Federal Government has increased dramatically; but, unfortunately, the money we spend has increased dramatically, also. It is the taxpayers' money we spend; and we must be responsible, meticulous, frugal and effective in the ways the Federal Government spends this money. As this Congress takes up the fiscal year 2007 budget, I hope my colleagues will maintain that mentality. We have made great progress with the Deficit Reduction Act, but we must do much more to transition from deficit reduction to deficit elimination. I also call on the Democrats to contribute to the solution and to do the right thing by finding commonsense ways to reduce Federal spending. While we are here tonight to expose some blatant hypocrisy by the quick-to-complain Democrats, I would also like to invite them to start doing the right thing. I would love to see some Democrats join us in calling for reduced spending. I would love to see them back it up with a vote for reduced spending. It is not the easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. It is unfair to leave our children and grandchildren with massive debts resulting from overspending. The President's budget is a further attempt to help spare younger generations from debts that they do not deserve, but we must keep making progress with what the President outlined. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me tonight in highlighting this important issue. I am really proud to be a part of the Truth Squad, made up only of House Republicans; and I would like to reiterate my hope that Democrats will join us in doing the right thing, however difficult, by slowing Federal spending. I look forward to working with them to restore fiscal accountability and restraint so we can continue to trim and soon eliminate the Federal deficit. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for hosting this hour, and I am looking forward to many more evenings of our presenting to the American people the facts about our economy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the NSA terrorist surveillance program. It seems that on this issue the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to say they are tough on national security while at the same time demonizing anything that President Bush does to protect our country. On the one hand, we have the junior Senator from Massachusetts calling the program ``illegal.'' Other Democrats have deemed this a ``domestic spying program.'' And when this program came to light, leading Democrats acted outraged as if they did not know about it. But now these same Democrats are admitting that in fact they were briefed on the program all along and are arguing that they actually support the NSA program. So which is it? Mr. Speaker, Democrats must decide. They cannot have it both ways. The American people deserve to know where the Democratic Party stands on this issue. If they disagree with the terrorist surveillance program, then they need to say so and offer up a real alternative. But let me remind them: criticism, demagoguery and demonizing are not alternatives.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congresswoman Blackburn, for your leadership and for providing these opportunities for us to share some of our thoughts. Our colleague, Mrs. Drake from Virginia, does such a wonderful job in recognizing our military and serving on the Armed Services Committee. Today, when I was coming into the Cannon Building, there were two gentlemen in uniform standing at the door taking some pictures, and I stopped to thank them for their service. I do that every time I see anyone in our military. I thank them for their willingness to serve. They were so pleasant and so excited. They had come home from Iraq for a few days, and they were spending some time here in Washington. One of them said that his mother came from Mt. Airy, which is in my district. They gave me their cards, and we are going to maintain e-mail correspondence. You mentioned my grandchildren. I mentioned to them that, without any prompting whatsoever, about a year-and-a-half or 2 years ago my now 6\1/2\-year-old granddaughter and 9-year-old grandson, at night when I heard their prayers as they were going to sleep, began praying for our military people. It really touched my heart and the heart of their parents, because we didn't tell them to do that, they did it completely on their own. I hope that all of our military folks know, as I told these two gentlemen today, that there are millions of people in this country praying for them regularly. I want to tie that into what President Bush says all the time. He believes, as I believe and I think most people in this country believe, that freedom is a gift of God and that we are blessed in this country with the most freedom of any people and the most prosperity of any people and that part of our responsibility is to help spread that freedom. I also was thinking that February is not only the month for Valentine's Day, but it is Abraham Lincoln's birthday, and pretty soon we are going to be celebrating George Washington's birthday, and Ronald Reagan's birthday was in this month. We have so much to think about in this month of what those men meant to helping to live up to the ideals of freedom and the values of this country and what they risked in their lives, particularly Washington and Lincoln but also President Reagan, who risked saying to the world the truth, as President Bush has done. I want to bring us back to talking about the fact that we are at war and that it is appalling that many of our colleagues cannot seem to understand that, as Congresswoman Drake mentioned, and a part of that war is being able to gather intelligence so that we can fight it effectively. We do want to fight that war on their turf, not on our turf, and we want to keep them from attacking us again. I have been very distressed in the last few weeks about the way the revelation about the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, the hysterics that have been created from the other side of the aisle. I think that it is time that we talk about the myth that has been created about that program. The allegations about that program, that it is illegal, are a myth. It is a legal program. The reality is that the President's authority to authorize this program is firmly based in both his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief and in the authorization for the use of military force which passed Congress after 9/11. The allegations that the NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans are a myth. The reality is that this program is narrowly focused aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. There are safeguards in place to protect the civil liberties of Americans. Allegations that the NSA activities violate the fourth amendment are a myth. The reality is this program is consistent with the Constitution's protections of civil liberties, including fourth amendment protections. There are people who want you to believe this program is targeting average Americans, but nothing could be further from the truth. We need this program to help protect us and this country and to help protect our men and women who are fighting to keep this country a free country, and we need to do everything that we can that is legal, and I am convinced that the President is doing what is legal to protect us. I think, again, that we want to call attention to the men and women who are fighting for us and remember them in our prayers constantly and thank them for the sacrifices that they are making to keep this country free.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, since the revelation of the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, we have heard all sorts of hysterics from the other side of the aisle. I think now is the time to separate myth from reality. Allegations that the NSA program is illegal are a myth. The reality is that the President's authority to authorize this program is firmly based in both his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and in the authorization for use of military force which passed Congress after 9/11. Allegations that the NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans are a myth. The reality is that this program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. There are safeguards in place to protect the civil liberties of Americans. Allegations that NSA activities violate the fourth amendment are a myth. The reality is that that program is consistent with the Constitution's protections of civil liberties, including fourth amendment protections. There are people who want you to believe this program is targeting average Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 670, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), would congratulate the Pittsburgh Steelers on winning the 2006 National Football League title. For the city of Pittsburgh, winning Super Bowl XL filled its residents with pride, the kind of pride that is only shared with two other teams in history. The Pittsburgh Steelers have joined the ranks of the elite. Only the San Francisco 49ers, the Dallas Cowboys, and now the Steelers have succeeded in winning five Super Bowl titles. The Steelers had one of the most impressive runs through the postseason in NFL history by claiming victory as a sixth seed, having to play three consecutive games away from home. In doing so, the Steelers beat the top three teams in the AFC: the Cincinnati Bengals, the Indianapolis Colts, and finally the Denver Broncos. However, these contests seemed far in the past on February 5 as they geared up to tackle the Seattle Seahawks for the NFL title. In a fight to the end, the Steelers claimed the victory of 21-10 and clinched, surprisingly, the first Super Bowl win for each and every member of the team. I urge all Members to come together to honor the Pittsburgh Steelers in overcoming the odds to become the champions of the National Football League. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H. Res. 670, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 670) congratulating the National Football League champion Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XL and completing one of the greatest postseason runs in professional sports history.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last spring, China passed the anti-secession law to give Chinese leaders the right to use force against Taiwan if they suspect separatist activities in Taiwan. In addition to the enactment of the antisecession law, China's rapid military build-up has given the Taiwanese people a sense of dread. China's deploying more than 700 missiles along the southeast coast indicates China still stubbornly clings to a military solution of the Taiwan issue. In response to China's provocative actions, we need to emphasize that military intimidation over Taiwan is no solution to the cross strait relations. China must learn to respect the aspirations of Taiwan's 23 million people who want to be masters of their own land. China has no right to change the status quo either through the antisecession law or military intimidation. In the meantime, China must not block Taiwan's attempts in gaining international recognition or in returning to international organizations. Taiwan is a free and democratic nation and deserves to be treated properly and with respect by the international community. President Chen is a man of peace who does not seek to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. He has reaffirmed his commitment to maintain the status quo on many occasions. In the last 6 years, he has kept his pledges and offered many goodwill gestures to China. His goal of reducing tension between Taiwan and China remains unchanged. Let's hope that China will reciprocate Chen's olive branch by renouncing the use of force against Taiwan and resume dialogue on an equal footing and without preconditions.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 389) supporting the goals and ideals of The Year of the Museum.