Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate very carefully for the last day. There are clearly those who want to debate whether we should have gone into Iraq. That point is moot.

There are some who want to debate immediate withdrawal regardless of the consequences. That is dangerous.

Some just want to criticize the administration yet offer no plan of their own. That is political posturing.

Finally, there are some who want to debate that victory is not only possible in Iraq, it is essential to our security. Count me among their numbers.

Like many Members of this body, I have been to Iraq to visit with our troops. Those whom I have spoken to, they believe we are winning. And they also believe it is essential, like one soldier told me, Congressman, I hate being here, but I know how important it is to my family and how important it is to my country that we succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the American people are anxious, and I know that many days progress comes three steps forward and two steps backwards. And unfortunately, the national media tends to only portray the two steps backwards.

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein has been captured. He has been defeated. Last week al Zarqawi, the number one terrorist in the region, has been eliminated. A quarter million of the Iraqi troops have been trained, equipped, and on patrol. After years of halting progress, we now have a fully functioning, democratically elected government in Iraq. This is important because we are not threatened by democracies. We are threatened by despotic regimes and terrorist ideologies.

But the news stories that are most important about why we are there are never written. I come from Dallas, Texas. I have never read the story that today no suicide bomber exploded in North Park Mall. I have never read the story that today no car bomb went off in Poteet High School, and I know I have never read the story that today Jeb and Melissa Hensarling put their 4-year old and 2-year old to bed in a safer, more secure Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

Victory is costly. Defeat is even more costly.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding service commitment of the people of Herb's Paint & Body, a local icon around the Dallas metroplex, as they celebrate their 50th year of business and continue to make our community a better place to live.

Founded in 1956 by Herb Walne, Herb's Paint and Body originally was a Humble Gas Station located in the northeast Dallas neighborhood known as Lake Highlands. Over the years, Herb's Paint and Body grew to include a mechanical repair shop, an automatic car wash and a full service paint and body shop. There are now 5 locations, each of which prides itself on following Herb's original goal of offering superior customer service.

Today their commitment extends beyond excellent customer service and reaches beyond the Fifth District. Herb's Paint and Body holds an annual Golf Tournament to support Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) that successfully raised $21,000 last fall. During the Christmas season, Herb's Paint and Body collects toys and canned goods to support the White Rock Center for Hope and help brighten underprivileged families' holidays. Although Herb's has expanded north, they continue to be deeply rooted in Lake Highlands through community involvement with schools and students. Recently, Herb's Paint & Body joined me in honoring the Lake Highlands High School Varsity Cheerleaders at the ``Red Out'' celebration that raised money for the Red Cross to help Hurricane victims. Thanks to the generosity of Herb's, the cheerleaders were able to sell the red T-Shirts that Herb's Paint and Body donated and raise almost $14,000.

As the congressional representative of Herb's Paint & Body, it is my pleasure to recognize their excellence in service to the communities of the Fifth District of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank a very special group of dedicated Americans who have spent considerable energy assisting me in authoring this year's Republican Study Committee--RSC-- budget: the Contract with America Renewed.

Russell Vought, the policy director at the RSC, and Stephen Sepp, my legislative director, dedicated themselves this spring to helping me compile a budget that reflected the spirit of the first budget that the new Republican majority passed in 1995. I am very proud of the work that Russ and Stephen produced, and they deserve special recognition for their dedication to the advancement of freedom.

Additionally, I would like to thank the valuable members of my Washington, DC, staff who assisted with this effort: Mike Walz, Leigh Carter, Jennifer Daniels, Jamie Notman, Kyle Jackson, John Martin and Melanie Davis. Each individual provided legislative and administrative support for me during this extremely demanding project, and I am grateful for their service.

I would also like to thank my staff located in the Fifth District of Texas. Each and every one of them contributed to this budget, and I would like to publicly recognize Richard Sanders, Rebekah Kay, Margaret Smith, Barbara Luce, Beth Peters and Amanda Hodges. I am personally indebted to them for their service and sacrifice to the cause of freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will be the first to admit that I know little or nothing about this particular earmark, but here is what I do know: We need to step back and focus on the larger picture of where we are as a nation. In just a handful of years, the national debt has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8 trillion. Now, some will tell us it is because the American people are undertaxed. We happen to be awash in tax revenues. They were up 14 percent last year.

I think the problem that we have is we have a spending problem. We look at the long-term trends in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we simply cannot keep with the pace in spending. We have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies. How much government is enough?

This may be a great earmark. I don't know. It could be the greatest earmark known to mankind. But when do we finally say, enough is enough? It reminds me of what President Reagan once said, ``the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program,'' and every earmark can give birth to a Federal program.

We are spending $22,000 per American family. When do we stop?

Mr. Chairman, I think the challenge we have is, if we say yes to everybody's project today, we end up saying no to our children's future tomorrow. So when we are a nation that has this type of debt, when we have the recent announcement that Social Security is going to go broke a year earlier than thought, Medicare 2 years earlier, when do we stop and say, enough is enough? When do we say no to somebody's project today so we can say yes to our children tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Edgewood Bulldogs golf team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League State 2-A Championship.

On Thursday and Friday, May 11-12, 2006, the golf team competed in the University Interscholastic League Championship tournament at the Jimmy Clay Golf Course in Austin, Texas, for the State Championship. The Bulldogs competed against 200 other 2-A schools, holding to a one- stroke lead that brought home their first ever Boys Golf Championship and second team title in Edgewood High School history.

Today I would like to congratulate Head Coach Stan Williams, and players Dillon Phillips, Brett Perry, Garrett Cecil, Justin King, and Michael Waites.

As the Congressional representative of the players, families, coaches, and supporters of the Edgewood Bulldogs, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Morgan Mayse of Athens High School for her first place finish in the Texas University Interscholastic League State 4-A Track and Field Meet.

On Friday May 12, 2006, Morgan competed at the University of Texas in Austin's Mike A. Myers Stadium for the Girls High Jump earning the gold with the record jump of 5'9".

As the Congressional representative for Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, I would like to congratulate Morgan, as well as her family, coaches, and supporters on her tremendous undefeated season and her second straight District 14-AAAA and Region II-AAAA titles.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the Palestine Wildcats golf team who recently won the Texas University Interscholastic League 3A State Championship.

On Friday, May 12, 2006, the Wildcats golf team competed at the Jimmy Clay Golf Course in Austin, Texas, for the High School Boys State Championship. The Wildcats shot a 2-day total of 594 to claim the University Interscholastic League Class 3-A Title. The Wildcats, who represented four out of the top five players in the tournament, were the only team not to have a single round in the 80's.

Today I would like to congratulate Head Coach Tommy Allison, and players Jacob Taylor, Nicholas Verela, Joseph Totah, Jeremy Lambright, and Steve Harrington.

As the Congressional representative of the players, families, coaches, and supporters of the Palestine Wildcats, it is my pleasure to recognize their tremendous victory and outstanding season.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 58, line 20 through page 58 line 25.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59, line 13, through page 59, line 18.

This language carries a designation of special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page 59 line 13 through page 59, line 18.

This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of Order under clause 2 of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59, line 22, through page 60, line 2.

This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page 60, line 6, through page 60, line 11. This languages carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 60, line 15, through page 60, line 20. This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about what this debate is about. That is not what it is about. This is not about whether or not this House is going to support our brave men and women in uniform as they fight this war on terror. Every time the Commander in Chief has come to us and asked us to pass a supplemental appropriation to put guns on the front lines, ammunition on the front lines, gasoline on the front lines, equipment on the front lines, we have done it. We have done it. That is not the question.

But as was brought up earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, if you look at this bill, we see that roughly half a billion dollars of projects are coming from what might be viewed as a contingency fund to fight the war on terror. It is not literally called an emergency fund, but functionally that is what it is.

Although I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from New York when he opines about the purpose of that fund, as a member of the Budget Committee and one who has spoken with the chairman of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who wrote the budget and the gentleman who put that into the budget, this is not the purpose for which it was put there. That is not it.

Mr. Chairman, again, there are at least half a billion dollars of Member projects in this legislation. Now had those projects not been there, we would not have been here today. Half a billion dollars of spending that the Commander in Chief did not request, the Pentagon did not request, and I certainly hear my friends from the other side of the aisle be very vocal about wanting to take away tax relief because we have to support the brave

men and women on the front. I wonder if they would be as interested in reducing spending on their particular earmarks in order to achieve that particular purpose.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether or not we are going to support our troops, the question is how are we going to do it and is our budget a farce. Is our budget meaningless, or does it actually stand for something?

Those on the other side of the aisle will never lose an opportunity to raise taxes, but maybe there is another option here. Maybe we ought to look at other spending. We know there will be a number of appropriation bills to come to this floor. I do not know what will be in all of them. I certainly know looking in my rear view mirror what some of the spending has been in the past.

In appropriation bills for 2006, we added $273,000 for garden mosaics in New York. Maybe that is money we could have spend today on this military construction. We added $179,000 for hydroponic tomato production. Maybe that money could have been spent on military construction. There was a million dollars for the Water-Free Urinal Conservation Initiative; maybe that money could have been spent. Again, we are debating where this money is going to come from.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this represents appropriations that took place in last year's appropriations bills, and I am using them as an example of pools of money that have been available.

Again, there are earmarks in this bill that did not have to be there. They did not have to be there, Mr. Chairman. So what we have is a budget sleight of hand. The ink is not even dry on the budget, and we are already attempting to violate it. And that is simply not right.

Clearly, the greatest threat, the greatest threat to our country is the war on terror. But we also have another threat, and that is out-of- control Federal spending. If we are going to buy the guns, we had better get a little lean on the butter, and we had better quit wrapping the butter in the American flag in this sleight of hand. It is wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is wrong to do it. We will support our troops, but to sit here and pay for all of these earmarks and all the pork projects wrapped in the American flag is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and indeed, it does beg the question, how much Federal spending is enough?

I am reminded yet again that people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and, Mr. Speaker, maybe we ought to get a few of the facts on the table. Let us just take a look in our rearview mirror over the last 10 years and see how much money the Federal Government has been spending.

International affairs is up 89.1 percent; natural resources and environment, 43.8 percent; commerce and housing credit, 28.4. Since we have been discussing education training and employment, in 10 years that budget has gone from $53 billion to $114 billion. That is an increase of 113 percent. I mean, Mr. Speaker, how much do we need here in Federal spending? Should it be a 130 percent increase in 10 years, 150, 200?

We have to remember, also, Mr. Speaker, where is this money coming from? Although maybe there is literally a printing press down the road, figuratively there is not one. All of this money is coming from some American family, and every time we are increasing some Federal program, we are taking it away from some family program. Right now, again, budgets are about values, and they are about dollars and cents, and ultimately, this debate does come down again to taxes and spending.

The Democrats have said that we are offering all these great tax cuts. I looked very closely in the budget. I am having a little trouble finding that. What I do find is that we are going to prevent a huge automatic tax increase engineered by the other side. It is very fascinating to me in the Federal city how spending is forever; yet tax relief seems to be temporary.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decry any of the tax relief that has occurred under President Bush's watch. So that means they want to take it away. Well, what does that mean? It means, well, the lowest-income taxpayers will see that their taxes are increased 50 percent. It means we lose the 10 percent bracket. We go to the 15 percent bracket, a 50 percent increase on our lowest-income taxpayers.

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return if they have their way and have their huge automatic tax increases. Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits. Taxes on dividends and capital gains could jump as much as 100 percent.

Again, you start to think, well, wait a second, where is all this money coming from? Well, it is coming from families. It is coming from small business.

So how do families all across America afford to send their children to college? How about their education programs? Already, Mr. Speaker, we are now spending over $22,000 per American household. Last year was the first time since World War II that we have reached that level of spending. All that spending has got to be paid for. It has got be paid for. It has got to be paid for by American families.

Now, again, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to decry all of the tax relief and say that somehow it is the root cause of the deficit, the increase in the national debt. Well, again, they are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

I happen to have in my hand the latest report from the Treasury statement on revenues, which I would be happy to share with any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that says, guess what, we have more tax revenue. We have more tax receipts. Last year tax receipts increased roughly 15 percent. This year we are on track to have tax revenues increase about 11 percent.

Guess what? Since we have allowed American families and small business to keep more of what they earn, they have gone out and they have created jobs, and people pay taxes, and all of the sudden we have more tax revenues. It is kind of hard to make the argument that somehow tax relief that created 5 million new jobs has somehow added to the national debt. Clearly we have a large challenge with our national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is not because the American people are undertaxed. In fact, I am surprised that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not applauding the President for really presiding over one of the largest tax increases in American history. Here it is right here. We are awash in new revenue, but we did it the right way, Mr. Speaker. We grew the economy. We created jobs.

Now, what happens if you start to take the tax relief away? Well, again, since we have had tax relief, 5 million new jobs have been created. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United States of America, and yet, if you start to take away the tax relief, if you have these automatic tax increases, you lose the jobs. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague Chairman Nussle for his great work. It has been one of my great honors and privileges to serve on his Budget Committee. I have thought that Chairman Nussle has had the hardest job in this body, and he has always chaired the Budget Committee with fairness and principle and diligence, and, I might add, success. Again, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with him as he introduces his last budget. All I can say is Congress's loss is certainly Iowa's gain.

Mr. Chairman, over 10 years ago, visionary men and women of the Republican Party came forth with a very bold budget plan called the Contract with America budget. The Contract with America captured the imagination of the American people, and it gave the Republicans control of the people's House for the first time in decades.

More than just numbers, Mr. Chairman, the budget was about bedrock values. It called for true compassion by removing the yoke of dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an opportunity society. It spoke of restoring personal freedom by ending centralized bureaucratic micromanagement of the Federal Government. It called for reforms, it called for accountability, and finally, Mr. Chairman, it actually balanced the budget without tax increases on hard-working American families.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America budget was never enacted. Washington ignored the budget's ominous warning that if it failed to pass, within 10 years the national debt would grow to over $7.5 trillion from excess spending. That has proven true.

Today, members of the Republican Study Committee introduce the Contract with America Renewed Budget, a budget that is dedicated to achieving the goals of the original, chiefly balancing the budget in 5 years without raising taxes. This is the only budget proposed in Congress that would do so.

Mr. Chairman, not enough Americans realize it, but you can actually balance the budget without cutting 1 penny of Federal spending. That is right, without cutting 1 single penny. Even our budget will still grow government, but we slow its rate of growth, as we must. For the last 10 years, the Federal budget has grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. Washington has spent twice the rate of inflation and 50 percent faster than the family budget, and yet Democrats want to spend even more and tax more.

Every time Congress grows a Federal program, it takes money away from a family program, like a down payment on a home, college tuition for a child, or money to launch a small business. American families have to prioritize their spending every year. They have to balance their budget every year. They should expect no less from their Federal Government.

Now, to achieve a balanced budget without increasing taxes, our budget demands accountability, performance, and priorities. We propose the elimination of over 150 Federal programs. After almost 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should still not be funding Radio Free Europe. The citrus canker program is not of equal priority to Kevlar vests for our brave troops, and we simply do not need other bridges to nowhere.

Our budget prevents the massive, the massive planned Democrat tax increase that threatens the 5 million new jobs that have been created since Republicans in this body enacted tax relief and progrowth job policies in 2003. Our budget proposes to reform out-of-control entitlement spending and then saving, actually saving, Medicare as we know it for our children.

The budget proposes a number of reforms, like a constitutional line item veto, a sunset commission, and earmark reform, all geared towards saving the family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that soon Democrats will stand up and call this something akin to a tough and heartless budget. But, Mr. Chairman, the tough and heartless budget is theirs. Their budget ignores out-of-control spending and will lead the next generation to desperate economic times.

According to the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and anybody else who has looked at the problem, without spending reforms we will soon be faced with the choice of having a Federal Government consisting of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or actually doubling taxes on the next generation. That is the Democrats' budget plan for America.

But if we will simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget and limited accountable government, our future is bright. We can ensure unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity for this generation and the next. We should enact the Contract with America Renewed Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I find it a little surreal to be lectured by a Democrat on the subject of spending since for the last 10 years every time the Republicans have introduced a budget, they have introduced a budget that spends more. If the gentleman is really concerned about spending, he should support the budget that spends the least, which is this budget.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who is of the class of 1994 who voted for the original Contract With America, a former chairman of the Republican Study Committee and one of the great conservative leaders in the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a coauthor of the Family Budget Protection Act, one of the great fiscal conservatives of Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to a gentlewoman who knows that spending will increase every year under this budget, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed majority deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, since I know he has capability of being twice as profound, I will yield him half the time. At this time I yield 30 seconds to the father of earmark reform, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, one of the great conservative leaders in our Nation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, again, what we see in this budget debate is it comes down to a debate about values, it comes down, frankly, to a debate about spending, it comes down to a debate about taxes.

Now, again, what we have heard all evening is that somehow the tax relief passed by Republicans has led to great deficits. The only problem is, that doesn't seem to jive with the facts.

I hold in my hand here the latest Treasury report on revenues. Since we have actually passed tax relief, we have more tax revenues. More tax revenues. When we allow the American people, the American families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, they go out and they create jobs. And a lot of these jobs happen to be in my district. But, Mr. Chairman, if we enact this Democrat alternative, you are going to have a massive tax increase and you are going to start taking the jobs away.

Since we passed tax relief, Hugh Dublin in my congressional district, his business used to have three employees. Since we passed tax relief, he added two new employees, a guy named Dan and a guy named David.

Yet Democrats want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small business. They want to take away these guys' paychecks, and they are going to end up replacing them with welfare checks. And that is what they call compassion. That is what the Democratic tax increase is all about.

Let me tell you about Eddie Alexander of SSS Electric in my district back in Texas. Since we have had tax relief, he has had to hire two new people himself, a gentlemen by the name of Jared and a gentleman by the name of John Feagins. They were both unemployed, looking for employment in Henderson County, Texas.

Well, due to tax relief, they were able to expand their business. Yet the Democrats in their substitute budget want to increase taxes on Eddie Alexander and SSS Electric. They want to take away the paychecks of Jared and John and replace them with welfare checks. That is not compassion, Mr. Chairman. We need to reject this Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2006, the House of Representatives voted on legislation, H.R. 5253, to federally prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, and biofuels. While I am committed to working with my colleagues to enact energy policies that will lower gas prices and help out American families, I do not believe that this legislation will help.

I voted against this legislation because I believe it irresponsible to criminalize an action without defining exactly what we would be criminalizing. As my constituents in East Texas would say, this legislation simply does not pass the smell test. Not only does this legislation criminalize an action without defining the crime, but it passes off that responsibility to unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission. Thus, this legislation could effectively criminalize profit making by companies according to some artificial and arbitrary definition determined by bureaucrats in Washington--and that's not the American way.

Additionally, at a November 9, 2005, joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Federal Trade Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras testified that federal price gouging laws would unnecessarily hurt consumers, instead emphasizing that enforcement of our current antitrust laws is the best method by which to protect American consumers. I find it interesting that not even the Federal Trade Commission believes that federal price gouging laws are an effective protection for consumers.

While I believe that price gouging may exist in limited circumstances, such as the immediate aftermath of a hurricane where market forces have broken down, I have seen no evidence that we are experiencing high gas prices because of price gouging. Instead, I believe that the following factors are responsible for high gasoline prices: (1) A huge increase in worldwide demand, especially in China and India; (2) Supply uncertainty and political instability from large producers like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria; (3) Over-reliance on the Gulf Coast region; (4) Environmental concerns limiting domestic production and refining; (5) Failure of new technologies to yet mature. Only through increasing our domestic production and reducing excessive federal regulations will we create conditions for lower gasoline prices in the future.

In the face of high gas prices, Congress must not pass knee-jerk reaction legislation that will only worsen the problem in the future. We owe it to our constituents to pass solid, sensible legislation that will promote American energy independence in the future and address this issue in the long term. Ultimately, I did not believe this bill would do anything to lower gas prices for my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, the tax relief that the Republicans have passed has now helped to create over 5 million new jobs. But if Democrats succeed with their huge automatic tax increase, you start to lose those jobs. Let me tell you about a few of them.

Hugh Dublin owns East Texas Right of Way in Tennessee Colony, Texas. In the past 3 years his company has grown from two full-time employees and four

part-timers to adding an additional four employees. Why? Because of tax relief.

The Democrats now want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small business. They want to replace his employees' paychecks with welfare checks. This is their idea of compassion.

Eddie Alexander owns Triple S Electric in Henderson County, Texas. For the past 3 years, he worked alone with one part-time helper. Since the passage of the President's economic growth plan he has had to hire two more workers just to keep up. But the Democrats now want to raise taxes on Eddie Alexander in his small business, replacing his employees' paychecks with welfare checks. This is their idea of compassion. The Republican idea is more jobs, hope and opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, one cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate transparency.

But from listening to today's debate, it appears that Democrats are now against more transparency. Perhaps the recent ethical woes of several high-profile Democrats may help explain why.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have now said no to tax relief that created 5 million new jobs. They have said no to more domestic oil production, to lower gas prices, and now they are saying no to transparency for lobbying activities.

I say yes to this legislation because it has transparency where we need it, and that is on earmarking, earmarking which includes examples like the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, the $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, and $1 million for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the list goes on and on.

How Congress spends the people's money is where true reform is needed, and no one spends more of the people's money than Democrats.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I admit there are many good and useful earmarks. We are not eradicating them today. We are simply reforming them. And I congratulate Chairman Dreier for his work, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his leadership on this issue.

I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, we have just received some news yesterday which I hope will sufficiently alarm every big spender that we have in the United States House of Representatives. Yesterday we received the annual report on the financial well-being of Medicare and Social Security from the trustees of those funds. They report that the fiscal situation has again deteriorated and, in fact, Social Security will become broke in 2040, 1 year sooner than expected, and Medicare will go broke in 2018, 2 years sooner than expected.

This is not good news, Mr. Speaker; but a number of us have been speaking out for weeks, for months, for years that we must do something in this body to change the fiscal path that we are on.

Now, today, if you are a senior receiving Medicare, receiving Social Security, you are going to be fine. But there is this great big baby boom generation that has been paying billions and billions of dollars into the funds, and soon they will be taking from the funds; and the fiscal situation will deteriorate rapidly.

The challenge that we have, though, Mr. Speaker, is that too many people in the Federal city, too many people in this body, are focused on the next election and not the next generation.

Now, the report we received is certainly not a crisis. It is not something we have to take care of today. We do not have to take care of it tomorrow, do not have to take care of it next week. But let there be no doubt about it, if we want to preserve Medicare and Social Security as we know these programs for the next generation, steps must be taken today. Otherwise, we will put our Nation on a course, on a fiscal path, that will determine, that will actually ensure that our children, our grandchildren have a lower standard of living than we do.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the week where we are due to vote on the budget, and the budget is always a time of great debate in this institution. And I hope that the American people focus on the fact that the budget is more than just numbers; it is more than just getting out a pencil with a stubby eraser; it is more than just red ink and black ink, and, unfortunately, it has been a lot more red ink than black ink. It is really about priorities. It is about the society that we want to have. It is about the legacy that we will leave the next generation.

I personally got into the parenthood business 4 years ago. I have a 4-year-old daughter and a 2\1/2\-year-old son. And I think a lot about the kind of America that I want my children to grow up in and all the children that I see in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor to represent in this body. I want to leave my children a legacy of greater hope, greater freedom, and greater opportunity. I do not wish to leave them a legacy of greater debt, greater taxes, and more big government bureaucratic solutions. That is not the America I want to leave them. I think that if we will just ford the frontiers of freedom, if we can have smart government, limited government, accountable government, then our children and grandchildren can have an even brighter future than what we enjoy today.

But as we debate this budget, it is a little bit like that film with the comedian called ``Groundhog Day,'' where it seemed like he, Bill Murray, relives the same day over and over. And for those of us who have been veterans of these budget debates, it seems like the debate points never change. Maybe the numbers do and the situation gets more serious, but the debating points do not seem to change.

So first, Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of different budgets that we debate; but my guess is, if history is our guide, it will come down to one Republican budget and one Democrat budget.

Now, the Democrats will tell us that all these programs are being cut and if you will only send more money to Washington, we can solve all these problems for the American family. If you will just trust Washington, if you will just trust the liberal elite in the Nation's capital who know better about your family than you do, then everything will be fine.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has been happening. First, Washington, D.C., our Federal Government, is now spending, last year, starting with last year, over $22,000 per household. This is only the fourth time in the entire history of America that the Federal Government has spent this much money. It is the first time since World War II that the Federal Government has taken so much money away from hardworking American families to bring up

to Washington, D.C. And as you can tell from this chart, frankly, the trend line is very, very worrisome. And in just the past decade, look at what has happened: the average family income, as measured by median family income, 10 years ago was roughly $45,000 per family of four. As you can tell from this bottom line, it has now increased over 10 years to about $62,000 for a family of four.

But look at what has happened to the Federal budget. Ten years ago it was about $1.6 trillion, and now it is approaching $2.6 trillion for the next year. The Federal budget has outpaced the family budget by almost a full third in just the last decade. And the future trends are even more alarming.

So, Mr. Speaker, tonight I want us to focus on what the future is going to look like if we do not change big spending ways in Washington and what the future can look like if we will just have smart government, limited government, accountable government, and trust the American people and trust freedom and trust hope and trust opportunity.

At this point, though, I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that we have been joined by an outstanding Member of the freshmen class who has been a real leader in the United States Congress in trying to protect the family budget from the Federal budget, to try to restrain out-of- control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her great leadership in this body on trying to bring fiscal sanity to the Federal city and do something that can really make a difference in the lives of her constituents and for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, again we are talking tonight on the precipice of the great budget vote which occurs here in Congress each and every year. I think it is important that we get a number of facts out before this debate takes place. People are always entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

One of the opinions you will hear from Democrats on the other side of the aisle is that somehow the Republican budget is going to cut taxes. Well, I have looked very carefully at this budget. It doesn't cut taxes. What it does is it preserves the tax relief that has already been given to the American people in previous years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it prevents a Democrat tax increase.

The American people, very few of them know this, but in Washington

spending is forever and tax relief is temporary. You have got to keep on voting to just keep the tax relief that you have already received. Yet spending goes on forever.

I think it was President Reagan who once said that the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and indeed he was correct.

So, let's talk a little bit about what would happen if the Democrats succeed in making sure that they have a huge, automatic tax increase. They say that any fiscal woe that we have in the Nation is somehow the result of tax relief that was given out in earlier years.

If they have their way, if they roll back all the tax relief that has occurred, tax rates will rise substantially in each and every bracket on American families, right now when many of them are struggling to fill up the family pickup truck or the family car.

Low-income taxpayers, if the Democrats have their way and raise taxes on the American people, the 10 percent bracket will disappear and the 15 percent bracket will come back. That means our lowest wage earners who pay taxes, our lowest wage earners who pay taxes under the Democrat plan will see a 50 percent increase in their taxes. They call that compassion.

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return, costing American families thousands of dollars. Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits if the Democrats have their way, if their budget is passed. The American people, Mr. Speaker, need to read the fine print.

Now, the Democrats will rail against the deficit, but they won't admit that under their budget, all these taxes increase on American families. Taxes on dividends and capital gains will jump by as much as 100 percent. Half of American families are invested in the stock market in their 401(k) plans. It is their retirement, particularly since the Democrats refuse to do anything to save Social Security for the next generation.

The depreciation period for leasehold improvements will increase from 15 to 39 years on small business, the job engine of America. If the Democrats have their way in their budget, taxes will increase on small businesses. And the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to see that we have been joined by truly one of the great leaders in Congress to combat waste and fraud and abuse and duplication and I guess really dumb government. I am very happy to be joined by a dear friend of mine and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Chocola, who happens to be also the coauthor, along with myself and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, of the Family Budget Protection Act, which is the most comprehensive piece of budget reform legislation that could be passed by this Congress. I am very happy to be joined by him. I would at this time yield to him to get his perspective.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Anything called ``truth in accounting'' is going to be a very foreign topic in this body.

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what we need. The analogy or the metaphor that the gentleman from Indiana used is truly an apt one. As great as the tragedy that Hurricane Katrina was, think how much greater a tragedy that would have been had we not seen the hurricane coming, had it been like that tsunami that hit in Asia, where people didn't see it coming, and tens of thousands perished.

We see this coming. But our challenge, Mr. Speaker, it is not coming tomorrow, it is not coming next week, but it is coming, and we have an opportunity to do something about it.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, going on the thing that the gentleman from Indiana spoke about, what does the future look like if we choose to do business as usual, if we choose to follow the Democrat's lead and just keep on spending and spending and taxing and taxing and taxing and spending?

Let me tell you. Former chairman Alan Greenspan said, ``We are very short on time and we will have a very great difficulty in fully funding the existing system.'' He was referring to Social Security.

The liberal Brookings Institute, no bastion of conservative thought, has recently written, ``Expected growth in these programs,'' referring to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, ``along with projected increases in interest on the debt and defense, will absorb all of the government's currently projected revenue within 8 years, leaving nothing for any other program.''

Like the gentleman from Indiana said, if we don't do anything, in a matter of time the Federal government will consist of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and nothing else. There will be no Border Patrol. There will be no student loans. There will be no veterans health care system. There will be no agricultural research. There will be no Federal Trade Commission. And the list goes on and on.

The same report said, ``The authors of this book believe that the Nation's fiscal situation is out of control and could do serious damage to the economy in coming decades.''

The General Accountability Office has said there is no way you are going to grow your way out of this problem, even though we have had very robust economic growth since we passed President Bush's economic growth plan. If we don't change our path, there will be an adverse effect on economic growth, quality of life and national security.

This is in the same report from the General Accountability Office, Comptroller General David Walker: ``We are heading to a future where we will have to double Federal taxes or cut Federal spending in half.''

Now Yogi Berra once said, if you find a fork in the road, take it. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to take this fork in the road. We want to back up and we want to get on the right road. Again, that is why this budget debate is so important in this budget vote.

Now, again, there will be different alternative budgets debated. But it is going to come down to one Democratic budget and one Republican budget. And the Democratic budget, again their answer is more spending and more taxing, taking more money away from families.

Every time you vote to increase a Federal program, you are taking money away from some family program. Now, let us talk a little bit about some more truths that need to come out. Well, number one, again, the Democrats will say that we have a huge deficit, and that is perhaps the only item we might agree with them on.

Yes, the deficit is too large. But the deficit is too large because we are spending too much, not because the American people are undertaxed. They will say that all of the President's tax relief from previous years has somehow contributed to this incredible national debt that the gentleman from Indiana referred to.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the Treasury report of the latest tax revenues. And guess what it says? It says that as we have decreased the marginal tax rates, we actually have more tax revenue. It says it right here.

Last year, corporate income taxes were up almost 45 percent. Individual income taxes were up almost 15 percent. Again, we have lowered tax rates, and we get more tax revenue. And as we can see from this chart, Mr. Speaker, we saw declining revenue from the Federal Government, as we were in a recession back in 2002 and 2003.

And yet this body, this Republican leadership, cut tax rates for small businesses, for American families, and they work, and they save and they invest and they build. And guess what? Not only do we create more jobs and more hope and more opportunity; we have more tax revenue. More tax revenue.

We had a 5 percent increase in tax revenue from 2003 to 2004. We had a 15 percent increase in revenue from 2004 to 2005. And now at the beginning of 2006, tax revenue is up 6 percent. Again, we cut tax rates, and we have more tax revenue, and the American people need to be aware of this.

If you take away the tax relief, if the Democrats have their way and get their huge automatic tax increases on the American people, you are going to lose this extra tax revenue. And not only that, you are going to lose everything that the tax relief has brought.

Now, with the glaring exception of terribly high gasoline prices, which are clearly hurting all American families, I know they are struggling, they are struggling. Think how much more they would struggle, though, if they did not have jobs.

Under tax relief, we have 5 million new jobs that have been created in this economy in just the last couple of years. Five million new jobless. We have had 30 consecutive months of uninterrupted job growth, and we have actually got unemployment down. The unemployment rate today is lower than the average of the 1970s, of the 1980s, and of the 1990s. And yet Democrats want to have a huge automatic tax increase and take this away.

Right now more Americans than ever own their own home. We have the highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United States of America. Household net wealth has now reached $51 trillion, which is an all-time high.

Average hourly earnings grew, and pay rose by 3\1/2\ percent. Inflation continues to be low. Now, again, there is clear work that has to be done on the price of gasoline, and that is a grey lining in what otherwise would be a big silver cloud.

Now, some people might say, well, how do you give tax relief and create jobs? Well, it was not that long ago, Mr. Speaker, that I visited a small business in Jacksonville, Texas, in my district, in the 5th District of Texas.

Now, Jacksonville Industries is a business that is in the aluminum die cast business. And they employed 20 workers when I went to visit them. Now, before the President brought his economic growth program to Congress to pass, they were on the verge of having to lay off two workers because of competitive pressures.

But because of the tax relief measures, they went out and they bought a new piece of equipment. Now, I could not tell you what it is called. I do not precisely know what its mechanical function is, but I can tell you what the result is. The result is they bought this new piece of equipment, and it made them more competitive. It made them more efficient.

And, Mr. Speaker, guess what? Instead of laying off two people, they went out and hired three new people. They hired Roger, and they hired Jess, and they hired Victor, three people who could have been on unemployment. They could have been on welfare. They could have been on food stamps. And they could have been on Medicaid.

But thanks to tax relief that the Democrats want to take away with their huge tax increase, this one small business in Jacksonville, Texas, had five people now who put roofs over their head, who put food on the table, who are building a better future for their families. That is just one small business in one small town in Texas. And that is happening all over the economy.

Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield back to my colleague from Indiana who knows a lot about job creation himself.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to once again point out one of our earlier charts to show just what has happened to the family budget, which is this lower blue line. Median family income in America in the last decade has gone from roughly $45,000 to $62,000.

Well, what has happened to the Federal budget in this same time period? This red line. About $1.6 trillion to $2.5 trillion. Again, the Federal budget is outpacing the family budget.

Mr. Speaker, only families can pay for the Federal budget. There is no magical machine that creates wealth in Washington, D.C. It comes from hardworking families from Indiana, from Texas, and from all across America.

And the gentleman, the colleague I have from Indiana, brought up a very good point. It is not how much money you spend in Washington that counts; it is how you spend the money.

Now, what we will again hear this week as we vote on the budget, and we have this annual budget vote and budget debate, we will be told that as a Nation we are not spending enough on education, we are not spending enough on housing, we are not spending enough on nutrition.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that may be right. But the fundamental difference between the Republican budget and the Democrat budget is the Democrats want the Federal Government to do the spending. The Republicans want families to do the spending. And we know the difference.

Now, the Democrats will say that the Republicans are cutting the budget. Well, I have yet to see any single budget submitted that actually cuts Federal spending. Frankly, we can probably use one.

What we do, though, is the Republicans will moderate the growth of government, and the Democrats will not. I have looked up ``cut'' in Webster's Dictionary, and it actually means to reduce. What the Democrats call a cut is that some government program under the Republican budget will grow 3 percent next year and they want it to grow 6. And they call that a cut.

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the truth. That is not the truth. And they act like there has been an underinvestment in the Federal Government. Well, just in the last 10 years, the international affairs budget has increased 89 percent. The agriculture Federal budget has increased 118 percent.

The Federal transportation budget has increased 83 percent. The Federal education budget 113 percent. Health, including Medicaid, 126 percent. And guess what? During that same time period, median family income only grew by 33 percent.

Again, in just the last 10 years, the growth of the Federal Government is twice that of the family budget. It is just an unsustainable growth rate. And it begs the question again, what kind of America do you want?

Mr. Speaker, we already have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different government agencies. I do not think there is one person in America who can tell you what each and every one of those agencies does and what every single one of the bureaucrats who works there, what they do.

I mean, at some point you have to say how much government is enough, how much government do we want to pay for. The Democrats act like nothing good ever happened in America if it was not funded by the Federal Government. Like, if we did not have a Federal program, there would not be any boy scouts, there would be no soccer games, we would have no physician, no Red Cross, no ice cream. None of this would happen. Anything good that happens in America, according to the

Democrats, can only happen through the Federal Government.

But we have to remember, every increase in a Federal program, again, is a decrease in some family program. What the Republican budget is about is we want a Federal Government that does a few things very, very well and not a Federal Government that tries to do everything but does them quite poorly, and this is what this is about.

Another difference between these two budgets, again as we talked about, is the Democrats wanting to bring forth a huge tax increase upon the American people. They want to take away paychecks and replace them with welfare checks. Mr. Speaker, that is not compassion.

A compassionate society ought to be measured ultimately by the number of paychecks it produces, not the number of welfare checks that are produced, and with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing up that point because too often in this debate that we are having about the budget this week, Democrats act like if we would only take more money away from American families and send it to Washington, that somehow it will magically turn into love and happiness and kindness and all kinds of good things.

Yet, the Federal Government cannot account for $24 billion that was spent in fiscal year 2003. It has just disappeared into thin air; and yet the Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this?

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect the refunds even though the tickets were refundable, and yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this?

The Federal Government spends $23 billion annually on earmarks, also known as pork projects, such as the grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and, hey, I love rock and roll, but I am just not sure our taxes should pay for it, because most of the rock stars I have seen are doing quite well on their own, not to mention, of course, that earmark known as the Bridge to Nowhere, to be complemented now by the Railroad to Nowhere, $23 billion.

That is another thing, Mr. Speaker, we will take up is earmark reform this week, which is very important that we do, because as our colleague in the other body from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, has said, earmarks are the gateway drug to the culture of irresponsibility. Yet, as we spend all this money on pork projects, Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

Again, as was pointed out, the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2001 lost 10 percent of their whole budget. How many families or how many businesses could still operate if they just lost 10 percent of their budget? It goes back to that truism that we are never as careful with other people's money as we are with our own. This is just inexcusable; and yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

Let us talk about duplication. We have 342 economic development programs at the Federal level. It begs the question, what does the Federal Government know about economic development? Small business people know. Entrepreneurs know. Families know. I am not sure what the Federal Government knows. We have 130 different programs serving the disabled, 90 early childhood development programs, 75 Federal programs funding international education and cultural exchange activities, and the list goes on and on.

So that could be 342 executive directors and 342 vice executive directors and the list goes on, and yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

Washington is spending $60 billion annually on corporate welfare versus $43 billion on homeland security. That does not make any sense, and yet Democrats want to raise our taxes to pay for more of this.

So again, Mr. Speaker, if we will just be smart, if we will decide that we need a Federal Government that is focused on a few items and do them very, very well, we can receive a brighter, brighter future for our children because if we do not, this is the future that we are facing. This is what is happening to spending today; and again, as we have used the comparison to a hurricane that is coming in our direction, right now revenues are roughly about 20 percent of our economy, a little bit less, but what is happening is that programs are far outstripping our ability to pay for them.

In just one generation, spending is due to more than double. Here is what is going to happen to revenues, but look at what happens to spending by the year 2040, and most of it is driven by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and interest on the national debt.

So, to some extent, it is a little bit like Charles Dickens' ``A Christmas Carol.'' We are all familiar with that story with Scrooge, and we know how fearful the Ghost of Christmas yet to come, how fearful that spirit is.

Well, what is going to happen here in many respects is the ghost of Christmas yet to come. This is the future that our children and grandchildren are facing if we do not start today with a very simple choice between a Democrat budget and a Republican budget. It starts today, Mr. Speaker. We can decide that the Democrats are right that we are not spending enough money, notwithstanding the fact that every Federal program has grown precipitously over the family budget, notwithstanding the fact that we are on

this road to either have no Federal Government except for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or we are going to double taxes on the American people in one generation.

That is their vision of America. Our vision is one of limited government, better government, more effective government, one where our children and grandchildren still have an opportunity to use their God- given talents to roll up their sleeves, to work hard and to create the kind of future that they want for themselves. It is an America that is growing. It is an America that has more freedom, and this is what we see, and that is why these budgets are so different.

But the Democrats, again, want to keep this spending going. They want to have a tax increase.

Now, they do not like to talk about it. They like to point fingers at the Republicans; but let me tell you, for the last 10 years, every time the Republicans submitted a budget, the Democrat alternative budget spends even more, and they are pointing the finger of fiscal irresponsibility?

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the House Budget Committee, as does my colleague from Indiana, and we just marked up the budget. Every single Democrat amendment to the budget would have spent more money. They say the Republicans were fiscally irresponsible to provide a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, but guess what, Mr. Speaker? Their alternative plan spent even more money than the Republican plan.

It is just inconceivable that they can point the finger of fiscal irresponsibility when all they want to do is lead us to a future where taxes are double and an America where people do not create jobs, where people cannot afford to send their children to college, where people cannot find the capital to start new businesses, oh, but there will be plenty of welfare checks, and they will call that compassion. Compassion is about paychecks.

With that, I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for joining us tonight. I certainly thank him for his courageous leadership in this body.

In these closing minutes we have, Mr. Speaker, what is it that we do about all of this? Well, several things. Number one, we need to reform the budget process that we have today. Now, it is not particularly sexy kind of stuff; but, you know, the machine we have that produces spending in Washington was manufactured back in the 1970s, back when Democrats were in charge in this body, and it is a spending machine. We need to go back and retool that to a savings machine for American families.

Number one, most American families do not realize this, but our budget does not even have the force of law. At best it is a mere suggestion. The legislation sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) would ensure that our budget, when you tell the American people here's the budget, we will enforce it as a law.

Second of all, we have got to cap the growth. I did not say a cut, but we have got to cap the growth of the Federal budget to roughly that of the family budget. Only then will programs have to compete against each other. Only then will you start to root out the waste, the fraud and the abuse and the duplication. Only then when you say, okay, this is all the money we are taking away from the American family and we will take away no more.

We need sunsetting commissions in the Federal Government. Again, as President Reagan once said, the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. Many have long since outlived their usefulness.

I just tripped across this one the other day. We are still funding Radio Free Europe; and, to the best of my knowledge, the Berlin Wall fell back in 1989. We need to eliminate this thing called baseline budgeting which allows people to artificially inflate budgets. It is the kind of stuff that would make an Enron and WorldCom accountant blush, yet here people get away with it in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we just balance the budget. It is time to balance the budget, and we need to do it without increasing taxes on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, certain principles transcend time. One of those principles is balancing the budget. Another principle is limited government. You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited freedom. If you want unlimited government, Mr. Speaker, people ought to support the Democrat budget. If they want more welfare, if their greatest hope and aspiration is a Federal check, then people should support that budget. But if people want more freedom and if they want more opportunity and their aspiration is a paycheck with a great career where people can use their God-given talents and be everything that they can be, then they need to support this Republican budget, and we can have a brighter future for my children and for all the children in America for generations to come in this great and blessed land.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Scott Miller for his outstanding leadership and dedicated service to his community and his country.

As an active member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Scott appreciates the important relationship between the United States and Israel. Scott knows that the nation of Israel is not only a shining example of democracy in the Middle East, it is one of our nation's most important allies. And Scott understands the enormous benefits of strengthening ties between our two great Nations.

Scott Miller and AlPAC are virtually synonymous. Scott is former chair of the Dallas AIPAC council, and a member of AIPAC's National Executive Committee. As the founder of AIPAC's young leader movement, Scott has helped expand the organization and its membership in Dallas. This Sunday, he will also be receiving the Sam Wolfson Distinguished Leadership Award.

But AlPAC is just one of Scott's many interests. He is a past President of Jewish Family Service of Dallas, the CFA Society of Dallas/Fort Worth and the Wharton Club of Dallas/Ft. Worth. He has served as the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Federation of Greater Dallas and currently serves on the boards of the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Community Center.

Scott is also a leader in business, specializing in global investments as both the principal of Miller Global Investments, L.L.C. and founding member and partner of FCM Investments. Last but not least, Scott is also a dedicated family man. He and his wonderful wife Julie have three lovely children.

I am proud to call Scott my friend and it is my pleasure to recognize his distinguished service today in the U.S. House of Representatives.