Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to thank and congratulate my friends, David and Dolly Fiddyment of Roseville, California, for their generous contributions to furthering the field of education. They have made an extraordinary gift of $1.09 million to establish the first endowed chair at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) School of Education. With this contribution, they are furthering their family's heritage as education pioneers in Northern California.

The Fiddyment Family's roots in the greater Sacramento area predate both the advent of railroad and the founding of the City of Roseville-- which the family helped to start. David's greatgrandmother, Jane Fiddyment, acquired an 80-acre parcel in 1856. The parcel eventually grew to encompass 2,200 acres of livestock, grain, and pistachio farms. David and Dolly themselves have been growing pistachios at Fiddyment Farms in Roseville since 1969 and have helped shape the State's vibrant pistachio industry.

Mr. Speaker, the Fiddyment Family's commitment to education runs as deep as their rich history in agriculture. Great-grandmother Jane Fiddyment gave a portion of her land for one of the first schools in the Roseville area in the 1880s. She felt that the school building and playground were essential so that children in the area could receive needed instruction. It was a one-room structure with an oblong iron wood stove in the center of the room, a tall pine flag pole in the front, a good well, and a shed for stabling the horses ridden by youngsters from near and far. It was known as the Pleasant Grove School, and Jane became its first teacher. The school continued in operation until 1911.

Continuing the tradition, the mothers of both David and Dolly taught school in the early 1900s, and Dolly was a teacher in the San Juan Unified School District for 25 years.

Like the Fiddyments, UC Davis has a long history of working to strengthen schools, dating back to the first teacher-training program held on the University Farm in 1918. With the founding of the School of Education in 2002, the university revitalized its commitment to K-12 education.

The Fiddyments' financial gift will enhance UC Davis' leadership position in preparing the next generation of teachers to respond to the critical issues facing our schools. This is the largest private donation made to the School of Education and one of the few in the Nation given to support an endowed chair in teacher education.

Mr. Speaker, as Harold Levine, Dean of the School of Education said, ``This gift is a milestone in our growth and signals the importance of teachers and teacher education to all of us. We are honored to have the Fiddyments as partners in our mission to strengthen teaching and learning for all.''

David added, ``It is such a joy for us to be able to stand up and take a position on something of such importance. With this gift, we are hoping to make a difference in the education of children everywhere.'' They were inspired, in part, by a visit to the classroom of one of UC Davis alumna, Dawn Imamoto, a 2004 California Teacher of the Year. Dolly Fiddyment said that, ``Dawn embodies the kind of teacher we'd like every child to have.''

Today, I am proud to honor my friends and constituents, David and Dolly Fiddyment. They are truly pioneering the way to a brighter future for the next generation of students.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen and public servant who will celebrate his 50th Anniversary as Fire Chief of the Quincy Volunteer Fire Department on November 11, 2006. I join with the local community of Quincy and the residents of Plumas County in congratulating Mr. Richard G. ``Andy'' Anderson for his remarkable service.

Andy Anderson was born and raised on a farm in Southern Illinois. In addition to attending school and performing farming chores, Andy also worked at the local mortuary. When World War II commenced in 1941, he pleaded with his father to allow him to serve in the United States military. When his father finally granted permission in 1942, Andy enrolled in the United States Navy and served aboard the USS Cullman for the duration of the conflict and received an honorable discharge for his contributions.

After the war, Andy attended mortician school in San Francisco and completed his apprenticeship in the Bay Area. He then took a position in Red Bluff, California, before purchasing mortuaries in Portola and Quincy, California. In 1956, Andy moved to Quincy to manage his businesses and was elected fire chief of the local department in November of that same year.

During his service as chief, Andy made the Quincy Volunteer Fire Department into a model organization. He has stressed the importance of interagency cooperation and created the Plumas County Fire Chiefs Association which included the fire chiefs from throughout rural Plumas County. Andy served as the chairman of this organization for 25 years. Presently, the organization has expanded to include all Plumas County emergency service providers. In addition to this valuable contribution, Andy participated in or created several other county and statewide organizations dedicated to emergency services and disaster preparedness. To this day, he serves as the Director of the Plumas County Office of Emergency Services and as Plumas County Fire Warden.

Andy is also an accomplished pilot and has an active interest in radio broadcasting, railroading, and county fairs. He has poured his efforts into these worthy causes as well as numerous other local volunteer and civic organizations. Andy has great pride in his two grandsons, Will and Richard, and has been married to his wife Gayle for over 42 years. He affectionately refers to Gayle as ``the real Chief.''

Mr. Speaker, my district encompasses a large area of rural California, and I am happy to say that these communities are kept strong by people like Andy Anderson who make sacrifices in order to serve their fellow citizens. Andy is deserving of our recognition because of his five decades of public fire and emergency service, his military service to our country, and his love of family. I appreciate the opportunity to honor him today.

Mr. Speaker, whether she was called Beverly, Bev, Mom, Grandma, Dear Friend or the Mail Lady, Beverly Wilson was known by all for her compassion and generous spirit. Bev was a fifty-year resident of Lincoln, California, and served as a postal carrier for 26 years. Tragically, Bev was killed in the line of duty a mere four weeks short of retirement.

Beverly dedicated her life to bringing joy to those around her. She was an ideal co-worker. She gently guided her younger colleagues through thoughtful gestures and kind words. For no occasion at all, she would surprise her fellow workers with homemade baked goods, fresh vegetables from her garden, or jarred pomegranate jellies. The people who worked alongside Bev knew that, in her, they had a true friend.

Her customers thought the world of Bev. She took the time to know each of them, and her association with the people she serviced grew into friendships that lasted decades. While seeing them six days a week for twenty-six years, Bev shared the lives of her patrons, delighting alongside them during their joyous moments and providing warm comfort in times of sorrow. One of Bev's sons once asked, ``How can one little old woman touch the lives of so many people?''

Beverly Wilson was the proud mother of five children and fifteen grandchildren. While she spent so much of her time doing good deeds for her customers, co-workers and other friends, she always had time for her family. Beverly's fifteen grandchildren could always expect a card from ``Grandma Bev'' on their birthdays, as she never missed even one.

Beverly Wilson remains an example of dedication and kindheartedness today. When the residents of Lincoln, CA visit the new postal facility named after her, they will be inspired by the memories of such an outstanding and considerate individual.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act.

Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act, this body--led by the Committee on House Administration on which I proudly serve--has paid careful attention to our electoral process and has considered several recommendations on how we can improve the way we vote.

One such recommendation came from the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform which was headed by Former President Jimmy Carter and Former Secretary of State James Baker and recommended that in order to deter and detect voter fraud, we should require photo IDs at the polls.

In this day and age, it is shocking that we still do not verify U.S. citizenship when people vote. Motor-voter laws have allowed driver's license applicants to simply check a box to register to vote regardless of whether they are a U.S. citizen.

This loophole has facilitated the many instances of non-citizen voting that I we have heard about today.

While there may be disputes about the nature and extent of voter fraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. In close elections even a small amount of fraud can affect the outcome. Do we really want foreigners to cast the deciding votes in our elections?

When an illegal immigrant casts an illegal vote he does more than break the law. He is canceling out a legal vote and robbing Americans of our constitutional right to be heard in an election.

The Federal Election Integrity Act that we are debating today can help restore integrity to our elections.

Requiring individuals who vote in a Federal election to provide proof that they are a United States citizen will help prevent voter fraud-- plain and simple. It is the best way to ensure the utmost accuracy in realizing the will of the American people.

In short, requiring a photo ID is the best way to make sure that only U.S. citizens are casting ballots.

Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, this isn't a radical idea. Showing proof of identification and citizenship is warranted and commonplace in today's society.

Individuals are required to have photo identification to engage in routine activities such as boarding an airplane, entering a government building, purchasing cigarettes and cashing a check. Our voting system deserves at least as much protection as these other activities.

Democrats have argued that this bill will disproportionately affect racial minorities and have even alleged that this is one of the motives behind our Republican Leadership bringing this bill to the floor today. These claims are outrageous and unsubstantiated--voter fraud affects us all.

In fact, under this bill states must provide the necessary photo ID free of charge to individuals who cannot afford to pay. This bill is simply about protecting the will of all Americans.

When an illegal vote is cast, an American citizen with the constitutional right to have his vote counted becomes disenfranchised, regardless of race.

When voting, our citizens should be able to trust that the system will honor their voice and reveal the will of the American people. I urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting the rights of every American by supporting the Federal Election Integrity Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

Talking about one of the big differences that we have between the Republicans and the Democrats in this House and in this Nation in terms of what goes on nationally here in Congress, there didn't used to be such a difference. In fact, President Kennedy said, ``A rising tide lifts all boats'' and promoted broad-based tax cuts to stimulate economic growth in the early 1960s upon taking office, and it definitely worked. I think with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, they tend to view it as what they call a zero sum game. In other words, if somebody wins in that situation, that means somebody else has to lose.

And the thing I like about President Bush and the Republican policy is that we kind of harken back to the Reagan era and the Kennedy era, where we try to provide broad-based tax relief to everyone, recognizing that when we do that everyone will benefit, rich and poor. And that has happened, by the way. And, in fact, our standard of living is on the rise. And real after tax income, according to the figures I have, are up by 11 percent since December of 2000. That is substantially better than the gains following the last recession.

And I also note just in terms of the effects of tax relief that despite the collapse of the stock market and the commencement of a recession in 2000; the terrorist attacks of 2001, which we just commemorated here earlier this week, the fifth anniversary of 9/11; and the ongoing war against terror, the economy has expanded by more than $1 trillion since President Bush took office.

Our Speaker addressed this. I wrote this down a couple of years ago. He said our job is to leave this country a better place for our children and grandchildren, and I think that is really what it is all about.

And this is something I think is really unfortunate, that the two parties cannot come to better agreement on this because we have had that in the past. And right now there is such sharp division with the other party constantly clamoring. They are promising higher taxes. That is one of the planks in their presidential platform. It is one of the planks in many congressional candidates that are running this year. And whenever we hike taxes, it takes money out of the people's pocket and puts it in the pocket of the government and puts the money out of the families' control and into the hands of government bureaucrats. It seems to me that our policies empower the individual.

Taxes are way too high. Even after the Bush tax cuts, they are way too high and need to be cut further. And that is something that we constantly try to do as Republicans. I think every year, the Republican majority, we have introduced and passed bills to cut taxes. We are still trying to eliminate the horribly unfair death tax that is nothing more than a vicious socialistic scheme to punish the rich that was enacted back in the early part of the 20th century. We would be so much better off, as the gentleman observed, to change our tax system so that we are not all spending so much money to comply.

And I really appreciate the gentleman's efforts in leading this discussion tonight and look forward to work with him to improve economic competitiveness, to empower families and individuals, to reduce the burden of government on their lives.

By the way, the overwhelming impact of government regulation I think actually has a greater economic burden on families and individuals than direct taxation. I think it is astounding to see what this is costing us. When everybody wonders why are houses so expensive, you have got to look at all the built-in government regulation that causes the price to be probably 50 percent higher than it would need to be.

You make a very, very good point, and I have occasionally seen a talented government official who is a problem solver. And so they get out of the adversarial mode where they are doing inspections and levying fines, and they are actually trying to create solutions for the businesses and the interests over whom they preside in order to make things work. We don't see that nearly often enough. And I think that is exactly the type of direction we need to move in.

All the business people I know and all the working people are trying to accomplish a good thing, and it is extremely unfortunate when the government gets so heavy-handed, and instead of solving the problem they create many more problems. We have had a lot of this in the environmental regulation area in the Sacramento region with, really, an unhelpful approach by certain Federal agencies.

I think that maybe the winds may be shifting a little bit after considerable prodding from the congressional delegation, and we may see a more friendly attitude in, say, the regulatory area of some of these agencies. And I certainly hope so, because I really like the example that you gave where you saw the good results that came from a different approach, where it is a helpful, solution-oriented approach as to this heavy-handed, traditional bureaucratic government, adversarial approach.

We do. We have some friends that lived in Germany, and when they would come over to the United States, one was an American citizen married to a German national, they would come over and they would spend the first day or two at the dentist's office, which I always thought was odd. That wouldn't be the first thing I would want to do if I came back home to the United States. But in Germany, you can't get preventive dental care, and so you have to wait until they have a tooth fall out or a cavity or something.

And it was real frustrating. They would come over and get their teeth cleaned and have different kinds of work done. But I always thought, what a strange thing.

You know, you hear about these socialistic single-payer systems; for years they were extolled. I think the glamour of this has sort of worn off. In fact, I have heard it said that those kinds of systems are great if you are healthy, but if you have a serious problem like you were talking about with your father, people come here, because we have the competition, we have the highly trained experts that can diagnose, that can treat, that can perform these miraculous types of surgeries.

And we need to improve the system because it still isn't really driven enough by market forces. And that is what really the seeds for transformation of the whole health care system, private and public, were in that Medicare prescription drug bill.

And you and I both know that the Democrat party did everything they could to deny the prescription drugs to senior citizens. Why? Because it is a good issue for them to not solve but to talk about and campaign upon.

And I have noticed they are very good about not solving things. I can't think of a single thing they have solved. But they are good about bringing up problems and stirring up emotions and promoting reasons why they should be elected. But we actually got that through, and it has just been very, very well received.

The premiums are actually dropping as a result of this Medicare prescription drug program. And what I really liked about it was, it contained for the first time the ability of any American in this country to invest money in a health savings account and to be able to get a tax deduction for it. And there has been a huge expansion in the number of health savings accounts as a result of that.

And my hope is, and our hope at the time we enacted it was that this would begin to put the consumer in charge of his own health care, and through competitive forces, finding out who was a quality provider and who offered the best price, you begin to bring the cost of health care down. And I think we really have a bright future in that area.

And yet they talk about it all the time and blame us for being antihealth care and antieducation. And yet all the innovations that have occurred in the last dozen years have occurred under Republican leadership.

Would you yield before you get to energy? Because I want to comment on that.

This is something I find that is very, very encouraging. Young people in general do trust the free market, and that is something that I find as a beacon of hope as they are coming up, because they are going to be the next generation that takes power. And I really think a lot of these heavy-handed sort of antifree market ideas which are embodied basically in a liberal Democrat philosophy, I just think that rings very hollow to the coming generation. And I take great hope in that.

Just before you go to energy, I want to mention, speaking of young people, education. One aspect of the President's No Child Left Behind plan, which we enacted in Congress, which we passed and he signed into law and became enacted into law, is competition in education.

You know, we have great schools in our area, and they were great before No Child Left Behind. In some ways there have been some unfortunate issues with that legislation for our areas, but one of the real areas of transformation has been in the inner city.

In no place, I think, have we seen greater success for lifting people out of a hopeless future and putting them into a situation where finally they are going to be able to compete with the skills that they are learning in school than in Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. has more charter schools than any other place in the country. These charter schools are actually educating children.

When people do criticize the President's plan, I wish they would keep in mind that for the inner cities across this country this has brought a renaissance in education that has not been seen in this country for over 50 years. And in our inner cities we have had a lot of social problems festering that spill over into the suburbs in areas that you and I and many of us represent.

I just really want to commend the President. I really feel that he has made a huge difference improving the lives of people, young people and their parents, by encouraging accountability and encouraging competition in education. And I just want to say to the Nation at large, they really should look at Washington, D.C. to see what is happening here in the public schools, because opportunities have been created and lives have been blessed that never were before.

And one of our former colleagues, Frank Riggs, has been a real leader in this charter schools movement, and he continues to be involved these days in the private sector for education now, and is still involved in a nonprofit involving charter schools.

I just think the Nation should be aware that this is a Republican idea that has been fostered, that has been legislated, and we are seeing clear results.

You yourself mentioned the dramatic decline. It has a ways to go, but someone once said it doesn't matter so much where you are as it does in which direction you are headed. And in education in the inner cities, we are headed in a positive direction, and it is positive for the first time in many decades. And we just have to keep up the positive flow in that area, and I think we will be blessed in many different ways in this Nation.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR.

Yes, that is right.

If the gentleman will yield. You know, ethanol is very exciting. The President has proposed the hydrogen initiative, which the burning of hydrogen has no by-product except good old H2O coming out of the tailpipe. These things, I know, sound futuristic, but, actually, hydrogen fuel cells exist. I drove a hand-built, million dollar Toyota Highlander around Roseville that was a hydrogen fuel cell. It was quiet and powerful. It was excellent.

Now, one of the problems that is not quite worked out is they do not have the longevity they need to have. But it is the Republicans' intent to get us completely off of petroleum. We shouldn't have to be dependent on something that comes from foreign countries, who, by the way, for the most part, are hostile foreign countries. And it is time that we, just as a matter of national security, get off of our dependence on oil.

We are moving, I am voting, and I believe you are too, just as fast as we can to get into something else. And there are some transitional technologies, like the gas-electric hybrids, like the E-85, like the vehicles that are battery powered that move people around their own local community. We have two such communities now that are approved for, I think they call them EAVs, and those are my communities of Rockland and Lincoln, which are both approved for that. We have the hydrogen area going on in Lake Tahoe, one of the five or six or eight areas in the country where they are doing research work on the fuel cells.

There are lots of exciting things. But in the meantime, though, as the gentleman pointed out initially, and we are going to push these alternative technologies, solar and wind and all of them as far and as fast as we can, but in the meantime, we need to continue to develop the new sources of petroleum.

One of the problems we have, as the gentleman observed, we haven't built new refineries in the last 25 years. It is true that we have expanded capacity within the existing locations, so that has helped us get through what would otherwise be an insurmountable problem. But the fact of the matter is that now third world countries like China and India are coming into their own. There is greatly increased competition for petroleum.

This country has increased its gasoline usage enough that if you have a natural disaster, like we had last year in the Gulf of Mexico, where we have quite a bit of refining capacity, then we don't have enough, and then there is a shortage and then the price goes way up. We ought to, just to protect our national security, develop more refinery sites.

And it is true that the Democrats tend to oppose this every step of the way. And what happens then, when we do get these huge price spikes, people need to understand that we could avoid a lot of that if we took some steps now and built some more refineries. We could avoid a lot of that if we would drill in ANWR. Fortunately, we made the biggest discovery of new oil in the gulf since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, and that just happened here in the last week, so that is very, very fortunate, but we ought to be enacting this deep water bill that Mr. Pombo has sponsored out of the Resources Committee because it would vastly increase the reserves of petroleum and natural gas and would lower the price for people in this country. And it would be a huge boon.

It is frustrating to see that there is such partisan antipathy towards, and almost unanimous opposition from the Democrats to us moving ahead. It just slows down our ability to get things done.

Nondefense discretionary spending was cut for the first time in 19 years. Ronald Reagan was President the last time that happened.

And the increase in mandatory spending, and two-thirds of the budget is mandatory spending, we slowed the growth rate of mandatory spending for the first time in 9 years. 1997 was the last time that happened.

Those are two huge accomplishments.

Osama bin Laden said the center of the war on terror is in Iraq, yet we hear Democrats asserting Iraq has no connection to the war on terror. Osama bin Laden declared that, and that is why we need to understand it is important that we succeed in Iraq against the terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor an outstanding citizen, Mr. John E. ``Jack'' Kipp Jr., from the City of Folsom, CA. Following a lifetime of dedication to family and community, Jack Kipp passed away on May 26, 2006. He was 85 years old.

A fourth-generation resident of Folsom, Jack was born there on September 6, 1920. He was mischievous in his youth and even described himself as a ``hell-raiser.'' Having been expelled from Folsom High School, he graduated from Christian Brothers High School in Sacramento in 1936.

During World War II, Jack served stateside in the U.S. Army. In 1953, he took over the family appliance shop. A year later, he helped found the Folsom Rotary Club chapter. This marked the beginning of his lifelong investment in his local community through civic participation.

Mr. Speaker, Jack spent nearly his entire life in Folsom and participated in many of the city's major changes over the past half- century. While serving as mayor and city councilman from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, he helped transform a small prison town born out of California's Gold Rush into a dynamic, thriving commercial and residential center. Dubbed by some to be the ``father of Folsom,'' Jack is credited for helping to secure a sufficient water supply, attract the newest community college built in California, lure a major hospital, and lay the groundwork for the extension of Sacramento's light rail system to Folsom's historic sector.

While he was an agent for great change in Folsom, Jack was also an acknowledged repository of local history. In fact, he wrote a history column for the Folsom Telegraph and gave guided tours around the city. These seemingly contradictory elements of character--keeping one foot in the past while striding into the future at the same time--reflect why he was so influential in the town he loved so much.

Mr. Speaker, Folsom is now a model city that balances the preservation of its heritage with a fixed view to what lies ahead. It is a community equally well-known for its annual rodeo and its high- technology employment opportunities. This is in large part due to the strong leadership and forward-thinking vision of Jack Kipp. It is, therefore, very appropriate that the city's civic center is already named after him and a bronze relief portrait of him is displayed at the Folsom City Hall.

As important as his hometown was to Jack Kipp, there was something more important--his family. He is survived by his wife of 62 years, Rose Marie Kipp. Together, they had two children: a daughter, Cookie, and a son, Michael. They have described their father as stern, thoughtful, generous, and kind.

Jack is also fondly remembered by his grandchildren, John Kipp, Tosca Riley, and Tony Galatti, and great-grandchildren, Nolan Kipp, and Chandler and Lucas Riley.

Mr. Speaker, Jack Kipp's legacy is one of honesty and integrity, of service and selflessness. Today, I join with his family, friends, and community to commemorate his life of good citizenship and uncommon decency. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment that section 206 and this amendment will not be a part of the FY07 Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.

Section 206 and Mr. Tiahrt's amendment would have stopped the IRS from spending taxpayer dollars to develop a return-free tax filing system or a direct online interactive tax filing system or web portal.

Having the IRS prepare our taxes is a little like having fox guard the hen house, isn't it? This is a bad idea from start to finish.

Right now there is no way to prevent the IRS from implementing a return-free tax filing system or a direct online web portal.

A return-free tax filing system would burden small businesses, and raises serious privacy and data security concerns.

Such a system would unfairly target low income taxpayers who would not have the resources to fight a bill from the IRS saying they owe money. They would be forced to accept what the IRS sent them, and that outcome is exactly what governments who want these systems expect. Their overall goal is to squeeze additional revenue from people who already pay their fair share of taxes.

In my home state of California, where they have been unsuccessfully trying to implement such a system, a recent poll showed that 67 percent of Californians say they do not want the government to do their taxes.

The Tiahrt amendment would have prevented all of that, and I am disappointed it will not be a part of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, expedited removal is an important tool which should be used on all illegal aliens, and that is why I am proposing in my legislation H.R. 5457, to overturn something known as the Orantes injunction. I cannot offer that as an amendment to this bill. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill, but I would like to briefly explain the injunction.

In 1988 in the midst of a 12-year civil war, the Federal District Court of Los Angeles issued an injunction which prohibited Salvadorans from being deported without a hearing before an immigration judge. This injunction is known as the Orantes injunction.

The civil war on El Salvador has long since ended; however, the Orantes injunction issued nearly 20 years ago has not been overturned and remains the practice today. Expansion of expedited removal has resulted in significant declines in the amount of apprehensions of other nationalities. However, due to the special treatment afforded to Salvadorans, their apprehensions have continued to rise.

This injunction is no longer warranted. El Salvador has been a country at peace since 1992. Under current expedited removal process, aliens are not automatically entitled to such a hearing and are immediately placed in the removal proceedings. In 2005, over 39,000 Salvadorans were apprehended, and current estimates suggest out of every one caught, four to five Salvadoran illegals penetrate our borders.

Mr. Tancredo referred to the terrible problem with the MS-13 gangs, which are basically the Salvadoran gangs. It is a serious problem. Secretary Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, has voiced his concern over this practice and he has indicated, ``We have one big step left in order to complete this job and that is to get rid of a 20-year court order that is hampering our ability to use expedited removal with respect to people from El Salvador.''

The Department of Homeland Security is subject to a number of such court-ordered permanent injunctions beyond Orantes issued in immigration cases as long as 30 years ago, and these long-standing injunctions severely impact the enforcement of the immigration laws.

My colleague, Representative Bonilla, is also sponsoring legislation that deals with these various injunctions, including Orantes, and his legislation should be supported as well.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pickering

Offered By: Mr. Doolittle

Amendment No. 2: Page 62, after line 17, insert the

following:

Sec. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to carry out expedited removal of aliens under

section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act unless

inadmissible citizens and nationals of El Salvador are

subject to the expedited removal procedures set forth in such

section to the same extent as other inadmissible aliens.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the Clinton/Gore administration negotiated these leases. They do some rather extraordinary things that there would be no built-in provision when the price of oil reached a certain amount that you wouldn't start to pay royalties.

I have read that substantial amounts of money were raised by the Clinton administration and the Gore candidacy from the major oil companies. Maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know.

All I know is it is wrong and to me it seems inherently unfair, and to violate due process and equal protection of the law, to take people who have current leases that are legal and say to them, we are not going to allow you to bid on some leases over here unless you change the leases you presently have. That is coercion. That is almost extortion. And it is not the right of the government to behave in such a fashion.

And I have heard asserted here that private companies can do that, and I would question that. But the government is bound by the provisions of the United States Constitution not to impair contracts, not to deny equal process of the law, and to guarantee due process.

Therefore, I would urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to acknowledge and celebrate a momentous day in the history of the City of Oroville (City), California, a community I have the honor of representing in the House of Representatives. On May 5, 2006, local residents will join representatives from the City, the Feather River Park and Recreation District (District), the California State Water Contractors, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and several other entities to dedicate Riverbend Park. This dedication is the culmination of a collaborative effort involving numerous stakeholders and is a very positive development for the residents of Oroville and the surrounding areas.

Enhancements to Riverbend Park have been ongoing for the better part of 25 years. But only now, during the final stages of DWR's relicensing of hydroelectric facilities at nearby Lake Oroville, are the sparkling visions of local officials and residents for this property being realized. During the last five years of negotiations with state authorities, local officials made it clear that this project was a priority for the community. DWR responded by making Riverbend Park a Special Project as part of the relicensing process and pledged financial assistance and personnel to make the improvements sought by the City and District. While more projects are scheduled, District officials have already significantly improved the area by upgrading and restoring public access to the Oroville Wildlife Area Ponds, placing Americans with Disability Act compliant restrooms on site, installing a water well pump for irrigation and fire suppression, and constructing better barriers to deter illegal trespassing and dumping. Presently, the 210 acres that make up Riverbend Park provide outstanding opportunities for hikers, fishermen, bird watchers, wildlife viewers, disc golfers, and other recreation enthusiasts.

The Feather River, which runs adjacent to Riverbend Park, has long been a focal point of the Oroville community. Before the construction of the Oroville Dam many years ago, area residents and visitors enjoyed numerous forms of recreation in and on the Feather River. Now, the construction of Riverbend Park has helped to usher in a new and positive era in the City, punctuated by a renewed focus on quality development along the Feather River. I am pleased to commemorate this phase of the development and look forward to future improvements along this important natural feature.

Mr. Speaker, today I join with the people of Oroville, their elected officials, and District staff as they celebrate the exciting occasion of dedicating Riverbend Park. As a showcase for the entire region and a safe place for people of all ages, I am sure Riverbend Park and the amenities it offers will make a lasting impression on residents and visitors to the area for decades to come. I congratulate area leaders and citizens as they commemorate this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, legislating for partisan gain is all that campaign finance regulation has ever been about. Who are we kidding?

Let us go back to 1974. Watergate, Republicans are under heavy fire. Democrats took advantage of that, demanded reform, and one of their reforms was the Federal Election Commission Act amendments. Those amendments were quite far-reaching, and many of them became the law, and when it went to the Supreme Court, the Court finally struck out many of them. What was left was the campaign finance law until we passed BCRA in 2002.

It is interesting, though, to talk about that because eventually the Republicans made up for their disadvantage, and actually the Republicans were the leaders with soft money in 2002. This is very upsetting to the Democrats, who developed votes off soft money. It was a wonderful tool they could take advantage of, and they were a little behind. So they came up with BCRA in 2002. BCRA, of course, was going to take the money out of politics.

Now, going back to 1974 for a minute, let us remember that President Nixon was much criticized by the Democrats when he took a campaign contribution from one wealthy individual of $2 million. Fast forward to 2004, after BCRA is passed, and at that point, having taken the big money out of politics, you will note with interest that one man, George Soros, gave $27 million to efforts to elect John Kerry President of the United States. So we went from 1974 with $2 million to Richard Nixon to 2004 to $27 million to John Kerry. I do not think we got the money out of politics. We just sort of reshuffled the deck chairs to the partisan advantage of the Democrats.

We are charged with partisan advantage today in trying at least to give full effect to the Democrats' several years ago stated intent, which was to take the big money out of politics and put 527s within the rule that applies to donations to political parties. I do not think that is unreasonable.

I have got to tell you, as someone who is obviously a participant but also as an observer of the political process, what advantage does it serve to move political speech farther and farther away from the candidate? Third party groups, whether they are 527, 501(c)(4)s, whatever, do not have the same vested interest in currying favor with the public. There is no sense of self-restraint whatsoever. Therefore, the more we move speech away from the candidate into somebody else doing the speaking, the less accountable your campaigns become and the more negative they become.

I am constantly fascinated how the left uses the negativity of campaigns as justification for yet further campaign regulation when, in fact, their regulations are creating the very negativity they claim to oppose.

This bill is a reasoned bill, it is a balanced bill, and it is one that we should adopt. Will it eliminate the problems? Of course it will not because we have the monstrosity of Federal regulation of political speech, something the first amendment to the United States Constitution expressly would seem to prohibit. It certainly seems clear to me when it says in the first amendment Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and yet marvelously the Supreme Court or at least a majority of it managed to find that these provisions did not violate the first amendment.

So my point is we have got to deregulate political speech and quit tinkering and turning about here and a dial here and trying to get partisan advantage won over the other. Wipe this whole monstrous system out, give full effect to the first amendment, repeal all the limits and have full and timely disclosure. That is the solution long term. In the meantime, short term today, please support this legislation, recognize there is great language about coordination that promotes responsibility, accountability and allows parties to help their candidates rather than running an independent expenditure.

I urge support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate two good friends from my district in California, Lewis and Cynthia Uhler, as they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary on December 26th.

Lew and Cindy grew up together in San Gabriel, California. Long-time friends, they both graduated from Alhambra High School one year apart. However, their relationship gradually changed after Lew went off to Yale University, where he graduated in the class of

1955. They began dating when he returned home for visits during those college years. Meanwhile, Cindy also attended college and worked.

Mr. Speaker, it was during Lew's first year attending the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley that the Uhlers' life together really began. During the Thanksgiving break, Cindy agreed to Lew's marriage proposal and they decided to have the wedding the next time he was home. They both knew what they wanted and then made it happen. Thus, on the day after Christmas, December 26, 1955, they were married. This example of setting an important goal and then focusing on quickly realizing it reflects the pattern they have established ever since then.

Their first home together was Berkeley, California. Subsequently, Lew's duty in the Army led them to Baltimore, Maryland. However, their roots continued to be in Southern California until Governor Ronald Reagan designated Lew as the State Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Uhlers relocated to the Sacramento area. They have made their home in the beautiful community of Granite Bay for 35 years.

Lew served in Governor Reagan's cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency. In 1972, Governor Reagan asked Lew to organize and serve as Chairman of the Governor's Tax Reduction Task Force. With the assistance of a nationwide panel of advisors (including Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and James Buchanan), the task force developed California's landmark Revenue Control and Limitation Act, which became a model for tax-expenditure limitation measures in many states.

A devoted wife and mother, Cindy has always made family the priority in her life. Raising four sons, separated in age by 11 years, was her chief mission. While she has always been interested in working and serving in many ways outside of the home, such activities were always relegated to part-time endeavors so she could focus on the great mission of nurturing her children.

Mr. Speaker, Lew is founder and President of the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC), one of the Nation's leading grass roots taxpayer advocacy organizations. With offices in the Sacramento Area and Washington, DC, NTLC works with the White House, Members of Congress, state legislators across the Nation and grassroots organizations to limit state and federal spending through statutory and constitutional enactments. In fact, Lew has been at the forefront of the national movements for a Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution. He has written numerous articles and opinion pieces on taxes and spending. He is the author of the book, Setting Limits: Constitutional Control of Government. He speaks internationally on fiscal issues and has appeared on numerous national, regional and local television and radio programs and has also been widely quoted in the print media.

Cindy has always become very involved in her church wherever the family has gone. Several times, she has served as secretary to the pastor and, as one son puts it, ``running the show.'' It would be difficult to account for all the good and worthwhile efforts to which she has contributed.

Along with his fiscal policy work, Lew has been active in land development in Northern California. He is also a member of the California Bar and serves Of Counsel with the Newport Beach law firm of Davis, Punelli & Keathley.

Lew and Cindy have four grown sons and three lovely daughters-in-law: Jim, John and Tricia, Kirk and Tami, and Mark and Echo. Of course, they also take great joy in their eight grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, the life Lew and Cindy have created together is a great American success story--one rooted in a love that has endured and grown for fifty years and counting. Today, I join in commending them for their commitment to one another and their ongoing service to their community. Their dedication to God, family, and country is worthy of praise and emulation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King of New York for working on this bill and bringing something very substantial forward for our Members to vote on.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government for decades has ignored this problem. And it has become an enormous problem facing the entire Nation, not just the border States.

I am not sure I agree with my friend and colleague, Mr. Berman, that a comprehensive bill is actually possible. It is a big, big problem. We have got to

make a start at least. I think this legislation represents a good-faith attempt to begin to deal with the problem. Dealing with that 11 million is extremely difficult. I think at a minimum we need to start to deal with those who continue to enter the country illegally. It is certainly unacceptable for people to enter this country illegally, seek out our taxpayer-financed services, and hand the bill to the taxpayers.

I commend the chairman for putting provisions in the bill that reduce the likelihood of that continued flow of illegals into the country. I particularly like the provisions dealing with the San Diego-type fences in the urban areas. That is very, very important and I think will be effective. I know those are to be considered for approximately a dozen places along the border.

The other thing I like, in fact, several months ago I introduced a bill to end the absurd catch and release policy where our government has been giving tickets, essentially, to people who enter illegally and then letting them go and show up of their own volition. So far about 90,000 people this year have failed to appear in court who entered illegally and received such tickets. I am grateful that the provision to end that was included in the bill. That will make a big difference and will start us down the road to having a more effective border security policy. And I am confident we will have to continue to work together as we address this important issue. Please support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much; he has been extremely generous in listening to our concerns. I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) as a member of the subcommittee for working on this and working with me as well.

This ``Return-Free'' tax filing system, Mr. Speaker, would create a conflict of interest by making the IRS not only the tax collector and the enforcer, but also the tax preparer. The loser in such a scenario would be the American

taxpayer. Return-free creates, by definition, a fundamental conflict of interest by making the same agency that collects the taxes, writes the tax regulations, collects the revenues, performs audits, and enforces compliance, now also becomes the tax preparer.