Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Ms. Gail Ridenhour for her public service to the Germantown community.

Ms. Ridenhour has been very involved in community arts programs. Serving as president of the nonprofit Germantown Fine Arts Foundation for two years and holding other officer positions, she has been indispensable to the efforts of the Foundation to build financial support for arts programs in the local school system.

Ms. Ridenhour has been a leader in her church community as well. As a member of Kingsway Christian Church, she directed, organized, and launched a preschool program. Begun in 1987, the program continues to thrive and grow today.

In addition to her community efforts, Gail Ridenhour has been recognized by the Germantown Lions Club as their Citizen of the Year for 2006. Her experience and leadership make her an invaluable member of the Germantown community.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Gail Ridenhour and congratulating her for this well-deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor this evening and to talk about something that is of tremendous importance to the American people, and today, we have introduced an American Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

This is something that we have had talk. We have had a lot of conversation. We have heard from constituents around the country who have said, you know what, we do not like the size of government. We do not like how it has grown. We do not like how government seems to be out of control. We do not like how the Democrats always seem to support the government elitists. We know that we need to have somebody there fighting for the American taxpayer, fighting for the American family, so that when they sit down to work out their budget, when they sit down to look at the family finances, they can be assured that somebody is thinking about them when they take the votes that are going to affect us, to affect the Federal Tax Code and to affect how the American family lives and works and hopes and dreams and plans, how they make their plans for college education, how they make their plans for small businesses, how they make their plans for building a nest egg and a retirement.

So we have the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was introduced today by the fiscally responsible Republican Study Committee, and this is something that we have brought on. Some of our colleagues are going to join us tonight and talk about this issue, talk about the legislation that we have brought forward, and that we will bring forward through the next several months and talk about the proposals and the principles that we have laid forth today.

Now, if my colleagues want to find out more about the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, I would encourage them to go to the Web site which is house.gov/hensarling/rsc, and you can e-mail the Republican Study Committee at [email protected]. That is the way to stay in touch with us, and as we talk about the principles that are embodied in the taxpayer bill of rights, we want to hear not only from our colleagues that are here in the House but from our constituents all across America, from people who want to weigh in on making certain that this Nation stays focused on preserving freedom, on preserving free enterprise, that we stay focused on making certain that America is a prosperous Nation.

Now, our components, we have four simple principles that we have introduced into the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that people that are listening to this say I think I have heard about a bill of rights in my State; I think I have heard this before. Many of our States have because many of our States know they need to be responsible with the taxpayers' money, and that is one of the first lessons.

The money that we have here in Congress is not government's money. It is not the money of the House of Representatives. It is the money of the taxpayers of this great Nation. They are the ones that have earned that money. They are the ones that have paid their taxes.

Most of my constituents in Tennessee will tell me regularly, Congress does not have a revenue problem; they have got lots of money and they are right. For the past 2 years, this government has brought in more tax revenue than ever in history. We have had more revenue come in. The problem is government has a spending problem. Government has such an appetite, it never gets enough of your money.

Now, my colleagues across the aisle like to talk about how there is all this waste and how there is all this fraud and how there is all this abuse, and you know what, they are right on that, because over the past 60 years there has been this huge, enormous bureaucracy that they have built. The bureaucracy of the Federal Government that exists in this town is pretty much a monument to the Democrats. They like it. They like bureaucracy.

They did not have control of this House for 2 days before they increased spending, and within 2 weeks they had increased taxes on the American middle class and American working families. Two days to increase the spending, so that they could feed this bureaucracy, so that they could grow this bureaucracy; and 2 weeks to increase taxes on the American middle class and the American family, men and women that are working and seeing their taxes go up. Last week, I think it was $17.9 billion that they increased spending.

So their habits have not changed. They are going to continue to feed the bureaucracy, to see that bureaucracy waste money, to see that bureaucracy grow because that is the way they like it.

What we are going to do in the fiscally responsible Republican Study Committee is put the focus on the American family and on the American taxpayer and be certain that they know we are defending their rights.

One of those is to limit Federal spending to the growth of the American family budget. Now, this is a great idea that we have taken from many of our States.

In Tennessee when I was in the State Senate, when you look at our State Constitution, you cannot grow spending in that State more than the growth of the budget. You have got to be certain that you balance that out. So what we are saying is, if we have per capita income growth of 3 percent or 4 percent, then you cap your Federal growth spending at 3 percent or 4 percent. You cannot be growing it 8 or 9. You cannot keep up with that. There is no way to make those numbers work unless you go into deficit spending.

Our friends across the aisle love to rail about deficit spending. Well, how did we get there? They grew a government so big, with entitlements so wide, that every year they come here and it is always a little more and a little more. Let us spend a little bit more, and a little bit adds up to a lot, and a lot adds up to a deficit, and a deficit adds up to a debt.

So limit what the Federal Government is going to spend, get in behind some of these programs that have outlived their usefulness.

Every year we bring forward programs that have outlived their usefulness. Every year we talk about programs that need to be reduced. Every single year we talk about ways to find waste, fraud and abuse. It is time for this body to have the will and the energy to begin to reduce spending.

Mr. Speaker, for all the rhetoric that comes out from some of the liberal elites who want to pad and grow the

bureaucracy and some of those organizations that benefit from the bureaucracy, you do not hear them talking much about the Deficit Reduction Act that this House passed and was the budget for 2006. The Deficit Reduction Act included a 1 percent across-the-board reduction in discretionary spending.

Lo and behold, that yielded a $40 billion savings. Well, now, those on the left wanted to cry, oh, $40 billion is not enough. It is a mere drop in the bucket. It is not even a good start. Their solution was to go out and propose several hundred billion dollars' worth of spending amendments that would increase spending.

That is how they wanted to reduce it. Not reduce what we were spending, just maybe reposition some money and spend a little more.

So we want to be certain, the Republican Study Committee, with our fiscally responsible premises, let's limit it. Let's not let this Federal budget grow more than the family budget.

Another of our premises is to ensure that our Social Security remains secure. I think it is absolutely appalling that every year the Federal Government spends the surplus from Social Security, every single year. Every single year it goes into the general fund.

We have a plan we are going to bring forward, and we are going to see several different plans on this. Move it off budget, don't spend it, make certain that it is there for our seniors when they are ready to retire.

Commonsense tax reforms: We have a plan for sunsetting the Tax Code, and as we sunset that Tax Code on January 1 of 2011, let's begin now and have a debate. Do we want a flat tax? Do we want a fair tax? How do we want to reduce what the taxpayer spends? How do we want to reduce the tax burden?

You know, one of my colleagues was down here a little bit earlier and was talking about how difficult things are for working families, how difficult things are for moms and dads who are working and trying to make ends meet, and where they could go for help. You know the best place they could go for help? The best place to go for help is right at your kitchen table when you can look there at the papers in front of you and say, we have seen our taxes reduced by 15 percent, by 20 percent, by 25 percent.

There is no need for nearly 50 percent of everybody's income to end up going to taxes at the local, State and Federal level. It is time to roll that back. Give people first right of refusal on the money that they earn in their paycheck.

Our fourth premise is to make certain that we have a balanced budget amendment, another great idea that has come from our States. Many of our States have balanced budget amendments, many of our cities and county governments have balanced budget amendments. You cannot go into deficit spending. The Federal Government needs to adopt that practice.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, for his comments on the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was introduced today.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on the issue. The American people have just so clearly said we are tired of this wasteful spending. We are tired of taxes that continue to go up. We are tired of watching wastefulness in bureaucracies that don't respond to you when you need them, when you have a problem.

And we have heard from so many people today who have said, we are so excited somebody has grabbed this problem and is looking for solutions, because that is what the American people want is for this body to come together to grab hold of problems and to work for solutions, work those problems through to solution, so that we make certain that our children and our grandchildren are going to have a better future, so that we know that we are going to leave things in better shape than we found them. That is good stewardship.

And continuing to feed this bureaucracy that started with the New Deal, that started with the great society, programs that have piled on and piled on and piled on; people that are afraid to say no to every special interest group that comes in this town.

It is time for things to change. The Republican Study Committee has unveiled their Taxpayer Bill of Rights; house.gov/hensarling/rsc. Or e- mail the Republican Study Committee, [email protected], and give us your comments and your feedback and participate with us as we look at ways to make certain that we take less from the American worker, we take less from the American family, we reduce those taxes, and we leave that money there with you, without ever taking it away, leaving it for you so that your pay check is bigger, so that you have got money left over at the end of the month, instead of having too much month left over at the end of the money. That is the way we need to be doing it, leaving the money with the taxpayer.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who has been such a leader on fiscal issues and on the tax reform issues, and seek his comments on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

If the gentleman would yield.

I have a constituent who uses that phrase all the time, you know, about having too much month at the end of the money, and would like to have a little bit of money at the end of the month.

And today, during our press conference, as we announced this, one of our colleagues was quoting one of his constituents named Hoss. Another of our colleagues got up and quoted the philosopher, Voltaire.

And where I come from in Tennessee, we generally quote country music. And when we talk about this Tax Code, I generally think of the great James Dean Hicks song sung by Randy Travis, ``When You're In a Hole, Stop Digging.''

And that is what the American people and what a lot of our constituents are saying. We have dug such a hole with this 17,000 pages of Tax Code, and it is taking too much away, and there is not enough to cover the expenses every single month. So we are kind of looking at the IRS and saying, maybe we will bury these tax books.

And I yield back to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I was interested in some comments the gentleman from Georgia made earlier today as we look at sunsetting the Tax Code. And I appreciated his perspective on the conversation we should have with the American people about sunsetting the Tax Code, and then, what kind of tax we go to, and what a great and vigorous debate that that can be. We have got some wonderful options to choose from. And there are those that want to reduce the limits. There are those that want to get rid of some of these 17,000 pages of deductions and credits and special preferences and incentives, and they want it to be simple and easily understood. And I appreciated that.

There are those, and the gentleman from Georgia mentioned that, another of our colleagues, who supports the fair tax, and having just the national sales tax, and how important that would be to allow a debate on that. How wonderful for the American people if both sides would come together, if they would join the fiscally responsible Republican Study Committee and say, we are going to have this debate. We are going to get rid of this Tax Code. We are going to set about on the path so that our children and our grandchildren will say, they thought about me. They put in place a tax code that I can do my taxes myself. I can focus on building a business. I will have more money in my checking account, in my savings account, in my business, building that nest egg. They will leave that money with the person that earns it, rather than sending it to a bureaucracy to waste on frivolous desires. And I appreciate the comments the gentleman from Georgia made on that issue.

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who has worked diligently on the issue of tax reform since he came to this body.

And Mr. Speaker, it is a point of personal pride for me that our freshman class that was sworn in in 2003, everyone that is here in the 108th Congress, all the Members speaking tonight were a part of that class.

And I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I thank the gentleman from Iowa so much.

And I am so pleased that he mentioned the supplemental budget that will come before us. I noticed today in an article I was reading that it would include $16 million for new House office space. That is not an emergency priority, it is not a war priority, that is something that should be disclosed in the regular budget. And I find it so curious that we are having this type spending find its way into our budget. And Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate that the American people are having the wool pulled over their eyes, if you will, are being afflicted with this type of budgeting process where there is going to be all sorts of additional domestic spending that goes into something that is to fund our troops and to meet the needs of the men and women in the field.

As I close this tonight, I want to go back to talking a little bit about how we limit the Federal spending, how we limit the growth in the Federal Government. And as we have worked on preparing this American Taxpayer Bill of Rights and as we have looked at the items that go into this, as we look at how to grab hold of this situation and this problem and solve it and move the solution to the floor of this House, as a way to be certain that we keep the emphasis on freedom and prosperity for the American people, we had a comment that was made. And it was that the Federal budget should not tell the story of the government, the Federal budget should tell the story of the American people.

And, Mr. Speaker, I think that that is a very appropriate way for us to consider this budget document and what the budget should look like and what the Federal spending should look like. Because truly if we are listening to our constituents, if we are making certain that we meet our priorities of leaving money with those who earn it, balancing the budget, making certain that the money we earn that has been set aside for our retirement and Social Security is there for Social Security and is not spent on frivolous needs, frivolous wants of the government, then we can say, yes, indeed, the budget document, Federal spending, should tell the story of the American people and their priorities.

And, Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to ask any of our constituents, what are those priorities, what should government do? They will tell you, defend our Nation; keep us free; make certain that we are secure; keep the emphasis on our families; keep the emphasis on our communities; make certain that we are safe, that we are free, that we have the opportunity to seek the American Dream. And as many of us would say, keep that focus on faith, family, freedom, hope and opportunity.

That is what we should do as we keep our focus on the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights

We have been joined by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), who chairs our Budget Committee. And I am going to ask him to provide our closing remarks as we finish our debate this evening on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and at this time I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California and for his work in chairing our Budget Committee in the Republican Study Committee. And again, house.gov/Hensarling/rsc. E-mail us at [email protected].

And it looks like the final word we can slip in here is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is a member of the Budget Committee and continues to work on fiscal issues for the betterment of this great Nation and of our American families.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I thank all of my colleagues for joining me.

The American Taxpayer Bill of Rights, this is something we are pushing forward to the forefront. Over the past 60 years an enormous bureaucracy has been built. Our Democrat friends continue to want to feed that bureaucracy. We say, it is time for the spending, it is time for the increased taxing, to stop. They had power for 2 days when they raised your spending. They had power for 2 weeks when they raised your taxes. The American taxpayer deserves a break.

House.gov/hensarling/rsc, the fiscally responsible Republican Study Committee has proposed the American Taxpayer Bill of Rights

I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank him for his insightfulness on the immigration issue.

He has done so much work in his service in this Congress addressing this issue and encouraging people to look at the issue, to learn about the issue and to realize it is more than just a surface issue.

I also have appreciated the fact that the gentleman has encouraged people to realize the compassionate thing to do in this is to make certain that we keep immigration legal and that we honor the men and women who have gone through the process legally.

That is important to do, and it is the right step It is the compassionate step to make.

H.R. 1314 addresses the issue that Mr. Bilbray mentioned and referenced as he opened his remarks about those that have entered the country illegally, getting access to our financial markets. Now, H.R. 1314 is the Photo Identification Security Act. This is a great piece of legislation. It is not a lengthy bill, it is one that I think everybody here in the House can pick up and read in 1 or 2 minutes. As you see, it is only about three pages.

What it does is something very big and very important, though, it closes a loophole that exists in the PATRIOT Act and the IRS regulations, and it is through that loophole that you could literally drive a truck. That is the

loophole that we know that not only illegal immigrants use, but sexual predators and identity thieves, those people that want to be anonymous, that need to be anonymous, that have to be anonymous to the legal system. This is what they are choosing to use to gain access to banking institutions, to wire transfer services from the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the IRS. It is giving them the ability to sign up for credit cards, to get home mortgages, to obtain taxpayer identification numbers, which employers call ITEN numbers, and to transfer money from this country back to Mexico.

This is a difficult situation for our country, because we have spent a lot of time, effort and energy trying to seek out terrorist groups and those that would do us harm. We are spending a lot of time, effort and energy talking about protecting intellectual property and looking at money laundering and how those pirates are laundering money and sending it back out of the country, taking money out of our communities.

We are spending a lot of time routing out identity thieves. Certainly in my community I hear from so many people who have had their identity lifted. They have had it stolen. They have had somebody take that from them, and then these individuals want to go open checking accounts, they want to go open credit cards and run up the number, just swipe those numbers off that credit card, run it ragged.

Somebody pays the bill, and it always comes back to being the American taxpayer that is going to pay the bill for fraud and for misuse. Happens every single time, every single time. This is a very serious problem to the faith that people have in our governing institutions. It is a serious problem to the stability of our financial markets. But there is a solution to this problem, and it is H.R. 1314, the Photo Identification Security Act.

As I said, it is a very simple bill, and I will do three things. It says in order to access our nation's financial services, in order to do business with the Federal Government, you have to present one of the three secure forms of ID as recognized in this country.

Number one would be a Social Security card with a government-issued State or Federal government issued photo ID. This could be a driver's license, if you are from a State that complies with the REAL ID Act.

Then you have got number two, a U.S. passport or a foreign nation passport. That would be a passport that we recognize, that we have a reciprocity agreement with.

The third form of ID would be a US citizenship and immigration service photo ID card. Now, that would be your USCIS permanent resident card, permanent alien card, work card, green card. Simply put, you have to have a visa before you can apply for a visa if this legislation passes, and we are encouraging everyone to join us in this. We are encouraging everyone, both parties, both Houses, to sign on, let's close this loophole and close it quickly.

I was talking to one of my constituents about this problem after it had arisen, it was a banker, in rural west Tennessee in my district. He was excited that we were working on this bill and thrilled that we were going to be closing this loophole. He looked at it like this, he told me a story of a couple of his customers, they had worked at a local plant, both had retired.

Then they decided they wanted to buy a motor home, which they did, good customers at the bank, so they get the motor home. They decide to start travelling.

Well, they needed a credit card to make reservations at those campgrounds. This banker could not get them a credit card because they had never had a credit card. They had a checking account. They had pretty much operated on cash, they had retired, they were now unemployed. They could not qualify for a credit card.

So, when the scandal began that we had major iconic banks in this country issuing credit cards to those that had illegally entered this country, as long as they were willing to put $100 in a checking account and leave it there for a month, then they could get a $500 credit card, that gentleman, that good, solid, patriotic American man that has worked for a company, retired from a company and wanted to enjoy his retirement years, walked into that bank, and he asked that banker, do I need to be an illegal immigrant just to get a credit card in this country?

That is the right question for him to ask. That is how ludicrous the practice is and how horrific it is that we would have these big banks, big banks, big iconic companies that have benefitted from the prosperity of this great Nation to play favorites and to say, all right, if you are an illegal immigrant, if you want to put $100 in over here, I am going to give you a $500 credit card.

Basically, I will tell you, that is predatory lending. Basically, that is a pretty high interest rate to go get a credit card, but that is the way we are doing it, and their response is we are exploiting a loophole. So the loophole needs to be closed because it just isn't right. It isn't a practice that should continue.

Another thing I have heard from some of my constituents is this, all of our local communities depend on keeping money in that community and having it turn over in the community several times before it leaves. You know, once somebody earns a dollar, they like to have that dollar turn over three and a half, four, four and a half, five times, in order to keep that economy humming along.

You earn the dollar, you go by the grocery store and make the purchase, and by the dry cleaners and by the shoe shop. You go over and you take the kids out for ice cream after you have gone to the ball game. You go buy new sporting goods for them to play in that ball game. Then you go buy new clothes for Easter as you are getting ready for Easter, and a swim suit for summer, maybe even a little swimming school for the backyard. The point is, the money has to turn over in that community in order for the community to be available.

Guess what, our friendly Federal Reserve system has done? The Federal Reserve system of the U.S. government has set up a system that allows illegal immigrants to transfer money back to the Bank of Mexico, direct to Mexico is the program.

The funny thing about this is, there are 27,000 transaction a month to the tune of $23 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, guess what? Friendly Federal Reserve is bragging about keeping the fees low, $0.67 a 100. Well, I have not found a one of my constituents who has said their ATM fees are going down. I have not had a one of them say their checking account fees are going down. I haven't had a one of them say they have had any transaction fee go down. My merchants complain about the fees that they get charged. And we even have a hearing reported in one of our Hill newspapers today about retailers and banks duking it out over transaction fees.

But then we have another article that came out of the L.A. Times that is talking about the Federal Reserve bragging about being able to keep these fees low.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit of a head scratcher, I will have to admit it, my goodness gracious, you know, when they can go in here and they can wire this money out of the country, 27,000 transactions a month, $23 billion a year, the money is not turning over in the local communities.

Some of our friends across the aisle are saying, well, you know, we are not seeing what we want in jobs growth and income growth, even though it has been pretty healthy. Maybe they need to look at some of this. Maybe they need to join us in stopping illegal immigration. Maybe they need to join us in standing against amnesty. Maybe they need to make sure that we are a sovereign and free Nation, and that we remain so.

The Photo Identification Security Act, closing the loophole that allows those that have illegally entered this country, that allows those who are predators and identity thieves to remain anonymous to the system; closing that loophole, so that they do not have access to credit, so that they do not have access to our financial markets, so that they cannot have the ability to remain anonymous to the system.

I encourage everyone to join me in supporting H.R. 1314, the Photo Identification Security Act. I encourage everyone in this body, Mr. Speaker, to join us in closing this loophole that exists in the PATRIOT Act and the IRS

regulations. And I encourage them to join us in encouraging the Federal Reserve to end the program that allows $23 billion to be transferred out of this Nation every year without turning over in the community. Every single year.

Let's be certain that we keep our economy secure and safer. Let's be sure that we keep our communities secure and safe, and let's be certain that we are fair to the families and the working men and women in this great Nation.

And I yield back to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Girl Scouts of the USA as they celebrate their 95th anniversary.

On March 12, 1912, Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low held the first Girl Scout meeting which endorsed the philosophy that all girls should be afforded the opportunity to enhance their natural abilities and talents. Through community service, education, and physical activity, the Girl Scouts continue to offer girls a place to develop mentally, physically and spiritually.

Across our Nation, communities will gather this weekend to celebrate the founding of the Girl Scouts of the USA. On Saturday, I have been invited to join in the celebration with hundreds of young women from middle Tennessee. In true Girl Scout form, these young women have put in more than 4,000 hours of community service to commemorate this occasion. These service projects include furnishing snacks for a blood drive by the American Red Cross, landscaping for Holy Family Church, and collecting donated items for youth service centers and the elderly. The time and effort of these young women is having a profound impact in our communities.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to take a moment and thank the Girl Scout Leaders who freely give their time and energy to these extraordinary young women. Their dedication to the Girl Scouts is making a difference in the lives of young women across our Nation. Congratulations to the Girl Scouts of the USA and thank you for 95 years of service to our Nation's young women.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with a heavy heart and a new set of questions for the bureaucracy here in Washington, DC. I am here because it appears that our veterans, who have been wounded and are in dire need of medical care, have received shamefully substandard care by the Veterans Administration, the agency charged with treating the veterans who have sacrificed their body and soul for our country, and they have fallen short of their mission.

Reports from our government audits, and, recently, the report here in Newsweek really shines the light on the travesty that is a bureaucratic boondoggle at the VA. Many men and women who were casualties of war, they are looking for help, they are either being given the bureaucratic run around or substandard care or housed in decrepit facilities, if they are lucky.

I have repeatedly voted to increase the VA funding. They have received a lot of money. They have got plenty of it, and I think it is disgraceful that our military, many severely injured, have received anything less than stellar health care from this agency. The executive branch, starting with the administration, has fallen short.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand before the body today and talk about what we are seeing happen with some of the actions our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, have taken and what those actions, the consequences that they are having on our Nation's economy and the Nation's health.

Madam Speaker, we all feel like that one of the defining, iconic, fundamental items of this great Nation is our free-enterprise system. It is an imperative that individuals have the opportunity to show up to a proper job, to work hard, to get that job, to succeed and then to share that success with their families. We all call that the American dream, when you can work hard and build a life and build a nest egg and retire and enjoy the benefits of that.

It has been of tremendous concern to us, as we have seen the actions of this Congress and the effect that some of those actions are having on our Nation's economy. We have seen spending go up. There was a continuing resolution, supposed to be, that was passed by this body, but it turned out to be a head scratcher for most Americans because it was not level funding. It was not continued funding. It was $10 billion more in increased funding than had been there previously.

Now, where I come from in Tennessee, if you have one number and you add to it, you end up with more. That is an increase. It is an increase, and I think most Americans see it just that way.

What we also saw was that departments and agencies did not end up getting what they had had last year. There was some creative bookkeeping, some sleight of hand, if you will, that was taking place in smoke-filled rooms, not on the floor of the House, but with comments being made like, I am going to pick up the phone and call over to an agency and tell them how I want them to spend that money.

So that meant picking winners and losers out of the pot of money, and, of course, in my district, where I come from in Tennessee, we were very, very concerned that the loser was military construction. The loser was our men and women in uniform who are fighting to defend our freedom so that everything we do here is relevant. How shameful, how shameful that it is their projects that hit the chopping block.

So we saw that spending in that budget go up. Then we have been able to see what has happened with tax increases. All the language through the campaign of we are not going to increase your taxes, but we are going to do all these things, but we are not going to increase your taxes.

Well, I did a little figuring today to see what had happened with mandates and taxes and where we were on this issue, and, Madam Speaker, just to do a quick little checklist, as we have them, we have H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill. That was a $17 billion mandate on this Nation's small businesses, 17 B, billion, mandate on small businesses. That does not sound like something that is very friendly to our Nation's free- enterprise system.

Then we had H.R. 5, the student loan. That was a $7.1 billion repeal of lender subsidies, $7.1 billion more that the taxpayers then have to pick up the bill on.

Oh, and I know it is sometimes fun to say, wink-wink, nod-nod, fees and user fees aren't always taxes. But, yes, indeed they are, because, as Ronald Reagan said, It's the taxpayer that pays. It's coming out of their pocket. So we see $17 billion on small businesses. We see $7.1 billion on lender subsidies and student loans. That is going to make education more expensive. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy bill, $7.6 billion in tax increases. And then, to add insult to injury, $314 million in repeal of tax credits on those that are out there trying to make certain that we become independent of foreign oil.

Now, some things are not only counterintuitive but they are counterproductive. And as we look at this, certainly raising taxes on those that are working to find alternative energy, raising taxes on our businesses who are working for clean energy, it just doesn't make good sense. It defies common sense. We see that in the CLEAN Energy Act.

Continuing on through the list, H.R. 976, the small business bill, actually is a $45 million increase in taxes. So what we have is since we have been here and since our colleagues across the aisle have taken control of the majority, they have increased taxes on their constituents by $32 billion. That is just tax increases. That doesn't count the added spending that is coming to this floor day after day after day, and we know that as we begin to work on budgets in coming years that that is going to continue to mount up. Because what we have learned is that the bill always comes due. Isn't it amazing, Madam Speaker, the bill always comes due. Somebody has to pay the bill. Or, as my used car dealership in my town says, Somebody's got to tote the note. And unfortunately it is the American taxpayer that is toting the note for the Democrats' spending habits.

You can go back to the Great Society and the New Deal and you can look at the way this bureaucracy has grown and grown and grown in this town. Madam Speaker, I would guess that many of this body are like me. They have individuals and constituents from different agencies that are coming in and visiting with them this week and what we are hearing is good programs, veterans programs, conservation programs, the money is not making it to the local level. And why isn't it? It is

because the bureaucracy is soaking up all of the money right here in D.C. and our constituents' money is not leaving town. So we look at this $32 billion that has been raised in taxes since the Democrats took control, and we know that there is more note that we are going to have to tote on this budget, but we know they are going to come along and try to raise taxes again to pay for their spending habits.

We have got the spending that is increasing, we have got the taxes that they are increasing, and lo and behold this week we have a bill. It is called, well, you know, I kind of forget the name of it sometimes. Employer, some kind of name they have for it, or Card Check. I actually, Madam Speaker, prefer to call it the Worker Intimidation Act. I think it is a very fitting name for this legislation because it is not employee friendly, it is not security friendly, it is not job friendly. What it does allow is intimidation. And I find it so unfortunate that we see that embodied in this piece of legislation. I had read a poll that had taken place over the weekend, and it seems that most Americans, about nine out of 10 Americans, agree with me on this issue, Madam Speaker. What we see is that most people agree that an employee should be able to have a secret ballot. That it is something that as our Secretary of Labor has said, it is an intrinsic right. It is something that we hold very, very dear, the right to cast that ballot, to express our opinion, and to do it without fear and to do it without intimidation. Every worker deserves the right to cast their ballot and express their opinion.

So this Card Check bill, we are going to hear more about this this hour as we talk about the actions that have been taken and as we talk about the consequences that those actions have on the productivity of this Nation, the actions that those have on those consequences that affect this Nation's health and its economy.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia as he is joining us in this Republican Study Committee hour to talk about this issue and the Republican Study Committee.

Yes. That is one of the things we have seen with these unintended consequences or maybe intended consequences, because we know for the liberal elite, you can never pay enough tax. And one of the things when somebody says, well, we need to be taxing somebody more, I say, you know what, walk on up here, write out a check for what you think you owe and put it in the box. And I will offer to Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I have never had anybody say, ``I am not paying enough.'' I have never had one single person offer to write out that check and give the government a little bit more. But it is so easy to say, pay more, when it's not you, it's not me, it's the guy behind the tree. And that, many times, is where they go, always wanting more money, because government never gets enough of your money. They always want more. They think they have a better idea. They think they're smarter. They think they're brighter. They think that they know more than anybody else. And the liberal elites do that.

We can go back and look at the beginning of the Federal income tax in 1913. It started in February 1913. Just 1 percent. Just on the few millionaires in the country to make them pay for a war. And look where it got us. And with the AMT, it was just going to be on 28 people, just for a little while, just to get a little bit more out of their pocket. And now, as you said, estimates of 30 million Americans, men and women who are both working in order to be able to provide for their children and their families so that they have that little piece of the American Dream. And then they are affected by the AMT. They are affected by the small business tax that has been paid, going to take another $45 million out of their pocket. They are affected by H.R. 2, that minimum wage bill, that is going to put another $17 billion worth of mandates on them. We see it just never stops. You give them an inch, they're going to take a mile. And it is the hang onto your wallet Congress. They just are coming for everybody's wallet and can't get to it fast enough.

We want everyone to stay in touch with us on this issue, and as I yield to the gentleman, I would like to call attention to our poster there so they can stay in touch with us on the Card Check bill and on different issues that are coming before us.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I think that what we are hearing from the other side, they think that they have a perfect piece of legislation. It probably in their minds would be something that they considered to be perfect. As I said, they name it the Employee Choice or something but it is indeed the Worker Intimidation bill, and they don't want anybody to really bring this, they want it on and off the floor as fast as they can get it.

One of the questions that we are asked a lot is wouldn't this give employees more choice over their employment decisions? And we know that the answer to that is a big ``no.'' It will not. It is going to have the opposite effect.

We know that just as they don't want a lot of discussion on this floor about this bill, they don't want employees to have more choice and more freedom in how they choose to construct their work situations.

I would like to yield to the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, who is joining us. Again, anyone who would like to be in contact with us and talk about what they are seeing in the workplace, talk about the increased taxes that the Democrats have brought forward, talk about the increased spending that our Democratic colleagues have brought forward, we would encourage them to be in touch with us at [email protected].

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for those well- structured remarks. Again, we are talking about a bill, a piece of legislation that would be a big win for big labor. It is something that they have wanted for a long time. It is something that they have said would strengthen them, the labor union, and, as my colleague from Texas said, the labor union bosses. This is where they want to go to build some power, to have access to those paychecks and access to the information of what their members are doing.

Now, we have a couple of documents that some of our friends may want to actually log on and get. Again, at www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc, you can come to these documents and pull them down. One is the card check issue, the end of secret ballots in America. I think this is very instructive.

It is important for individuals to read, and as my colleague from Texas said, are Members of Congress ready to do away with secret ballots in their elections? If it is good enough for the American worker, should it be considered for Members of Congress?

Now, in this document that I have just shown you, there is a list of groups that are opposed to card check and a list of groups that support it. Those that support it are ACORN, AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, Center for American Progress, Council on American Islamic Relations, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic National Committee, Earthwatch, Human Rights Watch, NAACP, Sierra Club, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in Washington, DC, and UNITE HERE!

Now, the groups that are in opposition to the card check proposal, the American Hospital Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, Associated Builders & Contractors, Associated General Contractors,

Independent Electrical Contractors, International Council of Shopping Centers, International Food Service Distributors' Association, International Franchise Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Printing Industries of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I also have in front of me the statement that has come to us from the Fraternal Order of Police. The Fraternal Order of Police in this great Nation stands against the card check bill. They are not for this, and their national president has called on Congress to reject the bill.

A couple things I would like to read to be certain that we get these in the Record, because the men and women who are members of our local law enforcement communities are there on the front line every single day defending our streets and our communities and keeping our homeland safe.

I think that it is worthy that we listen to them and that we heed what they tell us. There is some wisdom in the thoughts that they present to us. I am quoting from this press release. It says, ``The legislation as proposed would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots with the card check system that invites coercion and abuse.''

Under this process, the identity of workers who signed or refused to sign union organizing cards would be made public to the union organizers as well as to the workers' employer and coworkers, leaving these individuals vulnerable to threats and intimidation from union leaders, management or both.

The most common method for determining whether or not employees want a union to represent them is a private ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

Then going on further and quoting from Mr. Canterbury's release, without the anonymity of the secret ballot, the FOP would probably not exist today. The only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation is through the continued use of secret ballot elections so that personal decisions about whether to join a union remain private.

That is just comments from one of the organizations that understand how harmful this piece of legislation, the card check bill, or, as I have called it, the worker intimidation bill, would be on our Nation's business structure. This is something that we need to think very, very carefully about.

Another document that I would love to call attention to, from our Republican Study Committee, and, again, send us your thoughts at [email protected], and you can go to our Web site, www.house.gov/ hensarling/rsc, and you can pull this information down. But it is a Q&A on the card check issue, with some of the myths and some of the facts, the rights and the wrongs that spell this out, what it would mean to our Nation's law enforcement community, what it would mean to our Nation's business community.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

And, Madam Speaker, as he said, it took 2 days to go about raising spending. Within a couple of weeks taxes were raised. We have seen those taxes be raised on the American worker to the tune of $32 billion that the Democrat majority has passed since taking control as the majority party in this body; $32 billion in tax increases. We have seen spending increased. And now what we are seeing is within the first couple of months they are going to come along and they are going to compromise the workplace. And they are going to push a piece of legislation on the American worker that the American worker does not want.

And again, looking at the poll that I have quoted from, when you ask the question, tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement, every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union, and nearly 9 out of 10 individuals think that the worker deserves that right.

You know, Madam Speaker, it is so interesting. We have moved away from the days of coercion and intimidation and union bosses that would beat up on people. That is how the National Labor Relations Board came about, when people sought to have relief from that type of coercive, intimidating activity that would strike fear in the hearts of families and fear in the hearts of workers.

And how sad, how very, very sad that in this year and in this time, and in this 110th Congress, we would take steps that would return to those ways that would limit the freedom of men and women who have chosen a profession, chosen a career, chosen a job that they want to perform and would place them under the heavy-handed fist of a union boss who would seek to challenge their viability in the workplace and who would seek to challenge their freedom.

It is my hope that more of our Members will become familiar with the statistics on this issue, and the desires of the American people, and will realize there is nothing in this legislation that speaks to free choice at all. That is a fancy, dressed-up name for card check, which is a fancy, dressed-up name for a return to worker intimidation and coercion. And it is unfortunate that we see it happening here in this body.

One of the things that we do, that we put a focus on when we talk about our job here and our work here, and those of us in the Republican Study Committee as we gather and we talk, we talk a lot, Madam Speaker, about what are we going to do to preserve this great union. What are we going to do to protect its sovereignty? What are we going to do to extend individual freedoms? How do we make decisions that are going to be so that we are certain that we extend the opportunity for prosperity to future generations?

And I can honestly say, increasing government spending doesn't do that. Increasing taxes on our families does not do that. Increasing taxes on our children and increasing the debt that they are going to bear does not do that.

History shows us that when you create a government program, a government program continues to grow. I have said many times on this floor, as Ronald Reagan said, there is nothing so close to eternal life on Earth as a Federal Government program.

We have 141 programs that we would like to see eliminated or reduced this year. Unfortunately, we don't see that happening. What we do see happening is they are increasing your taxes, they are increasing spending, and now they are going to limit your freedom in the workplace.

And I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. As he has pointed out, in the 2006 budget we had reduced spending by $40 billion. It was called the Deficit Reduction Act, a first step. Our colleagues across the aisle immediately increased spending in what was to have been a continuing resolution.

Then we look at taxes. We reduced taxes, which stimulated the growth of the economy and growth of jobs. Our colleagues across the aisle have already raised taxes by $32 billion.

And as my colleague from Texas said, we have more workers than ever in the American workforce at this point in time. There are more Americans than ever holding a job and getting a paycheck. And over the past 4 years, we have seen the addition of 7.2 million new jobs to the U.S. economy. Now, these are not new hires. These are new jobs, newly created jobs. And, Madam Speaker, I think that that is important for us to put the attention on. These are jobs where a business owner sits down and says, ``I can create a new position. We have our taxes down. We have seen some regulatory relief. We are doing well. We see growth in this business. We see a future that indicates growth.'' So they create a new position, and they hire someone to fill that position. That is how we get business growth. That is how we get business expansion.

And now we find that on top of increasing spending and on top of increasing taxes, our friends across the aisle are saying, We want to let the union bosses get another hit at those workers. We want to take away the workers' right to a secret ballot. We want to infringe on that freedom in the workplace that American workers enjoy that was a hard- fought battle decades ago, and we want to compromise that and give big labor a win.''

And that, Madam Speaker, is how the liberal elites couch this battle. It is, as was said in the letter that I read, a return to coercion and intimidation. It is something that in the 21st century we should not do. I do personally consider it an inappropriate step for this House. This House should be focused on how do we expand freedom? How do we expand hope? How do we expand opportunity? And how do we make certain that every man, woman, and child has their shot at the American Dream in a safe, free, and productive country.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I rise to remember the life of Charlie Norwood. I know Charlie had an impact on everyone that he came into contact with and we are all grieving the loss.

I had the privilege of serving with Charlie on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Charlie loved a robust discussion of the issues. He loved the ability to debate an idea and he loved espousing his conservative beliefs. When his microphone went on in committee, you could see the gleam in his eye as he readied for a hearty exchange. His love of engaging the issues was appreciated by all his colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Charlie was a man of deep conviction and integrity. He will be deeply missed, not only by this body but also by his constituents and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and accomplishments of Congressman Charlie Norwood.

You know, the United States is a Nation founded on the rule of law. Those who do not follow the law are held accountable, except when you are an illegal immigrant.

We have already learned that a few of our major banks are issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants, but a recent article in the L.A. Times uncovered a program through our own Federal Reserve Bank that makes it easier for illegal entrants to send money back to Mexico, direct to Mexico. A federally sponsored program allows illegal immigrants without a Social Security number to wire money through the Federal system for a fee.

What is even more shocking is that the Fed expanded the program that allows anyone, illegal or not, to open accounts at participating banks. This is a big business. We have learned it is 27,000 transfers from illegal immigrants every month, totaling $23 billion a year, all with the help of our Federal Government.

We are sending mixed messages, Mr. Speaker. We say we want to stem the tide of illegal immigration, but once again, here we go. We will not only turn a blind eye; we will make it easy for illegal immigrants to send money back to Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We know this because the terrorists tell us it is so. In poll after poll, the American people tell us they fully believe that what happens on the front line in Iraq affects their security every single day.

You know, the Democrats have every right to disagree with the President's plan, but a nonbinding resolution is not the way to go. It sends a message of no confidence and no support to our troops in the field, weakening their morale while encouraging and emboldening the enemy.

Our men and women in harm's way are fighting the insurgents and they are fighting the battle of ideas every day, not only in Iraq but in 30 different countries around this globe. They know that what we have to do is continue to win in that battle, and they don't have time to fight the war of public opinion in this country, which is what some of my colleagues in this House would seek to have them do.

The Democrats have no alternative plan; they have no way forward. I welcome a responsible debate on this war, but let's make sure that we keep the focus on encouraging our troops, freedom, prosperity and ideas, and that we not encourage those who seek to do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time, as we come to the floor to debate this nonbinding, no confidence resolution that is going to serve to discourage our troops and embolden our enemies.

I have noted that this obviously is the best that the Democrats have to offer when it comes to national security and to their thoughts on how we deal with the situation in Iraq, and that is a disappointment to me.

I think that the question that we have to ask is, whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of winning? Are you on the side of freedom? Or are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand?

And as I begin my remarks, I do want to thank the troops that live in my district, those of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, members of the National Guard who have served with distinction, Reservists who have been deployed more than once. I want to thank their families, and I want to thank the veterans that served in an advisory capacity to me as we look at these issues and as we make decisions about how best to approach preserving freedom, preserving liberty, and preserving the sovereignty of this great Nation as we know it. I thank them. I am grateful for their sacrifice. I am grateful for their service to this Nation, and I want it to be noted on this day. They have a commitment and a perspective and a love of freedom that few Americans will ever know. I wish that we all did.

I am grateful also that they can articulate so fluently their mission and what they are called on to do every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the 30 countries around the globe where Americans fight to preserve freedom. They articulate this in e-mails and blogs, and even in notes and letters to their Member of Congress.

I also, Mr. Speaker, want to recognize the Kurdish community that calls Nashville, Tennessee home, and recognize their commitment and their appreciation to our U.S. troops. One of the points that many of them make to me regularly and also one of the points that our men and women in uniform make regularly is to remind us of why we are in this fight, why we are in this fight and providing the historical perspective that is so important. This didn't begin on September 11. It did indeed begin long, long, long ago.

Indeed, the radical Islamists have fought Judaism and Christianity not for decades but for centuries. This is something that we all know. The Islamic radicals did get a toe-hold in Iran in the late 1970s with the approach at that point by President Carter, then President Carter, and those around him. And now those radicals tell us, they tell us that Iraq is indeed the central front in the global war on terror. We know that they want to change the Middle East and then they want to change the world. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not the type change that we want. I want my children and grandchildren to live in freedom. I want them to know an America that is free and strong and independent.

Our soldiers are fighting. They are fighting every day. They are fighting the insurgents in the field, they are fighting the battle of ideas; and the battle of ideas is a very, very powerful fight in Iraq at this point in time.

Now, too many in this Chamber want to add another fight to our military men and women, to their agenda every day. They want them to have to fight the battle of public opinion here in the United States. I see that as a disservice to the men and women in uniform. This legislative body does have a role in oversight of the war, but I do believe, I personally believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we try to micromanage from the comforts of Washington. I do believe that we should be listening to our troops and our commanders in the field.

General David Petraeus, who has taken the command, accepted the coalition flag this Saturday, said it very well and I will enter his comments for the Record. He reminds us that progress is being made and lays that out, and I will enter that for the Record and have the opportunity to talk about it again later. I think that what we have to do is realize the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, will not build morale with the troops on the ground, and it does give the terrorists just what they want. We have to fight back. We have to realize sacrifices do have to be made in order for us to further the cause of freedom and liberty in this great land.

The situation in Iraq is exceedingly challenging. The

stakes are very high. The way ahead will be hard and there

undoubtedly will be many tough days . . . however, ``hard''

is not ``hopeless''; indeed, together with our Iraqi

partners, we can and we must prevail. (General David

Petraeus, Commander MNF-I, 2/10/07.)

What They're Saying: General Petraeus Takes Command

This Mission Is Doable: ``Our job in the months ahead,

supporting and working with Iraqi forces will improve our

security so tht the Iraqi government can resolve the tough

issues it faces and so that the economy and basic services

can be improved. These tasks are achievable, this mission is

doable.'' (General David Petraeus, Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07)

Enemies Who Brag of Inhuman Acts Against Fellow Human

Beings: ``Tragically, barbaric enemies have prevented Iraq

from making the most of the abundant blessings bestowed by

the Almighty on Mesopotamia. These are enemies who brag of

inhuman acts against fellow human beings, who invoke

religious justifications for actions that no God could

countenance, who try to drive wedges between religious and

ethnic groups that have lived together in harmony in the

past, and who in recent weeks have even targeted a girls'

school, innocent laborers, marketplaces and pet shops in

their efforts to spark sectarian violence.'' (General David

Petraeus, Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07)

Together We Can Defeat The Enemies of Iraq: ``Surely the

Iraqi people realize that these enemies do not want the best

for Iraqi's citizens, and surely now is the time for all

Iraqis to reject violence, crime and corruption and to rise

up against those who employ such methods to further their

agendas. It is against these enemies that all

Iraqis must now fight. And I pledge the full support of the

Multinational Forces Iraq in this endeavor. Together we can

defeat the enemies of Iraq.'' (General David Petraeus,

Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07)

Mr. Speaker, as I rise I do want to say a special thank you to our troops who are deployed tonight, to those that are from Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District, many of those from Fort Campbell, and our National Guardsmen, our Reservists, certainly to our veterans.

I can think of no more wonderful gift to give those and to leave for those you love than the gift of freedom. And certainly, on Valentine's Day, on Valentine's evening that is an important, important thought for us to have. And I appreciate all of our men and women and the efforts that they make to keep this Nation free, and to be certain that our children and our grandchildren have the opportunity to grow up in freedom and to enjoy the America that we have enjoyed.

As we have talked about this resolution, the 97 words that exist in this very short resolution, we have talked about it from different angles, how a nonbinding resolution and a no confidence resolution affects our troops, the thoughts that went into creating this resolution. And one of the questions that I continually come back to that actually was posed to me by some of the veterans in my district, is whose side are you on? When you offer a resolution like this, whose side are you on?

And the other question that keeps coming back is who are you listening to?

Certainly, I would hope that we would all be standing on the side of freedom. I would hope that we would all be standing on the side of our troops. And I do hope that we would all be listening to our commanders in the field.

There has been some mention this evening of General David Petraeus, who this weekend took control of command in Iraq. And I will give you some of his quotes, some of the things that he has had to say in the last few days as he is over there and working those. And I quote from him. ``Our job in the months ahead, supporting and working with Iraqi forces, will improve our security so that the Iraqi Government can resolve the tough issues it faces, and so that the economy and basic services can be improved. These tasks are achievable. This mission is doable.''

Indeed, those on the ground believe this is doable. We know that it is doable, and we know in the global war on terror we have to win. We cannot lose. We have to win. The civilized world depends on defeating terrorists and winning.

We also know that Iraqis are making progress. There has been some debate and some mention tonight about progress not being made in Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, I will offer to you that indeed you are not going to hear this on the 6 o'clock news, the 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock news around the country because the major media outlets just don't want to report it. But we are finding out that while this body sets aside a political debate that some think will benefit them, what we see is our troops in the field in Iraq are making progress. They understand their mission. They know what they are about every day. We see that even just in the last few days, when you are talking about Baghdad, three Iraqi Army brigades are now deploying to Baghdad to reinforce the six Iraqi Army brigades and nine National Police brigades that are already there. These are steps that are taking place. This is progress that the Iraqi people are making on behalf of their quest for freedom. These are their steps, these are their steps toward freedom and toward leadership.

How dare we discount that? How dare we not recognize that? How dare we not encourage that? And how dare we take steps to embolden and encourage the enemy who would seek to strike them down?

Mr. Speaker, we should be very, very careful whom we listen to, and we should be very thoughtful as we answer the question, Whose side are you on?

I am so grateful, Mr. Speaker, that those that have gone before us chose to be on the side of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, I continue to stand and support our troops. I feel it is imperative that we continue to strongly speak out in favor of the efforts that our troops are carrying out against terrorism, not only in Iraq, but in 30 different countries around the globe.

The terrorists tell us, just as my colleague said, that Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror. War is not quick, and it is not painless. It is up to us here in the people's House to continue to support the troops and to be behind their efforts, funding them 100 percent of the way.

In order to win, Mr. Speaker, we must not only succeed on the battlefield; we must win in the battle of ideas. We must win the civic and economic battles with the Iraqi people. They are as critical as any firefight that they face every day.

The idea of freedom and prosperity is a powerful idea. Our coalition is breathing life into that idea with the Iraqi people. We need to stand firm, fund our troops, support our men and women in harm's way.

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

I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. I do rise on the point of conservation and pointing out some conservation. You know, it is amazing to me to hear all of this talk that we have about global warming. But you know what, the debate that we are having here just points out, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between conservationists and environmentalists, and this is one of the debates that points this out. Conservationists walk the walk. Environmentalists talk about it, but they do not walk the walk.

You know, I remember, I appreciate so much the gentleman from Tennessee's comments about global warming and the threat that is there. Well, you know what? I am old enough to remember having been in high school in the 1960s, and I remember in the early 1970s, going into college where we were all going to freeze to death.

We were going to freeze to death. It was on the cover of every magazine out there. We had an Ice Age that was coming. I was scared to death. I thought, my goodness, I will never be able to have children, watch them grow up, because we are going to be living in igloos.

Well, but you know what? It did not happen, and now we find out, guess what, 100 years ago, they thought they had a warming cycle; or they did, they documented it. Then we find out that the rises and falls in temperatures of this great Earth are cyclical. It is there, and, yes, it is rising a little bit right there. But in 1969 and 1970 and 1971, the Ice Age was coming, and there was scientific proof.

You know, at Energy and Commerce Committee last year, we had some great hearings. We talked about the

fallacy of the hockey stick theory. We discussed that. We heard testimony, and we can have all of our community of scientists who are trying to serve the purpose of validating one another's theories, but not wanting to go back and use the evidence from 100 years ago, and it just proves the point, as is often said on this floor, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to a different set of facts, and that is the truth.

You know, it is of tremendous concern, on a day when we are talking about the environment, that we do have an example being brought forth that would be spending, not only $22,000 an hour, but would be spending a lot in emissions, in gases. This is something that does deserve to be discussed, Mr. Chairman.

I tell you what, we have named this, we have talked about this being the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress, and for every hour that our friends across the aisle are in charge, they are racking up, not thousands and millions, but moving to billions. Hold on to your wallet because of what they are choosing to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money on.

It is of great concern to me, when I read reports that are coming out of all sorts of papers and news organizations about how this is coming to be, people returning to smoke-filled rooms, picking up the phones, calling, saying, this is the way it ought to be done.

Mr. Chairman, it is of great concern to me, I think for those of us who are conservationists, who want to be certain that we leave this Earth a better place than we found it. We are wise to stand and to question the bill and to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we are discussing national security every single day on the floor of this House, and our Border Patrol agents seem to be the forgotten soldiers fighting this war on terror. They guard our border every single day and protect our country from terrorists, from human traffickers, from drug traffickers.

Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were recently convicted of shooting a drug smuggler while they were patrolling and protecting the border. Then they were sentenced to a decade in prison. You may have read that our own U.S. Attorney had this drug smuggler brought from Mexico, gave him immunity to testify against our agents, and then the smuggler was released.

Now the drug smuggler is suing the U.S. Government for damages. As soon as Agent Ramos began his sentence in a Federal prison, he was assaulted by drug smugglers and drug users who were inmates in that prison. Ramos was doing his duty, protecting Americans from the thugs and the drug smugglers. Now we have failed to protect him.

Mr. Speaker, how pleased I am to join the gentleman from California and my Republican Study Committee colleagues in this special order hour. As we talk about the budget and we really begin to focus on some of the components in this budget, you know, I think that many of my Republican Study Committee colleagues are interested in digging into this document, and their constituents are well served by that, like the gentleman from Tennessee talking about his First District constituents who are logging on to his Web site, who are looking at this budget. And certainly we want to direct people to the Republican Study Committee Web site. Here it is: [email protected]. We will be happy to point out some of the fallacies.

Our colleagues across the aisle like to talk about fiscal responsibility, but then they don't practice it. They don't practice what they preach. And we have appropriately dubbed the work that the Democrats are doing as the ``Hold on to your wallet Congress'' because they are definitely coming to a pocket near you. And they want more of your money. That is one thing that you can basically take that IOU to the bank. They are going to try to cash it in. It is in the form of your hardearned dollars. So [email protected]. We invite everybody to work with us through this process. We want to be certain that we have your ideas. And we know, as the gentleman from Tennessee was saying, as Ronald Reagan, so many times has said, government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Government never gets enough of your money. You know, one of the things that I have repeatedly done in my town hall meetings is to say, how much is enough? How much is enough for government to tax? What is the ceiling? When are they going to say, we have got it, we are flush with money? We all know that, and I will yield to the gentleman for comment.

If the gentleman will yield, that is an excellent point, because every dollar we spend is not ours. It is not the government's. It is the taxpayers'. And this is a government of, by and for the people. It is not a government of the government.

And our friends across the aisle, through the New Deal, through the great society, putting all of these programs that sound good, that really answered a lot of questions and needs, you know, they put these in place, and then it grows and grows and grows. And then you have a big, big bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy becomes unresponsive. And the constituents want accountability with that.

I had at one point said, you know, it reminded me very much of The Little Shop of Horrors, that stage play that we have all seen. And the plant grows and grows and grows, and then finally it says, feed me more, Seymour, and it envelops everything because that is what the government is saying to the American taxpayer, feed me more.

We have an expert who is with us on so many of our family budget matters, our Republican Study Committee, RSC, chairman, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, and I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.