Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to draw to the attention of the House H.R. 5037. This is the Respect For America's Fallen Heroes Act, and I would like to encourage each Member of this body to join me and my colleagues in this act. What it is going to do is to put in place criteria that will prohibit a person from carrying out demonstrations at the funeral of one of our fallen heroes.

We are going to have a press conference, Mr. Speaker, at 2:30 today to talk more about this, and I want to commend my colleagues, Representative Rogers from Michigan, our Veterans Affairs' Committee Chairman, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Carter of Texas, and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey for joining with me on this piece of legislation and for joining to honor the members of the Patriot Guard Riders, who stand with our families to honor our fallen heroes.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that everyone is talking about the issues of the day: immigration and energy prices. And too many in this body are overcomplicating the issue. It is really not that hard. On immigration, secure the border, build a wall if necessary. Secure the border. It is what our constituents in Tennessee want. It is what the Republican majority want. It is what the American people want and need.

On energy, we should be exploring for domestic sources of energy. We should pass the energy legislation that is going to come before this body this week. We should define price gouging, set some penalties, encourage construction of refineries. Currently, we are not doing that.

Liberals in Congress have spent the past three decades pandering to environmental extremists. The policies they have put in place are in large part responsible for the energy crunch we are seeing today. We have not built a refinery in this country for 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, the liberals need to start serving American families and stop serving special interests.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents are asking exactly the right question: Why are gas prices so high?

Well, I will tell you. There are liberal Members of this body for the past three decades that have voted to prevent domestic exploration for oil. They have also worked to make it virtually impossible to build new refineries, and they have succeeded. We have not built a new refinery in this country since 1976.

This week we have watched the Democrats stand around wringing their hands about high gas prices and blaming every Republican in sight. But this is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue, and people need to know the truth is in the voting.

Last year we passed the GAS Act with not a single Democratic vote in the House. Not one. That bill would have streamlined the overly burdensome permitting and regulatory work that goes into getting a refinery. It would have made price gouging a Federal crime. The bill got no liberal support here in the House. Now it is in the Senate.

Americans have only to ask the liberals why they are paying so much at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Azerbaijan as a key ally in a region of significant importance and a valued partner to the United States. Azerbaijan has made important contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo and supports efforts to combat terrorism. The country has also taken effective steps to foster pro-democratic principles leading to fair and free elections.

I also would like to welcome President Ilham Aliyev to Washington this week for meetings with President Bush, senior Administration officials, and key Congressional leaders to discuss the need for continued democratic reforms, regional cooperation, energy security and diversification, and our nations' commitment to working closely together to advance freedom, security, and economic independence.

It is clear now more than ever that we must develop new sources of energy and partners not controlled by Middle East and South American dictatorships.

Azerbaijan has been identified as key to the East-West transit corridor from the Caspian Sea to international markets. Sharing a 379 mile border with Iran, we should recognize that Azerbaijan is important to the United States relations in the region. I encourage my colleagues in the House to support the opening of the one million barrel per day Baku-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and Baku-Erzerum (SCP) natural gas pipeline, set to increase energy exports and availability for the West.

I welcome President Ilham Aliyev upon his first official visit to Washington.

Madam Speaker, you know, as we are talking about energy, and as we are talking about fuel prices today, it is quite amazing to watch selective memory and revisionist history take place within this Chamber. To my liberal colleagues I would simply say: you cannot have it both ways.

And I hope we are learning a lesson from what we are hearing in this Chamber and from what we are seeing in the papers. Thirty years of environmental extremist policies on energy consumption in this Nation leads to the situation that we have today. For 30 years we have not been able to build new refineries because of environmental regulations. For 30 years we have not been funding exploration and development of new sources. Couple that with what has happened with Katrina and Rita, and, yes, we have a painful situation with energy prices.

Let us learn the lesson. Let us come together and let us be certain that we are thoughtful and that we realize our Nation depends on an energy source that is going to be consistent and supply lines that are going to be open.

Madam Speaker, gas prices are the topic right now, so

let us talk about energy, because we have heard some of our liberal colleagues take great delight in talking about the gas prices, and probably they should. It is their policies that have led us to this point.

The Democrat Party in this country is very tightly tied to environmental extremist organizations; and since the 1970s, they have been working day and night to halt domestic exploration for oil.

We cannot search for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, meanwhile Cuba and Venezuela are. We cannot explore for oil in ANWR because it might hurt the caribou. We haven't built a refinery since 1976 because environmentalists use their influence over liberal policymakers to create a regulatory and permitting scheme that makes it virtually impossible to get approval. That is why we have fewer refineries today.

Madam Speaker, the House passed a bill last year to make price gouging a Federal crime and to streamline the process for building a refinery. Not a single Democrat in this body voted for that, and now it is languishing in the Senate.

It is time for action. That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on the issue. As you were saying, we are all in this boat together when we look at the energy issue and look at not only the fuel for our cars, but for our homes, how we generate electricity, how we address the energy needs of a booming economy, how we address the energy needs of a growing population.

As you said so very well, this is not a Democrat or a Republican issue, this is an American issue, and we need to go back and let history be a great teacher for us on this issue. How did we get to this point? This issue didn't just happen last week or last month or even last year. This is something that has been growing for a period of time. I really look at it as something that has been coming together over the past 30 years, when we look at what has happened with this.

If we go back to the mid-70s, a good start date to take for the sake of discussion on this issue is 1976. The reason we go back to 1976, Carter was President then and that was the last year that we had a refinery built in this country. That was the last year in which a new refinery, oil or gas refinery, was built on U.S. soil.

What we saw happen was an increase in regulation from the EPA and from OSHA and different environmental groups and different demands that environmental groups would place on creating or developing a new refinery or going out and exploring for oil or gas or developing new technologies to extract oil and gas to bring forward for the refining process.

Since 1976, we have seen layer upon layer upon layer of mandates, of rules, of regulations, that have made it very, very difficult to bring forward new technologies so that we can meet the energy needs of this Nation.

So that we are meeting the energy needs of this Nation. Great for instance. When you inventory what we had on line with refineries in 1981, there were 324 oil and gas refineries in this country in 1981. Today there are 148 refineries; 148 refineries. And, you know, the last refinery that went up in this country was out in Yuma, Arizona. It took 5 years and 4 months to get through the permitting process to put that refinery in place.

So we see that what we have done is to put in place a process where we have fewer refineries that are working, and fewer refineries to actually process the oil and gas that we need. Now at the same time our population is growing, we have more cars on the road, and we have more houses. Home ownership is at an all-time high.

We need to be processing 21 million barrels of oil a day. We have the capacity to refine 17 million barrels of oil a day. So what we have is a very tight supply line, and it is difficult for us to meet those needs with the current infrastructure that is in existence.

What we have to do also is couple those facts of fewer refineries and making it very difficult to do exploration and development. Now, you know, and I will tell you, the liberals on this issue need to realize the double-talk ought to stop. The double-talk needs to stop because you cannot have it both ways.

You do want oil and gas, but then you do not want the prices to be high, but you do not want to go drill in ANWR, you do not want to inventory the Outer Continental Shelf, and you do not want to extract any of those gas deposits that are there, and heaven knows, let us not go drill in the West. And that is what we have the tendency to hear.

But at the same time, they are saying gas is too high, we need to immediately move to alternative fuels. But then they say, you are not doing enough for alternative fuels, but the gas prices are too high. And, you know, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of double- talk that makes it very difficult to sit down and work out a solution to this that is going to help us with this issue.

And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I look at this with the fewer refineries, with the lack of exploration and development, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina taking fully 25 percent of our refineries off line, and what you have is the perfect storm of an energy crisis. And at

the same time that is happening, we are switching from the MTBE to ethanol.

There are some supply line problems with the distributors there. And, yes, this has been a very difficult week. And I am like most persons. I go to fill up my car, and I just, you know, gasp at the price. And I think, my goodness, this is not what we are used to. This is not what we have planned for. This is not what we have budgeted for. It is so expensive.

And I held town hall meetings, as you were saying, as the gentlemen from Georgia was saying, visiting with my constituents. And you talk to those who are on the school boards who are saying, you know, it is costing more to run buses, and you talk to those who are running their county governments. They are saying, our supply costs and our fuel costs are going up.

And it says, yes, indeed we need to do something. And I think it is very important that we realize that there are some things we can do in the short term. There are some things that we will do that will affect the midrange, and then we need to be very conscious as we look at a long-range plan, and as we look at working toward an energy independence day.

And, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Georgia in returning another night to talk a bit more about energy independence day and how we would get there and what that would look like.

And I think that as we look at this issue, we know legislatively there are some things that we can do and have done. We have passed the Energy Policy Act from the committee where I hold a seat, Energy and Commerce. And we first passed that piece of legislation in 2001, and it languished across the dome with our friends in the Senate. And finally this past June we were able to get that signed into law and passed to put $8 billion on to alternative fuels development, to simplify some the permitting process so that it is easier for those refineries to stand up and begin processing the fuels that we need.

You know, there is another piece of legislation, the Gas Act, that we passed after Katrina took place, and that is the piece of legislation we passed in this body on a 212-210 vote. It would federalize and put in place Federal penalties for price gouging. Unfortunately we did not have any help from our friends across the aisle on that. And we felt it was important to put in place, to federalize price gouging. Now, that piece of legislation that we passed is sitting in the Senate. The liberals are holding it up. It is time for us to pass this.

I yield to the gentlemen from Georgia.

If the gentleman will yield. Yes, this is one of the things, and let us continue to look at this poster. You know, do we care more about caribou in ANWR, or do we want to come into an area that is an enormously large area and go into an area land-mass-wise that is about the size of the State of South Carolina, and go into an area that is about the size of the Atlanta airport and drill, and go in on ice roads during the winter and drill?

You know, I mentioned that we need 21 million barrels of oil a day, and that we have the capacity for 17 million. In that field in the North Atlantic Wildlife Refuge, that field would yield as much as 1 million barrels a day. So I think that this is the time when we have to say, where are our priorities? And how are we going to use the fossil fuels that we have while we try to wean ourselves from foreign oil, and while we develop alternative sources, and as we look at this electric power generation?

I was in another State in a coastal area with one of our colleagues, and we were going across a bridge. I had been speaking in one area, and we were going to the other for a speech. And there were two power plants on either side of this bridge out in this bay. And as I looked out there, I said, oh, are these on hydroelectric power? What are we using? What is the source here? Is it wind? Is it water?

One was burning coal; the other was burning oil and gas. You know, you have to say, if they are both using fossil fuels, why are we doing that and not being good stewards of our fossil fuels and using all of those other natural resources that we have?

So this is a time for us to say, let us be very thoughtful, let us learn some lessons from what has happened over the past 30 years. Let us look at what happens when you give environmental groups the say over how you are going to develop your energy policy. When you say we are going to work day in and day out, and we are going to keep you from drilling, let us look at the lessons that we have learned and what ends up happening in the long run.

And as we look at conservation and preserving efforts, which will help us with the short-term fix, when we look at the legislative efforts that will help us in the midterm and the long term, let us be very, very mindful that every piece of legislation that we pass is going to have some consequences whether intended or unintended, and we need to be very mindful of that.

With that I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration, the process of choosing to enter this country illegally, of violating our laws, is clearly a priority of concern with the American people, and I don't think the American people are asking too much when they call our offices and tell us to secure the border and bring a halt to the massive problem of illegal entry into this country.

Some in this debate are trying to characterize those of us who want to get serious about illegal entry as mean-spirited and anti-immigrant. It is ridiculous.

In a column a while back, Peggy Noonan asked the question, What does it mean when the first thing a person does when coming into the country is break our laws? Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

We absolutely cannot condone or incorporate into our society large numbers of people whose first act upon entering this country is to break a law.

We need to overhaul our border security. We need to overhaul the process by which people are legally admitted to this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I just love this debate. I love this day of the year when we come to the floor and we talk about our budget and we go before the American people to talk about the priorities that we have, what we see as being important to this Nation, where we place our hopes and where we place our dreams and where we think about opportunity.

Another great thing about this day is that this is the day when big spenders don't have anywhere to hide.

You know, as my colleague from Michigan said, they cannot have it both ways. We have now watched liberal Members come down here, and this budget is too fiscally conservative. They say we are not spending enough. We have to spend more. And then they say you are spending too much.

If you were a parent, you would go pull out a copy of ``Goldilocks and the 3 Bears'' and start reading, because nothing is ever going to suit them.

I know people back home are looking at this debate, and they are probably scratching their heads because the Democrats say it is too conservative, it does not spend enough. So let's cut through the rhetoric and look at what we have got. What they want, what it really means is that they want to pretend to support spending reductions while they turn around and they call for more spending. For big spending.

Their stance really doesn't make any sense; but what it does do is prevent them from having to take a stand for spending restraint. Did they choose to vote with us for the Deficit Reduction Act? No, they did not. They chose not to vote for reducing the deficit.

This budget will continue to hold the line on spending. It will continue to find savings in mandatory spending. We all know this government spends too much. That is why we have a huge, enormous bureaucracy in this town that the other side has built as a monument to themselves. After 40 years of control, 40 years of growing a big old budget, 40 years of trying to continue to fund it, and they are still making the same tired, worn-out arguments. They cannot have it both ways. We are either for reducing spending and getting this under control, or we are for growing it.

We can make some reductions in spending. We can freeze some things, hold the line, and that is what we are doing. As I said, they chose not to support the Deficit Reduction Act. They chose not to support across- the-board cuts. And because of that, they have chosen not to be leaders in this issue. So they ought to decide whether they are for more spending or less spending before they come down here to the floor and certainly before they go home.

Madam Speaker, last year the Republicans did support the Deficit Reduction Act that reduced $39 billion in Federal spending, and yes, indeed, as we are hearing, this is budget week here on Capitol Hill. It is something that we are tasked to do.

I know that a lot of the big spenders would still like to be getting rid of that Deficit Reduction Act that we passed last year. It was a good bill. We should be doing more like it, as my colleague from Texas said.

Today, conservatives in the House are working to bring to the floor a budget that goes after the programs that show little results for the taxpayer dollars.

We have got some great ideas on the table. I would like to see further across-the-board cuts. My colleague from Texas, Representative Conaway, has a bill that goes after eliminating a program if you are going to create a new one.

Madam Speaker, we Republicans are bringing ideas and putting solutions on the table, and we are going to hear more about this as we go through the week. We are the party debating how to reduce spending at the Federal level. It is what America expects of us. It is what we are fighting to make happen.

Mr. Speaker, it is budget week here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and sometimes we hear people say, Oh, no, I just dread it when we get around to talking about this budget. And then we will hear others say, I love to just really tackle this budget issue. I love looking at where we spend our money. And I kind of appreciate that attitude because we are the stewards of the taxpayers' money and it is our responsibility to be a good steward and to be diligent in the work we are going to do as we work on this budget and decide what should the priorities of our government be? What should be our concerns? Where should we be looking for ways to achieve a savings?

And over the past several months, actually over the past 3 years, we have come to the floor regularly to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse and find ways and point out ways and to continue to seek ways that we can achieve a savings for the American people.

And from time to time over the past few years, we have talked about lots of different reports. Many different reports from different government agencies, from the General Accounting Office, from some of our friends who are in the media that have pointed out programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness, programs that are wasting money, programs that cannot achieve a clean audit. And some of our colleagues, we have worked on ways that we can go in and investigate and highlight and look at what this drain is on our tax dollars. And we have House committees, certainly the Government Reform Committee, that continue to hold hearings. Oversight and investigations from our Energy and Commerce Committee are certainly looking at ways to achieve a savings and find ways to review how our agencies are spending their money.

We have clear data showing places where the Federal Government is bleeding funds. And the President's budget this year has included more than 100 programs that could and should be targeted, Mr. Speaker. So the target for spending reductions is clearly enormous. We have got 100 programs, 100, that we can look at through so many different agencies and so many different spots in the Federal Government. Now, certainly, out of 100 programs, we are going to be able to find a way to achieve a savings.

One of the interesting things is no matter what part of this country that you are in and no matter whose district that you are in, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, there is consensus among the American people that we have a problem. Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending problem. Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a priority problem. It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be.

The taxpayers pay far too much of their paycheck in taxes. They are tired of every time somebody comes up with a good idea, they say well let us just go raise the taxes. And, Mr. Speaker, I tell you what, if it were not for the leadership in this House, we would see those taxes going up. If our friends across the aisle had their way, they would be raising taxes, not cutting programs. That is not where we want to go. We know it is tough to eliminate waste.

I often quote Ronald Reagan, who is pretty close to my favorite President ever, I will have to say that, but one of my favorite remarks he ever made was that when you look at Federal programs, there is nothing so close to eternal life on Earth as a Federal Government program. When you get the thing, it is just the dickens to get rid of it. It is so tough to get rid of it, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes in my townhall meetings in Tennessee, I will have constituents say, Why is it so tough to get rid of these programs? We see the waste. We know the waste is out there. Everybody knows these programs are wasting money. Why is it so difficult to call them into accountability? Why is it so difficult to get rid of these programs?

And to that, Mr. Speaker, I will have to say if you listen to our colleagues from across the aisle this morning when they gave their 1 minute speeches, then you can see why it is so very difficult for us to downsize this government. Those colleagues across the aisle, Democratic Members, Member after Member, came to the floor this morning, as they do on many days, and they decried our efforts to make reductions in Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, we spend trillions of dollars to support all sorts of social spending programs; yet any reduction or even holding the line on spending, not increasing anything, just holding the line, all of a sudden it is called a ``draconian cut.'' It is amazing how it works.

Most Americans do not get a massive salary increase every year. But we have colleagues that think if they are not giving every agency an increase every year, then they are getting a cut. It is the most incredible, most incredible, program that you have ever seen. If you do not get an increase, then you are getting a cut.

It does not work that way in real life, only in the bureaucracy. We have to look at this and see that it happens year after year after year.

You know, I don't think that asking the Federal Government to reduce its spending, I don't think asking bureaucrats to be accountable, I don't think asking agencies to be accountable and get clean audits and know where they are spending their money is evil. I don't think it is uncaring. But many of our colleagues across the aisle will come down here and demonize those of us who simply want the spending increases to stop.

I have talked a lot about the Great Society government that was created over 40 years of Democratic control of Congress, and I will have to tell you, yes, indeed, they built an enormous monument, a monument of spending to their party's vision of what government ought to be; a vision in which government solved society's ills and

took care of every problem by spending more money.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that that vision is a failure. We know it is an absolute failure. You don't solve problems, you don't solve problems, by throwing more money at them. Many times all you do is mask the problem. In the long run, you make it worse, because you are not addressing the causes of the problem.

The moveon.orgs of the world, the Democratic leadership, they don't want to admit this. They want to protect and expand their monumental government, this huge bureaucracy in this town, huge bureaucracy. So many of my constituents get frustrated with it. They want us to break it apart; to send the money, send the power back to our States and back to our local governments. They want to keep their paychecks in their pocket. They don't want the Federal Government to have first right of refusal on it.

They are a little bit confused many times, and understandably so, I think all of us are, of why the Democratic leadership wants to keep, why the liberal leadership wants to keep, a big, big, big bureaucracy in this town. But it is their party's creation. It is their legacy.

I am joined by some colleagues tonight who are going to share some of their thoughts on the great ideas that we can bring to the table to look at how we are spending the Federal Government's money. This party and this leadership is the one that is keeping the attention on spending less and reducing the size of the Federal Government.

Mr. Hensarling is joining us tonight. He is a member of the Budget Committee, and he has had the Family Budget Protection Act. Mr. Hensarling is going to open our conversation this evening and talk a little bit about the budget, the work that they have done in the Budget Committee, the process reforms that we are beginning to look at and move forward, and add to the discussion that we are going to have this week as we continue to work on our plan to yield savings for the American people and to reduce the size of the Federal Government.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is so right when he talks about the compassion and what is the compassionate thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the Republicans swept in here and took control of this body and have been working ever since to turn this ship around and turn that corner so that we look at how we handled the Federal purse, how we handle the priorities of the Federal Government, how we shift that focus and move it away from saying, let us give government the money, and then task government to go solve all the ills to say, we believe this is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we believe the people can solve these problems. They can do it.

We know that most people feel when they see their taxes increase, when they see more of their money going to feed that bureaucracy, they know that their freedom has been cut.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by Dr. Gingrey, who is a member of the Rules Committee and is going to have a few comments on the budget. Certainly, he is a gentleman who knows of compassion and how we should be working with and for our Federal man.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate so much that he calls our attention to some of the issues that are at hand.

Mr. Speaker, for any of our colleagues who are looking for more information on the House budget, they can go to the Web site gop.gov, and pull down the House Budget Resolution fact sheet.

Here is some interesting information on it, and it goes back to what Mr. Hensarling was talking about on the budget. It is a $2.7 trillion budget authority. One of the things that is so important in this is when you look at the discretionary, it is a 3.6 percent increase over what we had in fiscal year 2006. We did some interesting things here, and Chairman Nussle is to be commended for this. We have a $50 billion placeholder in here for our war effort cost.

We have money for Katrina or for emergencies such as Katrina. Then we go in and we look at our discretionary spending, a near freeze in nonsecurity discretionary spending. A near freeze. Quite amazing, is not it, when you think about the growth that year after year after year took place. And I would encourage the individuals that are listening to this over TV tonight to call their legislators. Call us. Let us know what we think. We love to hear from you.

We have another Budget Committee member, and leader who is with us tonight, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is going to have a few things to say, and then we are going to invite some of our other colleagues in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his thoughts. He is such a thoughtful member of our Republican Conference, and a thoughtful and studious member of the Budget Committee, and the ideas that he brings forth are very important to us, because that is what we bring, ideas. How are we going to work through this process of reducing what the Federal Government spends?

How are we going to work through the process of being certain that Federal agencies are called into accountability for how they spend your money?

This is not the government's money. It is the taxpayers' money, and we need to remember that every single day.

A gentleman who does a great job of reminding us that it is the taxpayers' money is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), and at this time I yield to Mr. McHenry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and as he said, it is so important that we keep the attention on both sides of this ledger, that we hone that focus and just target it, what we are taking in and what we are spending.

When we go back and we look at the 2003 tax cuts, we know that 91 million Americans saw a tax reduction of about $1,100. That is real money. We also know that when government takes more of that paycheck, that the individuals are not making choices, that the government is making choices, and that is where we see a decrease in our freedom.

The gentleman is so correct. It is the debate of ideas and putting new ideas on the table that is so very important, and we are joined, as you mentioned, by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), who has a few thoughts to offer on the line item veto and some of the ideas that are being offered for our budget process, and I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and it is so true. We are to spend wisely, and this week, as we look at this year's budget, there are some things that you will hear us talking, some themes that will bear themselves out as we talk about this budget this week. As I said, you can go to the Budget Committee Web site, through house.gov or go to gop.gov, our colleagues can, and get more information on the budget.

We are going to talk about strength and how we look at strength and security in this budget. We look at defense, homeland security, national security. We are going to talk about spending control, the issue that we have talked about tonight, how we work on waste, fraud and abuse, how we seek that savings and continue to seek that savings for the American people and how we continue to push for reform, so that government avails itself of every possible efficiency, every possible efficiency that is out there to be certain that the taxpayer is receiving the best buy for their dollar.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about priorities and where the priorities are in this budget. I think that is one of things that our colleagues will want to watch over the next couple of the days because over the past decade, we saw discretionary spending increase by an average of 7 percent each year. What we have done in last year's budget and this budget is to come to a near freeze in nonsecurity discretionary spending.

And that is so important, because that points to the priorities that you have mentioned and the gentleman from Texas has mentioned and the gentleman from North Carolina has mentioned.

If the gentleman will yield, earlier we talked about our colleagues across the aisle and this morning how they were bemoaning the fact that we were going to freeze spending or reduce spending, or if they weren't going to get everything they wanted, then it is considered a cut. Now that is government speak, as the gentleman from Texas said. That is government speak. It is not really a cut.

But we have to realize that every single time, every single time we start to make reductions in what the Federal Government spends, there are some who try to keep us from doing that. And their answer is always, we need more money. Government can't afford that cut. Government can't afford that tax reduction.

And as you said, it is so important that we differentiate between this.

If the gentleman can yield for just a second.

I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas, because I think it is important for us to bring the deficit back into this. We are allowing the taxpayer to keep more of their paycheck, and the tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 certainly have done that. The gentleman from Texas can talk for a moment about the deficit and how we are speeding along and reducing that deficit faster than we had originally thought that we were because of the growth in taxes and because of the changes we have made in budgeting.

If the gentlemen will yield. As we wrap up our hour, I want to bring it right back to where we started, talking about the compassionate thing to do is to let the American taxpayer keep their paycheck, be certain that they have first right of refusal on that paycheck and not the Federal Government.

I also want to encourage our constituents to talk to us and our colleagues, to talk to our constituents so that we are certain that everyone understands our goal as the majority party here in this House is to be certain that we preserve individual freedom, that we preserve hope and opportunity, and that we allow the American taxpayer to keep control of their paycheck. And that as stewards of the taxpayers' money, that we are good and accountable stewards.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not hard to understand. The American people understand this issue and we are getting lots of calls into our offices.

We have the immigration debate. As we talk about illegal immigration, as we discuss the problem of illegal entry into this country, we all know that you have to begin with the very first step. It has to be a priority and that priority is seal our borders.

We all learned in kindergarten that the beginning is a very good place to start. As we have this debate on illegal immigration and illegal entry into this country, let's begin at the very beginning by sealing the borders to this great Nation.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia and his work on the issues and for continuing to work on the Truth Squad to get the message out, and the gentleman from Virginia, our chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor, who has been leading on this and working with us to be certain that we educate our constituents on exactly what a 527 is.

I love the poster that you have there. It is a PAC by another name. One of the problems with this, as we were just hearing from the gentleman from North Carolina and you reiterated, people do not know where the money is coming from. People do not know who is behind this group. And time and again in town hall meetings people will come before us and say, I got this call or I got this mailer. Who is this group? And then they find out that it is a group that nobody knows who is giving them the money. Nobody knows really what they are about. They are kind of a shadow organization.

I think it is time and it is appropriate that we put the emphasis on three things, which is what our bill will do next week: disclosure so that we know where the money is coming from; transparency so that our constituents when they get a piece of mail, they know who it is by. When they get a mailer from our campaigns, it says that. When they see an ad from our campaigns, it tells them. And we know that they are aware of who they are receiving that from. And that type of transparency is needed in this system.

The other thing is about fairness, and it is about fairness for the system because addressing these issues, disclosure, transparency, fairness, will enable our constituents to know that our focus is on being certain that they know that they can trust the electoral process, that they can trust that there is some truth in the material that they are getting with knowing where it is coming from, and that they know that we are working to be certain to restore the trust and integrity that they expect from this body and from the electoral system.

This is something that we have needed to address. We have watched the process and the 527s kind of get out of control with the 2004 elections. And I appreciate what you said about it being the politics of division. All too often these groups focus on the politics of personal destruction. No one is well

served. No one is well served when we travel that path.

Our political process is to be about ideas and bringing forth ideas, in bringing forth issues that are focused on how we preserve freedom. How do we preserve hope and opportunity for future generations? How do we make certain that this Nation stays a free, a productive society? And being certain that we have an open and trustworthy process that is accountable is a way that we will do that.

So I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing the issue to the floor today. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his interest in the issue and for being a leader on the issue as we address the problem that the advent of 527s have caused in the political process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and one of the things, as we talk about fairness, again, going back to the politics of division and the politics of personal destruction, I have got before me a list of some of the shady acts that were committed by 527s when it comes to people that were hired to be voter canvassers and the way that they filled out faulty registrations and absentee ballots. That is the type of activity that my constituents repeatedly tell me they feel like should not be a part of the electoral process, that individuals should be held accountable for that.

One of the things that we have found is that many of these activities were carried out by 527 groups, and that is something that is causing our process to not function as it was set up. It is not fair to our voters. It destroys the ``one man, one vote'' principle, and I think that it is important that we address the activity.

I am so pleased that our focus is on disclosure, transparency and fairness, and I look forward to working with the Members of this body next week to be certain that our focus stays on trusting integrity in our electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, today we saw that Minority Leader Pelosi and the Democrats unveiled their plan for securing America. No big surprises. They slammed the President and demanded immediate withdrawal from the Middle East. And they called that immediate withdrawal ``redeployment'' to try and soften what is absolutely an awful policy.

We have to remember that many of the House Democrats are on record voting against funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are also acting like we have shortchanged funding for first responders when we have spent millions upon millions that we have never before dedicated to emergency response at the local level.

They claim we need to focus more on international cooperation, this in a world where some of the worst human rights abusers are routinely allowed to serve on the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this majority have been serious about national security. We work on the issue every day, all year, not just when an election is approaching.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, you know, as we have heard on this floor tonight, Americans are paying attention to the illegal immigration issue and all of us here have received call after call after call from our constituents. And, you know, they are not asking much. They simply want us to enforce our border security. And, Mr. Speaker, I agree with this. This is not some earth-shattering policy change, it is a matter of enforcing the laws that are on our books.

Republicans passed legislation to strengthen the border late last year, and we did it with very little Democratic support. That has to change. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe the lawlessness and the disregard for our laws inherent in illegal immigration is damaging to our society and a serious, serious risk to our national security.

We have watched some try to equate legal immigration and legal immigrants with those whose first act, their very first act coming into this country is breaking a law.

It is breaking our law by running across the border. That is an insult to every individual who complied with our policies and followed the appropriate process to get here. For too long we have overlooked or even rewarded those who broke the law, and it is time for that to stop. It has to stop.

I want to share with you something one of my constituents asked me in a meeting while we were on our break. He said ``Marsha, I hear that some of the people in Washington want to provide amnesty to those who are breaking our immigration laws, to those who are illegally entering our country.'' He said, if you are going to let people pick and choose and decide which laws they want to have amnesty from, then I

want amnesty from the IRS. And he said that I have a friend who runs a small manufacturing plant, he wants to have amnesty from OSHA.

You know, you cannot disagree with comments like that.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is that simple. We are either going to be a nation of laws or we are not. Border security is a necessity. The Republican Party is the party pushing to strengthen those borders. Americans need to let those opposed to our efforts hear their voices. And I thank all of my constituents who are speaking out loud and clear on this issue.