Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard J. Badolato of Essex County, NJ.

For more than 35 years, Richard Badolato has been a leader in our community and a tireless advocate of protecting the integrity of the professional law practice.

After attending Fairfield University and Rutgers Law School in Newark, Richard began practicing law in 1965 and has remained a leading figure in New Jersey's legal society. All his life he has advocated an approach to law that takes ethics and honesty into account.

Richard served as president of the Essex County Bar Association in 1977 and was a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association for over 20 years before becoming president in 2002. As a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics he has worked to shape New Jersey's current legal landscape. After founding the New Jersey Fairfield University Area Club and serving on the Fairfield University Advisory Council he was awarded the Alumni Service Award by his alma mater in 1997.

The hard work and dedication of Richard Badolato has not only strengthened the legal field in New Jersey but also the local community. It is in his honor that I stand before you today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Francis J. Lombardi of Essex County, New Jersey.

For more than 30 years, Francis Lombardi has been a leader in one of the most vital aspects of our community. While raising a family, he has been a tireless advocate of protecting and fostering the transportation relationship between New York and New Jersey.

Francis began his work with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1971 as an engineering trainee and has risen through the ranks to his current position as Chief Engineer for The Port Authority.

Always making safety his top priority, his work with the Port Authority gained him recognition and reputation for continued safe and efficient operating. Richard's work affects the daily lives of millions of residents of New York and New Jersey and with the turbulent world we live in it has never been more vital to ensure the safety and security of our citizens in every aspect of their lives. His contributions continue into the realm of education. His hands on approach and dedication to our youth over the years has earned him a position on the Board of Directors of the Salvadori Educational Center, a non profit educational center dedicated to helping inner-city youth appreciate science and mathematics.

Francis Lombardi has been a tremendous asset to both New Jersey and New York. His work over the years has unquestionably made New Jersey and New York safer places to live and commute. It is in his honor that I stand before you today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Central New Jersey Chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security on their 25th Anniversary. In 1979 a group of ASIS members chaired by Douglas Goode convened to form the Central New Jersey Chapter which has now grown to include over 300 members who represent the public and private sectors of the Security Industry.

ASIS is the preeminent organization for security professionals, with more than 33,000 members worldwide. Founded in 1955, the organization is dedicated to increasing the effectiveness and productivity of security professionals by developing educational programs on broad and specific security concerns. ASIS also advocates the role and value of the security management profession to business, the media, government entities, and the public.

I commend all the members of the Central New Jersey Chapter of ASIS for their tireless work concerning the state of security in Central New Jersey. Their efforts are an excellent reflection on ASIS international and make Central New Jersey a safer place for those who live and work there.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Capito amendment to H.R. 5025. The attempt to significantly change the policy of Federal tax collections without serious discussion or debate among Members of Congress is extremely short-sighted. Federal tax collection is currently and should remain an inherently governmental function. Shifting the responsibility from the Federal Government to third-party entities has proven disastrous.

The IRS attempted private tax collection in the past with dismal results. The 1996 pilot program for private collection was so unsuccessful it was cancelled after 12 months, despite the fact it was authorized and scheduled to operate for 2 years. A review by the IRS Office of Inspector General found that contractors participating in the pilot programs regularly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, did not adequately protect the security of personal taxpayer information, and even failed to bring in a net increase in revenue. In fact, the IRS had a net loss of $17 million for the failed pilot program.

When privatizing tax collection was proposed in 1986 during the Reagan administration, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker opposed the concept. The department's then general counsel in a letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary wrote, ``The Department strongly opposes contracting out of the collection of taxes because it is likely to result in considerable adverse public reaction. The public must be assured at all times that the person collecting taxes derives no personal benefits from that activity and the integrity of the tax system will not be compromised.''

The Federal tax collection system must retain the highest level of confidence among our constituents. While no one enjoys paying taxes, they at least want assurance that their personal information is protected by the government and used only for legitimate purposes in determining individual tax liability. Wrongful disclosure of tax information will do irreparable harm to the entire system. I urge my colleagues to support the Capito amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I understand that the sponsor has said that she may withdraw this amendment, but it is an important issue to draw attention to. I rise as a co-chair and a co-founder of the Port Security Caucus in this House.

I come from the State of New Jersey, and we have one of the major shipping ports in our Nation just outside the reaches of my congressional district in New Jersey. I had an opportunity to visit there about a month ago, and I spent the day with the Coast Guard traveling around the harbor. I had an opportunity to walk through the screening procedures with the customs agents and others who are charged with the enormous task of screening and making sure that the millions of cargo containers that come in through Port Elizabeth/Port Newark, through that particular port, are safe and are not going to put our families and communities in danger.

It is clear if you travel and are familiar with the ports of our country, like that major port in New Jersey, that our ports are open doors to world commerce. Ports create jobs, they facilitate trade, and they are absolutely vital to our economy. That is why port security is critically important to the security of our Nation and to the overall health of our economy. Port security and economic security are tied together hand in hand. They are one and the same.

The horrific events of 9/11 have shown us how vulnerable we are to terrorists who are bent on disrupting and destroying our way of life in America. Unfortunately, our ports, a gateway to commerce into our country, can also be seen as open doors into our Nation by these terrorists and those who seek to do us harm.

The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a 1-month closure of a major port in our country will cost our national economy $60 billion. That is why we must fund the Port Security Grants Program to at least the $400 million level prescribed by the American Association of Port Authorities. The Coast Guard estimates that addressing terrorist threats at port facilities will cost $5.4 billion over the course of the next 10 years, with $1.125 billion of that amount required in the first year for purchasing equipment and hiring and training security officers and preparing paperwork.

Without significant Federal support in fiscal year 2005, these new Federal requirements are likely to become unfunded Federal mandates and large financial burdens on our port facilities all across the country. Significant homeland security funds are needed to speed the protection of our open doors of commerce. Even though Congress has provided funding for port security in past appropriation cycles, this year is especially critical because this is the year when the new mandates will go into effect.

The U.S. Coast Guard's first year cost estimate of over a billion dollars is consistent with the amount of need shown in each of the application rounds for the grants. Port facilities have requested nearly a billion dollars in each round for the Port Security Grant Program. Federal funds have been available to pay for only 13 to 17 percent of these needs. We need the Port Security Grants Program to be funded at the $400 million level next year.

While this is significantly higher than last year's appropriations, it represents only 36 percent of the projected cost of facilities improvements. Compared to the billions allocated to airports and first responders and science

and technology, this is a modest investment in our Nation's security infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, the FBI testified earlier this year that ports are a key vulnerability that has attracted interest from terrorist and terrorist organizations. We must do all we can to support securing our Nation's ports. Communities, neighboring ports, as well as the entire Nation depend on the steady and uninterrupted flow of commerce via our ports. It would be a mistake to ignore this threat any longer.

I will close by just reiterating that I serve as the chairman of the Port Security Caucus in this body. We have learned an enormous amount about our vulnerabilities in the post-9/11 world; and clearly, port security is one of the areas where we are still at great risk and at great vulnerability.

I ask the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee as they go to conference to please look to see if there are ways to bump up the level of funding that has been included in the bill, and I certainly appreciate their hard and very dedicated efforts.

As I said last night, this is perhaps one of the most important bills we will pass this year, and I thank the chairman for his great work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee for the bill he has put together. This is a very difficult and challenging process. This bill is perhaps, if not the most important, certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will consider all year for the safety and security of our Nation and the people of our communities and our families. The chairman has worked extremely hard to do that.

I do rise in support of the Sweeney amendment because I think this bill can be better. Mr. Chairman, we face a threat from a cunning enemy bent on interrupting and destroying our very way of life in this country.

The past has shown, and intelligence continues to suggest, that terrorists have targeted our Nation's highly populated areas, our seats of power, and our symbols of military and economic might. Now, I represent a district in New Jersey. I do not represent New York, but I represent thousands and thousands of New Jersey citizens who work and play and live in some way or another in New York. They travel into New York City. I lost 81 constituents the day of 9/11 in the World Trade Center.

The fact is that in a more densely populated area you are going to be a bigger target for those who are seeking to do us harm. Now, the current funding proportions set in place to allocate first responder grant funding is inadequate. It places our Nation and our vulnerable urban areas under greater risk. It is vitally important that we address our Nation's homeland security requirements where they are needed most, highly populated and symbolically significant areas of our country, symbolically significant areas of our country.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York, and I appreciate his work on the amendment, and I obviously support the amendment.

Already, many of our States and districts, including mine in New Jersey, have received millions of dollars in important first responder grants. These grants are important for keeping America and our communities safe and strong and free. The distinct and immediate need for separate funds to be dedicated to high-threat urban areas was first recognized during the appropriations process in 2002 with the establishment of the Urban Area Security Initiative.

It is time now that we further our commitment to addressing the needs of our high-risk areas by transferring $450 million to the Urban Area Security Initiative from the formula base grant funding pool. This request, as has been said, matches President Bush's request for the UASI and represents a pragmatic approach to funding homeland security needs.

Mr. Chairman, the terrorist attacks on September 11 left a terrible and lasting mark not only in my district in New Jersey but on our entire Nation. We have to heed the lessons of that day to do our best to secure our Nation's most vulnerable and highly populated areas. Common sense dictates that we must direct money where the threat is felt the most.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Seventh District of New Jersey, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of one of the great Presidents in the history of the United States, Ronald Reagan. In a farewell address at the end of his second term, President Reagan said that those in his generation ``were taught very directly what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation for its institutions.''

In many ways, President Reagan was my first President. His presence was the dominant force in America and in politics when I first started thinking about policy issues, the role of government, and America's unique place of leadership in the world. And I believe, for my generation and for so many more, President Reagan enabled us to do just what he had been taught in his generation: to absorb, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation for its institutions.

After the turmoil and tumult of the 1960s and the 1970s, President Reagan helped America regain its confidence. He helped us to remember who we were, what being an American meant, and the greatness which would allow America to play a pivotal role on the world stage. Ronald Reagan believed in peace through strength, and he won the Cold War. He believed in the dignity and the value of every human person, and he believed in an optimistic vision for the future of America which resulted in one of the golden ages of American patriotism, prosperity, and progress. He was able to be a tough leader and a formidable adversary; and he did it with his own human touch, with a warm sense of humor, and his ever-present humility.

Future generations will teach their children just as we are teaching ours that the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan will take its rightful place alongside the greatest leaders in our Nation's history and as one of the pivotal figures of the 20th century who quite literally changed our world for the better. For this, we will forever be in his debt. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to discuss the immediate savings that our nation's seniors realize due to the prescription drug discount cards provided by the Medicare Law that Congress wrote last year. After years of promises, this law fulfills our commitment to our nation's seniors by providing the first ever universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

One would think that these new benefits for seniors, coupled with the prescription drug discount card would be a cause for celebration. Rather than educate seniors on the benefits of the discount cards, the other side of aisle has continued to play politics with this issue and resorted to scare tactic towards our nation's seniors and in some cases suggest that seniors are too dumb to make decisions for themselves. There are even those who are discouraging seniors from signing up for the discount card. Perhaps because if seniors sign up, the program will be a success; that is not just wrong, it is unconscionable and shameful, and anyone who engages in that sort of behavior should be ashamed of themselves.

In my home state of New Jersey we have a very generous state pharmaceutical assistance program called PAAD. After working with our Governor and CMS, New Jersey has the opportunity to directly enroll seniors into the discount card program. Out of the 81,000 seniors and persons with disabilities who were eligible for the transition assistance provided by the discount card, only 350 opted out of the program. As a result of the discount card and our delegation's work to get this card to New Jersey's seniors, my state will save $90 million on the cost of prescription drugs. These savings can be put back into the PAAD program to provide expanded coverage for additional seniors. New Jersey is one example that I encourage more states to follow. By putting partisan politics aside, our delegation worked with CMS to provide a simple process which benefits our state and our state's seniors.

Defying logic, today and in the future, you will hear members on the other side of the aisle argue that the cost of prescription drugs will increase as a result of the discount card. For those members I would like to point to a May 14th study by CMS which shows that in the past week more cards have offered increase discounts for our nation's seniors compared to prices offered the previous week. Sponsors are now comparing their discounts to their competitors, more cards are offering favorable prices, and CMS is working with card sponsors to make sure that the best discounts are published for Medicare beneficiaries. This is what happens when competition is injected into the marketplace. That's how markets work. Some on the other side of the aisle would prefer a government run, command and control system where bureaucrats or politicians tell people what medicines they can have, how much they can have and when and where they can have it. That sounds more like the former Soviet Union to me.

Today you will also hear members who will criticize the pharmaceutical industry for charging too much for prescription drugs. Yet they will not mention the miracle drugs or treatments these companies create. Representing the scientists and researchers who live in my district of New Jersey, I would like to highlight the good work that two of the pharmaceutical companies are doing to help seniors. Once a low-income beneficiary has exhausted his or her annual $600 transitional assistance allowance, Merck and Johnson and Johnson will provide its medicines free to that beneficiary's participating discount card plan or directly to the beneficiary, through the pharmacy. Neither company will receive any fees from these programs.

In closing, I encourage all members to put aside partisan politics and help seniors recognize the benefits of the drug discount card. This can be accomplished by working with CMS to clarify any questions our seniors may have and allowing seniors to realize the discounts that are available to all seniors through the discount card.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today in the name of American families, to support our children and to support our children's future educational opportunities. I am not only a father, but a former teacher. This is about more than a tax credit. This is about working to expand relief to a greater number of families and to make sure those families who already benefit from the child tax credit continue to be able to do so and are not forced to face a tax increase next year.

In my home State of New Jersey, 1.4 million children benefit from the child tax credit; 1.4 million children in New Jersey benefit from the child tax credit, and over 100,000 of those children live in the congressional district I have the privilege of representing.

I want to be able to look their parents in the eye and tell them I am doing everything in my power to help them save for their children's future, their children's college fund. I want to tell them that even more children will benefit in the upcoming years. I want to be able to, in good faith, promise them that no matter what, we will help the American family in the best and worst times of the economy.

This bill will allow me and all of us to do just that. The Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004 makes the child tax credit permanent at $1,000 a child. If Democrats had their way, this credit would decline and then vanish in the year 2010. We will not let that happen. This bill allows a greater number of families to benefit nationwide. In addition to the 1 million families already receiving relief in New Jersey, additional families will become eligible for the credit. A greater number of joint filers and single parents will be able to use this money to save for their children's education and build for their future.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know we put as much money as possible into the hands of American parents to be able to provide for their kids. Every dollar we allow them to save is a dollar toward a better life for their kids. A vote today to help American children is what we need to do. Vote today to make the child tax credit permanent.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for his great work on this bill. I rise in support of H.R. 4200. Today we address the needs of a Nation at war on multiple fronts and sustain our commitment to our troops, providing them with the best technology and equipment in support of our ongoing mission in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in the war on terror all around the world. This bill will improve living and working conditions for U.S. military personnel and their families. It recognizes the critical contribution of our National Guard and Reserve and increases authorization for their modernization programs. It protects and supports our military retirees and their survivors. Most important, it gives our troops the resources and equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and America free.

The Committee on Armed Services has deemed this the Year of the Soldier. I can think of no better way to honor and serve those who are giving of themselves, making extraordinary sacrifices, putting their lives on the line in defense of this country than by supporting H.R. 4200, the national defense authorization bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their great work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The actions of several U.S. soldiers in Baghdad are fundamentally inconsistent with our mission in Iraq, American principles of justice, and the basic tenets of morality. They have stained our character and damaged our credibility.

I fear there are no words in the English language that can adequately describe the depth of our disillusionment over the goodwill generated by millions of Americans and billions of American dollars squandered in an instant.

But I do know this: out of this tragedy is born opportunity to show the watching world how we, a Nation founded on the rule of law, conduct ourselves in the aftermath of this tragedy. What distinguishes us from the regime that we ended is justice. While this behavior was once commonplace in Iraq, it is foreign to our national experience and to our nature, and we will deal with it not by saluting those who perpetrated those acts, as the former regime did, but by bringing the perpetrators to justice.

I was fortunate to visit a free Iraq in January. I met with our soldiers, including some from my home State, New Jersey. I say to each of our soldiers and servicemembers, do not allow the injustices done by a few to undermine your faith, for the cause which brought you to Iraq is right and just. You have freed 24 million people from the clutches of unspeakable tyranny, and your actions and character are sowing freedom in a place that has known evil. May God continue to bless all of those who serve honorably in our Nation's military, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a paper by Mr. James Rieder, Jr., of Colonia, New Jersey, into the Congressional record. I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Rieder on his accomplishment of winning the 2004 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Following is the paper that Mr. James Rieder, Jr., wrote:

``The meaning of America is not to be found in a life

without toil. Freedom is not only bought with a great price;

it is maintained by unremitting effort.'' (Thirtieth

President of the United States of America, Calvin Coolidge)

Consider these words by the late former President. ``The

meaning of America is not to be found in a life without

toil.'' In order to be a true American, one must not take

his/her responsibilities lightly, and must instead strive to

achieve not only what's best for himself/herself, but also

what is good for all, no matter the task at hand. ``Freedom

is not only bought with a great price . . .'' Our great

nation was constructed from the ultimate sacrifices of

others, their lives, but not just our forefathers, but our

grandfathers and fathers, as well. ``. . . it is maintained

by unremitting effort.'' The United States does not only

thrive on those who lost their lives on the battlefield, nor

even on those who govern our democratic nation, but on the

American people. And because of this supreme responsibility,

it is our duty as a free people to work hard in preserving

our rights for the future generations. This is my commitment

to America's future.

My commitment to America's future is to uphold the freedoms

we were granted by the blood and sweat of our elders. For

some, this may be as simple as voting on Election Day to

empower a governing body capable of protecting our rights.

For others, their commitment may lie in the front line,

physically stopping those who endanger the American way of

life. Does this mean that the soldier's blood runs redder

than that of the simple voter? Of course not; both hearts

beat strongly with American pride and both souls soar along

with the majestic eagle. It is not what you are committed to,

but how committed you are that counts. As for myself, I

believe that I will perform whatever duties my nation calls

on me to perform. I will be just as pleased if I can donate

to a helpful cause, as I would be if I were to be called to a

foreign shore to fight for our rights. Whatever my

responsibility, I will certainly be dedicated.

My commitment to America's future is to educate my children

and raise them in an environment where they, too, can respect

and cherish their American citizenship. As Theodore Roosevelt

stated, ``To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to

educate a menace to society.'' We must educate our future

generation so that they may continue the legacy of our grand

country. If we do not teach them properly, they may lose

sight of the importance of their freedom, and the rights we

presently have may exist as just unachievable aspirations.

The path these children traverse leads to America's future.

Thus, we must keep them on this path and ensure that they

view the end of the journey with the utmost respect and

dedication.

My most significant commitment to America's future would be

to always keep my American pride strong within my heart, for

Coolidge never specified whether the ``unremitting effort''

he mentioned should be physical or spiritual. I believe that

you must first achieve a spiritual dedication to the United

States before you can move on, and the more spiritually

dedicated you are, the more American you become. And so, as

long as the stars and stripes continue to wave grandly over

these fifty unified states, so, too, will my heart beat with

pride for my nation. I conclude yet again with this small,

yet powerful, phrase from Mr. Coolidge and I implore you to

always remember it and keep it in your heart, as I keep it in

mine: ``Freedom is not only bought with a great price; it is

maintained by unremitting effort.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Don Aldo Brunacci. A canon of the Cathedral of San Rufino in Assisi, Italy, Don Aldo Brunacci is being honored with the National Gaudete Medal. It is presented to a community leader who represents the life and teaching of St. Francis of Assisi.

Don Aldo embodies the spirit of service and joy that St. Francis taught. His life has exhibited the words engraved in the medal: ``For service to God and humanity in the Franciscan spirit of compassion and sacrifice, faith and humility, hope and joy.''

In January 2003, he was presented with the Order for Merit of the Italian Republic, awarded by President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi of Italy, for his service in assisting hundreds of Jewish refugees during World War II. Currently, Don Aldo operates the Casa Papa Giovanni, a major retreat house in Assisi.

St. Bonaventure's College is here in Washington today to honor Don Aldo with this prestigious award. He is not only a proud example to his community and his family, but also to his country and his faith.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa on putting together a budget that cuts taxes and cuts the deficit in half while increasing funding for our military and strengthening our homeland security.

The minority has come before this House and tried to portray this budget as inadequate. Our friends in the minority talk about alleged cuts to programs. Let me set the record straight right now. This budget does not cut funding for any program. Actually, that is only half true. What this budget does do is cut taxes and cut the tax burden on working families, on seniors and on job-creating small businesses. This budget cuts taxes for every American who pays taxes. By allowing every American to keep more of what they earn, they have more to save and spend and invest.

This budget locks in the $1,000-per-child tax credit, it protects marriage penalty relief, and it maintains the low 10 percent tax bracket. This budget also increases homeland security funding by $4.1 billion. That is on top of the tens of billions of dollars that we have spent since September 11 to strengthen our homeland security.

Specifically, homeland security funding includes the Urban Area Security Initiative. This program provides homeland security funding to cities considered to be at high risk of terrorist attack. Because of this initiative, States like New Jersey, my home State, will receive more funding for our first responders.

This budget also provides our troops at home and abroad with the resources to keep America safe. Defense spending is funded at the President's requested level of $402 billion. Building on our earlier, approved appropriations, we will continue providing key funding for our troops, including body armor for our soldiers in Iraq. This budget resolution continues the Republican commitment to fund education, increasing budget authority by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2005. Special education funding is increased, Title I funding is increased, funding for Pell Grants is increased.

Our friends in the minority will promote a series of alternative budgets. Some of these alternatives will reflect different priorities even amongst the various Democrats themselves. But there is one issue that our friends in the minority all agree on. They speak in unison. They all want to raise our taxes.

There is more than a philosophical difference at stake here. There are real-world consequences to the Democrats' consistent and unified call for

higher taxes. America's economy is coming back, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Employment is growing, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Manufacturing production is increasing, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Productivity is high, but you guessed it, the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Interest rates are low, but Democrats want to raise taxes. Homeownership is at an all-time high, but you've got it, the Democrats want to raise taxes.

To each and every ailment that our economy suffers, the Democrats have one solution, they want to raise our taxes. To each and every new success that the economy achieves, the Democrats have one response, they want to raise our taxes.

Never in our history have tax increases promoted economic growth. Never in our history have tax increases created jobs for the American people. In fact, the Democrats' tax increases would stall the economic recovery and cost Americans jobs.

This really is more than a philosophical difference in economic policy. There really are real-world consequences to the Democrats' policies of wanting to tax us again and again. It is telling to me that not one of the Democrats' proposals that they have put forward reflects their own presidential nominee's budget-busting spending. They know it is a political loser. And, even more, it is even more irresponsible than some of the crazy proposals that we have heard already.

Imagine right now for a moment that the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party today is sitting 1 year from now in the Oval Office. Instead of just talking about raising our taxes, my friends, they will actually be doing it. They will be raising our taxes. That is why the debate on this budget matters.

Our budget cuts taxes, makes the right investments in our troops, the right investments in the war on terror, in homeland security and in job creation. While the Democrats want to take us backward with higher taxes and runaway government, the Republican plan provides the services we need at a price we can afford.

Mr. Speaker, passing this bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which is also known as Laci and Conner's Law, should be common sense to us all. I am mystified, frankly, by those who seem to be hysterical in their opposition to this commonsense legislation.

Let us see why this bill is so important. This is a picture of Ashley Lyons. Ashley learned last year that she was expecting; and the joy of the thought of her new child filled her heart. Tragically, earlier this year, Ashley was murdered and her unborn son, Landon, died as well. Was one life lost, or were two? Of course, two people died in that crime.

Here is a picture of Tracy Marciniak and her son, Zachariah. While in the 9th month of pregnancy, Tracy was brutally beaten, a crime which resulted in the death of her unborn son, Zachariah. According to some, even some in this very Chamber, according to some in this very chamber Today, there was no murder committed here. And according to some in this very Chamber, Tracy did not lose her child.

Did two people die when Ashley Lyons and her son, Landon, were murdered, or just one? Was a murder committed when Tracy Marciniak was beaten and her unborn son was killed? During the search for Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, in San Francisco, did they find two bodies or did they find just one body?

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues think nobody died here, that there were no crimes committed here, then vote ``no'' on this bill. But if my colleagues can get past the politics and the idealogy to see the truth, if they can see the common sense that there were two victims in this crime, that there was a murder committed here and that there were two victims in the Peterson murder case, then they must and they will vote ``yes'' on this bill.