Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to comment upon a very large issue on our national landscape, and that is illegal immigration. One of the underreported and often unreported issues is the ham-handed approach the government bureaucracy has when dealing with those that try to come to this country legally.

I have a constituent, Mete Adan, in my district, born in Turkey, who has spent the past 16 years, Mr. Speaker, trying to become a U.S. citizen the right way, the legal way.

He is a legal immigrant to this country. And my office has worked with him since September of 2005 helping him cut through the bureaucratic red tape and the outdated immigration process.

Due to the inefficiency of our current system, which, Mr. Speaker, I must say processes over 7 million immigration applications per year using paper printouts. While you have Amazon.com processing millions of orders a day and transacting money, our bureaucracy is processing 7 million applications each year using paper.

So Mete's case has been a 2\1/2\ year debacle within this bureaucracy, marked by mistakes, errors and blunders. Cases like this are happening all across our Nation. That is why we need a new system, a new technology, to deal with those that are trying to come here legally.

Mete said, ``I am still waiting. And these guys are coming up from Mexico to get citizenship and do not deserve it: He said. They do not even speak English. Now, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman studied medicine in his own country and has come here in and worked legally. Legally. He has worked legally as a computer programer. This gentleman is very highly trained and a good potential citizen for our country.

And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the USCIS, the Citizenship and Immigration Services, are the ones that are mishandling this. It is also the same bureaucracy that the Senate wants to saddle with processing 10 to 20 million illegal aliens for a guest worker visa. It is simply not possible. They process as I said, 7 million applications each other using paper printouts. When they do use computers, it is Windows 95, technology that is over 10 years out of date.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we have a reasonable immigration enforcement policy, and that we also fix this outdated dysfunctional bureaucracy, so that we can process those that are trying to come here legally. And beyond that, perhaps at some future date, not now though, at the some future date, look at a reasonable fashion to bringing people here in a more reasonable way.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my constituent, and hopefully a new American citizen, Mete Adan. I appreciate his diligence in trying to do this the legal and right way. He is a testament to all of those legal immigrants that want to come and participate in the American dream. It is a strong story that we should all be proud of, of someone who wants to be American and hungers for freedom and the values of our society.

He is someone we should welcome to the United States. We should not have an amnesty program. We should have not a guest worker program. We should not have any of the other steps that the Senate is talking about in these current days.

Mr. Speaker, we should have a reasonable proposal and a reasonable way for people to come here and immigrate and be a part of our society. But say no to amnesty, to have border security and to do it the right way, while encouraging those that are doing it the right way, like Mete Adan.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Diana Beasley, a biology teacher at Hickory High School in my district, for being named North Carolina's Teacher of the Year.

A teacher for over two decades, Mrs. Beasley is known for bringing passion to her job while instilling confidence in her students. Mrs. Beasley will spend the next year as a teaching ambassador, traveling throughout North Carolina and acting as a role model for teachers and students alike.

It has been said, ``Teachers who inspire realize there will always be rocks in the road ahead of us. There will be stumbling blocks or stepping stones; it all depends on how we use them.''

Mrs. Beasley is like all great educators, teaching us more by who she is than by what she says.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the great work of Mrs. Beasley and the tireless, selfless investment she has made to the future of my district and to the future of North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman.

Chairman Taylor, thank you for your leadership for North Carolina. We are so grateful in our State for your steadfast work and dedication to the cause of decreasing the size and scope of government. I just want to commend you for that work.

I would like to discuss an important issue in my district, as well as for western North Carolina.

In recent months, one of the most pressing matters that the Unifour Air Quality Committee, which is comprised of representatives from various organizations in four counties in western North Carolina within my district, has been dealing with is the accurate monitoring and control of fine particulate matter emissions, better known as PM 2.5, specifically in Catawba County.

As you know, PM 2.5 monitor readings at the Water Tower monitoring site, maintained in Catawba County by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, recently indicated an annual reading slightly above 15 micrograms per cubic meter for PM 2.5, although the measurement was within the equipment's margin of error. Thus, Catawba County has been placed in non-attainment status for PM 2.5.

I thank the chairman. It is also my understanding of the EPA audit. We hope to have the results of the audit as soon as possible so the Unifour Air Quality Committee can best determine what proactive steps need to be taken to control and monitor PM 2.5 emissions effectively. We also hope that the EPA has given careful consideration in its audits to the maps and other data the Unifour Air Quality Committee provided to the EPA in an effort to place the PM 2.5 monitoring data in context.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take Mr. Jones' time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to talk about fiscal discipline. This House proudly passed a conservative budget last night with not a single vote from the opposition party. We passed a good budget last night that brings our Nation in the right direction.

Ronald Reagan correctly stated it, that we don't have deficits because people are taxed too little; we have deficits because big government spends too much. And our House budget that we passed last night, in essence, freezes non-defense discretionary spending, which is a strong thing to do, especially when we have government that is so out of control.

We have stopped the excesses that have been put in place over previous generations. Beyond that, we have put in place $6.8 billion worth of entitlement reforms that are going to move our budget in the right direction.

It also prevents tax increases which the opposition party wants to put in place. Tax increases on capital gains, on dividends, on income, all the income tax cuts President Bush put in place over the last 5 years. Beyond that, it reforms AMT for another year, which is a good thing.

But beyond that it extends the tax reforms we put in place in 2001, 2003, and President Bush is responsible for, again with no votes from the Democrats.

Let us talk about what this version of tax simplification has done that this President has put in place. It has benefited every American who pays taxes. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some on the other side of the aisle, some Democrats, who say that President Bush gave a sop to the wealthy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that if you pay taxes in this country, you received a tax cut because of President Bush and the Republican Congress. However, if you do not pay taxes, if you do not pay taxes, you did not receive a tax cut.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there may be people in America who hear that and say that is ridiculous. If you do not pay taxes, you cannot receive a tax cut. But, indeed, that is what the Democrats and the liberals in this body are fighting for is giving a tax cut to those people who do not even pay taxes. I know it is nutty sounding. That is liberal lunacy for you. But these tax cuts put in place over the last 5 years have created 5.2 million new jobs and 138,000 new jobs were created in April alone, indeed moving in the right direction. And the budget we passed actually reduces the deficit, cuts it in half by 2011. That is a very good thing over the next 5 years, cutting it in half.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I voted for the Republican Study Committee, the conservatives in the House, and our version of budget reform. It was called the Contract with America Renewed. And a dear friend of mine, a good friend of mine, Mike Pence of Indiana, helped craft this budget along with Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and I am very proud and honored to have voted with them and to be a cosponsor of this conservative budget alternative.

And do you know what that budget did? Unfortunately, it had zero votes from the opposition on the other side of this body, but what it did was eliminate our budget deficit over the next 5 years and bring us to balance. That is what we need to have a debate on. How do we bring our budget back to balance? We on this side of the aisle want to cut excessive government spending, put some bureaucrats out of work, and let the American people keep more of what they earn. The Democrats' alternative is to raise your taxes. And I say that to every taxpaying American, Mr. Speaker.

But let me tell you this Republican Congress is getting ahold of the fiscal excesses of the past here in Washington, DC. For 40 years, Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, Washington, DC was governed with the mindset of more government is good, and we as the Republican Congress have to get ahold of this out-of-control bureaucracy, out of this out-of-control government excesses and bring us back to balance. And that is what this Republican Congress is doing, and I am proud to be fighting alongside my conservative brethren, the men and women in this House that want fiscal sanity.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House last year in December did the right thing and passed a strong immigration reform bill that increases border security and takes amnesty off the table.

Now it is time for the Senate to respond to the growing problem of illegal immigration and do what is best for legal immigrants and citizens of this country.

I am encouraged by President Bush's plan to increase our security by positioning National Guard troops on our southern border. This will provide essential, but temporary, security along our porous and vulnerable borders.

However, the better alternative is to enact a comprehensive border security program like the House bill by constructing fences, bolstering our Border Patrols, and improving our surveillance capabilities.

Additionally, a guest worker program is nothing more than amnesty wearing makeup. It is easier to look at, but it is still ugly underneath. The simple truth is that if you break the law to come to this country, you will not respect it once you are here.

Mr. Speaker, some say we have no border security. The Associated Press reported that border authorities inspecting a car crossing into the United States from Mexico uncovered a food item in a strange place. Customs and Border Patrol officers searched the man's car, and they found two pounds of raw pork, oh, heaven forbid.

The meat was wrapped in foil inside two disposable diapers. Bringing in pork is prohibited because the ``other white meat'' can carry hog cholera. Some say we have no border security. Authorities seized these items and fined the man $250.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me, this report tells me that the Border Patrol can stop 2 pounds of pork in a diaper from entering this country, but we can't stop $58 billion worth of illegal drugs and half a million illegals crossing the border each year?

This is crazy. We must fix this problem before people start smuggling themselves in diapers.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I think it is important that we reflect on what is happening here in Washington, D.C. Here in this House we have enormous issues that are facing us as a legislative body.

Mr. Speaker, I believe as American people and their representatives, we are still wrestling with those issues that every American is wrestling with. There are a lot of challenges. We want to keep our economy moving, and I think there is agreement here in Washington, D.C. as the people's representatives that we want to make sure that we have governmental policies that aid in that, not hinder that.

Mr. Speaker, we also have an enormous debate about energy and the rising cost of energy facing every American. I drive my automobile just like everyone else drives their automobile, and I still pay at the pumps. I guess some Americans would laugh and think I guess these highfalutin Members of Congress do not even pump their own gasoline, but we do. I do.

I face the same burden that all Americans are facing with the high price of gasoline, the high price of electrical energy, the high price of natural gas. And it has a ripple effect on the economy in terms of jobs and job creation. It has a ripple effect on what the American people think about the direction of our country based on what we pay at the pumps, what we pay for energy. And we here in this Congress are wrestling with that issue, as well as how to get energy prices down for the American people.

There are a lot of other issues we are wrestling with, but there is a clear difference between the philosophies of those on my side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, the majority in the House, and the philosophy that governs those on the other side of the aisle, the liberals, the Democrats, those in the minority.

We have a clear difference of opinion on how to tackle these tough issues, and so let us first begin with economic policy.

President Bush came to office and during the late stages of 2000, the economy turned down. We had a recession. We had a recession in late 2000 through early 2001. As President Bush came to office, the economy was in recession and the President made a bold statement, a commitment to the American people, that he would cut taxes to reinvigorate the economy. He did just that.

President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and again in 2003 after the devastating attacks of 9/11, these two tax cuts were

the biggest since Ronald Reagan's first term. As a result, 109 million American taxpayers have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,544 per individual, per worker. That is, 109 million Americans are paying less in taxes to the tune of $1,544 a person. That is a positive effect; and as a result, the economy began to move.

A family of four making $40,000 received tax relief of $1,933; nearly $2,000 of tax reduction on a family of four making $40,000.

Now that is not a tax cut for the rich. That is a wonderful impact on working men and women that are trying to provide for themselves and for their children. It enables them to actually pay for school uniforms, enables them to pay for their children's education. Forty-two million families with children received a tax cut of $2,067. That is positive. One hundred and twenty-three million elderly individuals received a tax cut of $1,795. Lots of numbers to talk about. But what does this do for the economy?

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, here we have a chart showing that tax relief has spurred business investment. You can see the negative investment of late 2000 through 2003, and that is because of the recession. Businesses were not able to reinvest.

What happened with the tax cuts of 2001 and again in 2003, you see a very strong stimulus on business investment. When businesses invest, more people are employed. When businesses invest, there are more taxes paid into the government. And when people are employed, they don't take from government. They don't require government assistance. They actually pay income taxes.

So let's see what the tax cuts have done to job growth.

Here again, you see unemployment go down with this red line, and job growth go up because of President Bush's stimulus package we put in place. Twenty-five million small business owners saved, on average, $2,800; 4.7 million new jobs created in the last 29 months; 17 straight quarters of economic growth; and an unemployment rate under 5 percent. Now that is a stronger unemployment rate than all the '90s, all of the '80s, all of the '70s, all of the '60s. That is a very positive thing.

Over 60 percent of Americans that received dividends and capital gains, they are under $100,000-a-year earners. That is not a sop to the rich. It is middle-class individuals that received this stimulus package and this benefit that we Republicans, and our President, put in place.

In my State of North Carolina, in the next 6 years, we are projected to grow 22,000 new jobs; and in my home district, unemployment has been reduced significantly in the last 5 years.

Now we still have our challenges in the 10th District of North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, but we are seeing savings grow. We are seeing people going back to get the training they need to compete in a new job. We are seeing a real turnaround in the economy, and it is because people get to keep more of what they earn instead of paying it into the government.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very basic concept that we, as conservatives, believe and that is that individuals can make better choices. Individuals can stimulate the economy. Government does not. Therefore, the more money we allow people to keep, the more of their own hard- earned dollars that they are able to keep, the more they can do in their communities, the more they are able to do to benefit their schools, Mr. Speaker.

But, you know, there are those on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats in this institution, that don't want to continue President Bush's tax cuts. They say, roll back the Bush tax cuts. That is what they scream. The government needs more money.

Well, I will tell you, the receipts to government have gone up in the last 5 years because more people are working, businesses are growing, businesses are investing in individuals, and you are seeing a turnaround in our economy. And the turnaround in our economy leads to more government income.

And you know what? If we do not continue the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent, you will see job losses. You will see a hundred billion less in economic output next year, and you will see slower wage growth and salary growth. And you will also see low-income workers have to pay more in taxes.

President Bush cut the tax rate of the lowest earners from 15 percent to 10 percent. And if we roll back the Bush tax cuts, what we will do is increase their taxes by nearly 50 percent, because they will have to go back up to the 15 percent rate. By 50 percent, I should say.

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of the child tax credit under their plan, and you will see the Federal death tax being reinstated after 2011.

That is their economic policy. It is a big no to our optimistic version of reality. We view America as being better and brighter the less Americans have to pay in taxes. We see Americans being able to do better things with their money than a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., can do.

But what is the Democrats' plan when it comes to energy? I will show you the Democrat plan when it comes to energy. The Democrats' agenda on energy is right here outlined on this white sheet of paper. That is the Democrat plan when it comes to energy policy in the United States. Nothing. They have nothing to offer. They have offered nothing except demagoguery. That is all they have offered.

As Republicans put forth serious energy policies, the Democrats have voted no. As Republicans have tried to come up with a compromise so that we can increase production here at home so we are not more dependent on foreign oil, the Democrats have said no. This is the Democrat plan when it comes to gas prices. This is the Democrat plan when it comes to energy policy. Nothing.

But let's look at their votes. Let's look at their votes, Mr. Speaker. Here we see the Energy Policy Act of 2004, to enhance energy conversation and research and development and provide for security and diversity in our natural resource and natural energy supply. The roll call vote, 152 Democrats voted no. We still passed the legislation.

One hundred and twenty-four Democrats voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report, the final product, to provide $14.5 billion in tax incentives to improve energy production so that we could actually have more, larger energy supply as consumers, to improve the transportation of energy to the marketplace so we could actually consume it, and the efficiency of energy production so we could have more of it again. They voted no; 124 voted no. Well, that is a pickup of a few, at least. But still not a responsible vote.

One hundred and fifty-four Democrats voted against the Energy Conservation, Research and Development Bill in 2003. We have a series here of votes in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the Democrats said no. That is their energy policy, a big no.

Let's also continue with this stream of consciousness here.

Democrats voted against the Energy Conservation Research and Development Act of 2003, 157 votes. A different vote. But they again said no.

One hundred and seventy-two Democrats voted against Securing America's Future Energy Act in 2001 to foster conservation, improve energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production and expand the use of renewable energy sources.

Do we see a theme here? We can go back 5, 6 years, just in this decade. The Democrats have repeatedly said no to an energy policy for the United States.

One hundred and sixty-six Democrats voted against ANWR exploration.

Now, look. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, I can show you these in the charts. They have repeatedly said no to an energy policy here in the United States; and, as a result, we were not able to enact an energy law, an energy act for this country until just last year. Over their objections, over that party's objections, the liberals' objections, we passed an energy policy that was far, far, far and away a reasonable approach to get more energy production on-line, to increase the supply and, therefore, lessen the burden of expense on every American. You see that they said no repeatedly to an energy policy.

What do we have today? We have oil that costs $73 per barrel and going up. We have refineries that can't meet the demands the American people need to

fuel their automobiles. We have high natural gas prices. We have a Senator in the other Chamber from Massachusetts who says that we cannot have wind energy production in his State because he doesn't like the way it looks.

Then we have those that say, do not explore for new natural resources. They are all part of the left wing agenda of the opposition party in this Chamber. They want to say no to energy production. They want to say no to refining. They want to say no to exploration.

And then what do we have as a result? High energy prices.

I go back to originally what I said. The Democrat agenda, nothing.

Maybe I am wrong, though. Maybe they do have an energy policy. Maybe they do have a tax policy. The tax policy is pretty simple. We want you to pay more, Americans. We want more money for the Federal Government. Maybe their energy policy is we want you to pay more. That is how their votes have lined up.

When Republicans come forward and say we have alternative energy that we are trying to push through tax incentives, they said, no, it is a sop to the energy companies. No, it is an incentive for research and development of alternative energies so we are not more dependent on foreign oil.

When we come forward and say let's explore for natural resources, for oil here at home, what do they say? No.

Do you see where I am going, Mr. Speaker, with this?

Their policy is no. If not no, then more. We want you to pay more.

It was about a decade ago that Senator Kerry said that he looked forward to the day when gas cost $3 a gallon. I thought it was surprising then. Perhaps his votes line up with his philosophy. Perhaps his votes line up with his goal. Because we are there. We have gas at $3 a gallon.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is very disheartening when you see the Democrats consistently vote against reasonable approaches to increase the supply of energy for Americans. Because all Americans know that the law of supply and demand is a very strong force. It is the basis of our economy. And when the supply is constricted and the demand keeps rising, the prices rise with the demand.

The Democrats' policies have constricted oil production and refining, energy production and marketing; and, therefore, as the demand goes up, the cost naturally follows the demand. So when you talk about the oil companies raising the price of gasoline, the refineries raising the price of refining, the only reason why they are able to do that is because of a market economy that we have here in the United States.

And that market economy relies on supply and demand to dictate price. And when we put in place government policies that say that we cannot take oil out of the ground that we know is there or natural gas that is in the ground and we know is there, that we cannot actually produce refineries to refine that fuel, when we cannot put on more nuclear reactors and nuclear energy production on line, naturally by constricting that supply, the prices will go up.

And as a conservative, my alternative is pretty simple: we get more production online, we get more competition in the energy marketplace through alternative fuels, through alternative energy, through incentives to move to alternative energy, you will see the oil companies begin to compete for our dollars. Right now because the supply is so constricted, they can charge us whatever they possibly can, whatever they think they can get away with. So my answer is pretty simple. As a public policymaker, if we put another tax on the oil companies, the oil companies will pass it right on to us as consumers because that is what corporations do with taxation and regulatory burdens. They pass that expense to the consumers.

So my philosophy is pretty simple: you get more competition in the marketplace, you open up the supply, and that cost will come down. And that is what we are trying to do with a coherent energy policy here in the United States, and that is what Republicans are trying to do here in Congress.

So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us to increase that supply of energy into the marketplace, to increase research, to increase development of alternative energy sources as well, but to also listen to the American people and their demands. And their demands are very clear: we want relief and we want it now.

Well, I have got news, Mr. Speaker, for the American people. We Republicans in Congress are taking on this challenge, and we will get more production online. We will relieve the regulatory burden for getting new energy sources into the marketplace, but we also will continue economic growth here in the United States. And the way we do that is by getting the government off the backs of the American people, the working Americans, that are trying to help their families, trying to grow their communities, and trying to do what is right on the local level.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, there is a lot of rhetoric going on here in Washington, DC that the other side of the aisle refers to as ``a culture'' here in Washington, DC. And there is a culture. It is a culture of more spending, higher taxes, left-wing environmentalist groups writing policy for our United States Government. And we are trying to break that as conservatives, as Republicans. We are trying to break that cycle, that culture, here in Washington.

The Democrats want to take us back. They do not want to look at new ways of doing things. They want to take us back to how they ran this institution for 40 years, how they kept increasing the size and scope of government over decades. Well, the American people want an optimistic alternative, a positive agenda. They actually want an energy policy. They actually want a pro-growth economic policy as well that allows people to keep more of what they earn. They also want a government that is responsive and not intrusive. And that is what we are trying to provide as conservatives. I think that is what the American people want.

And I am very proud to be part of the majority party, very proud to be a Republican, working hard for the American people to do what is right, to do what is necessary to make sure that we are safe, secure, energy independent, economically independent, and a dominant factor in this world that we live in that is dangerous, highly competitive, but ever changing. And we are trying to embrace those changes and compete in this tough world that we live in.

Mr. Speaker, we Republicans have an agenda, an optimistic agenda, about how to change America, how to reduce the size and scope of government, how to enable people to keep more of what they earn and make us independent in terms of our energy policy.

The Democrats, they have a simple alternative, and it is their agenda here: nothing. They have yet to put out an agenda. They have yet to talk in proactive ways. They have yet to lead.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we Republicans are leading to make America safe, secure, and economically strong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the elder statesman, Mr. Putnam, and I as a Member of the House can say that to my good friend, Mr. Putnam.

Today I want to quote from the ranking member on the Budget Committee: ``A budget is a statement of moral choices, and this budget makes the wrong choices, cutting education, Medicare and Medicaid and barely funding the bold initiatives that the President set out in his State of the Union. Its greatest moral fault is that it leaves our children a legacy of debt and an even heavier burden to bear as the baby boomers begin to retire.'' That is from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee.

The fault in his quote there, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not cutting education. We are not cutting Medicare. We are not cutting Medicaid. These things are absolutely off base. What our budget does say to the American people, these are our moral choices so Congressman Spratt should be commended for saying that a budget is a moral choice, and I agree with that.

But what we do with this budget is say boldly that we will set out the fences around which government spending should be held within. That is a positive thing.

I ask my colleagues on the left wing of this body, the Democrats and the liberals here, to come and support this budget because what we are saying is our children should not be left with a legacy of debt. We need to control wasteful government spending.

What this rule provides for in this budget document is a restraint of spending. It does not hurt people. It takes out and gives the opportunity for the policy-making committees of this

House and the appropriating committees of this House to reform much- needed government services and programs.

I ask my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule to provide for a reasonable debate and reasonable amendments to this budget document that will constrain spending and provide for priorities for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this Democrat budget alternative is laughable in the extreme. They want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. They want every American citizen to pay more in taxes next year than they did this year, and they call that rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That is a tax increase, and that is how they want to balance the budget.

On top of that, they don't want to eliminate wasteful government programs. They don't want to look at government programs that have long outlived their usefulness and effectiveness for people. They just want to keep spending, and they want more money for Washington, more money for Washington bureaucrats, more money for Washington government programs. And they do that, and they nod and wink and laugh to themselves that they are balancing the budget. Right.

What we have done, what this Republican Congress has done through President Bush's tax cuts, through the stimulus to the economy, is we have let people keep more of what they earn. And by keeping more of what they earn, they spend, they employ people, the economy grows. And when the economy grows, Mr. Speaker, tax revenues increase with economic growth. With tax increases it stifles economic growth, and in the end the Treasury doesn't net out as much as it would with pro- growth tax policies.

Just this year, Mr. Speaker, tax receipts have gone up 15 percent. Yet the Democrats want more money for Washington bureaucratic programs. Then they scream and hem and haw that we are cutting. We are not cutting, Mr. Speaker. And as a conservative, I believe we should cut. But I think this is a reasonable budget, a reasonable budget that funds much needed national defense and homeland security programs while freezing government spending in other areas. That is not a cut, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.

I want to commend the Budget Committee Chairman, Jim Nussle, on his hard work in crafting a strong document that puts our priorities in line and in order for the coming fiscal year and lays us on course to reduce the deficit by cutting it in half over the course of 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, I quote the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee: A budget is a statement of moral choices, and this budget makes the wrong choices, cutting education, Medicare, and Medicaid and barely funding the bold initiatives that the President set out in his State of the Union address. Its greatest moral flaw is it that it leaves our children a legacy of debt and even heavier burden to bear as the baby boomers begin to retire.

It is wonderful rhetoric, high and mighty rhetoric, indeed befitting of maybe this day and this budget debate that we have, but I think it is disingenuous in terms of what we try to do here on the Republican budget that we are trying to pass, that we have crafted in our committee.

I want to tell you about what we are doing in terms of discretionary, nonsecurity spending. As we well know, we are fighting the war on terror. We are trying to fund our homeland security and our defense. It is the necessary and proper thing for a great Nation to do to defend itself. But what do we do in nonsecurity spending? We hold it to a near freeze. That is not a cut. It is a near freeze. That is about zero growth in nonsecurity discretionary spending. I think that is a good thing, especially when we have priorities that we have to meet in terms of defending ourselves from enemies around the world. It is better than the previous year's 1.3 percent growth in this area, and it is better than the 5-year previous average of about 6.3 percent growth.

So that helps us reduce the deficit and come closer to balance, which is what we should be all about.

The Democrats, through the rhetoric that I mentioned outlining the gentleman from South Carolina's quotes, talk about moral choices. Well, they have moral choices outlined and what they are going to submit for their Democrat budget. And what do we have there? Well, certainly it is the old liberal trick, a tax and spend and spend and tax. That is a moral choice. They want to take more from every American's pocketbook and spend it here in Washington, D.C., in the name of government. I think that is wrong, but let us see what they do.

Total outlays over the next 5 years, $139 billion. More in spending with the Democrat alternative. But look at this, what do they do? How do they spend that money? There are zero increases for defense, veterans benefits or for science, which they actually cut.

And I will tell you something, let us look at their moral choices. They do not want to fund research, but they talk about it. They scream about it on the House floor, the Republicans are cutting needed health care services and research. That is wrong and that is wrong rhetoric. It is not even correct in terms of the facts on it.

What are they doing for defense? They are not spending more than Republicans. They are not spending it wisely either.

Beyond that, you have certain Members that come out here and scream that we are not doing enough for veterans benefits. Let us look at what we have done. We have doubled veterans benefit over the last 10 years. That is a good thing, and this is a necessary thing for a great Nation to do. What does their budget alternative do? Nothing for veterans.

You can use some of your time, Mr. Spratt.

Like I said, Mr. Chairman, you can't teach an old liberal new tricks. It is all about tax and spend.

Madam Speaker, we live in an age that requires constant vigilance. We work in a building that requires steady security. The scourge of terrorism is genuine, tangible and real in today's world, especially when your office is in the center of a terrorist bull's eye, the Capitol Building and Capitol Hill.

Even with this knowledge, I come to work confident that my safety and security is in capable hands. There are over 1,500 of the most highly trained men and women guarding the gates and guarding this building. These are the dedicated officers of the Capitol Police Force. They provide safety and security for Members of Congress, the staff, as well as 3 million visitors who come and go through this building each year.

In extreme cases, the Capitol Police Force must endure physical and verbal assaults. These men and women deserve a pat on the back, not a punch in the chest.

Madam Speaker, that is why Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and I introduced a resolution thanking Capitol Police and commending them for their service, dedication and commitment to security on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I certainly appreciate your leadership and support on these budget issue. They are so important to every working family in America and so vital to the debate we are going to have tomorrow and on Friday on the Federal budget here in Washington, D.C.

I also want to commend my colleagues Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Hensarling, who I have worked extensively with on budget issues, and I am so happy that Congresswoman Schmidt joined us as well.

I think it is important that we let the American people know how we are spending their money and what this debate here in Washington, D.C., on our Federal budget means to average Americans.

The Democrats in the left wing represented here often times in loud ways, but represented here in this body, will scream that Republicans are cutting too much, they are hurting people. They scream, they yell and it is just all about emotion with them, and when you get down to what we are doing as Republicans, as conservatives, as the majority in this House, you see that we are just trying to reform government so it more efficiently provides services for people.

I know the American people would understand, Mr. Speaker, and see that there are programs out there that are no longer fulfilling their purpose or their mission. There are government bureaucrats who are not working as we need them to work. We have useless bureaucracies here in Washington, D.C., that in the name of big government continue to grow and prosper, all the while siphoning off money from every American, every American family.

What we are saying is conservatives have to look at those programs, and if they are not providing a service, if we have empty buildings, that perhaps we need to sell those empty buildings and gain revenue for the Treasury so we do not have to raid the American taxpayers' treasuries and the working families' treasuries.

As conservatives, we understand that this is the American people's money, that it is not, as some in the left would say, the government's money. No, it is the American taxpayers' money, and we need to be diligent on how we spend our tax money, your tax money, my tax money here in Washington, D.C.

I am so happy that we are going to begin this debate because I think the American people will see the more fiscal party is the Republican Party, and I think they will understand the leadership we are trying to provide to change the direction of the ship of state, and in order to change the direction of a ship, you cannot turn on a dime. We are talking about a $2.7 trillion budget, so enormous, but if we can just change the direction ever so slightly, it will have an impact over time, and that is what we are trying to begin now, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend my colleague Congresswoman Blackburn from Tennessee for leading this debate, this colloquy here on the floor, and I think she, of everyone here in the House, has been so outspoken in talking about what this means to the taxpayers.

When she goes back to Tennessee, they do not know Marsha Blackburn as the Congresswoman. They know Marsha Blackburn as the leader of fighting taxes in Tennessee, of stopping that income tax that they wanted to put in place in Tennessee just a few years ago, and she is bringing that same leadership here to say, wait a second, let us look at our fiscal house because if we spend recklessly, they are going to tax recklessly, and that means that every American, instead of paying for their children's books, paying for their children's college, providing for their families, their perhaps retired parents or their children coming up, buying a new car or actually owning a home, that they will have to only pay their tax bill instead of doing those things.

So we need to look at how we spend money because that is directly tied to how we take money from the taxpayers. I appreciate your leadership.

If the gentlewoman will yield, and I thank Congresswoman Blackburn.

This is one of the things they always say on the other side, if you cut taxes, you are going to cut revenue to the government. Now, that is absolutely misunderstood. Because as we know, the Bush tax cuts have fueled the economy and government returns, tax returns, the money sent to government because people are working, those things have gone through the roof. And I will yield to the gentleman if he has something to add to that.

Absolutely.

If the gentleman will yield.

This is one of the great discussions of the day. If you cut taxes does government get less in income or taxation? What we have seen through the tax cuts is it is a pro-growth policy. We allow people to keep more of what they earn, therefore they can actually provide for their child. They can go out this time of year and buy shorts and T- shirts and tennis shoes for the kids.

Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is incomplete. So many years ago this House and the Senate passed what was called BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and you know what? It created a glaring loophole that led to the rise in the 527 groups where a half billion dollars flowed through these groups that are not subjected to the Federal Elections Commission laws, rules, and regulations.

So this week this House is going to take on the need for clamping down on these rogue groups that funnel campaign money in noncampaign entities. It is important for us, as leaders of this country, to have full disclosure of people that participate in politics. So I am proud that this House is going to do what is right and reform 527s and apply the Federal elections law to them. And that is what this House is going to do.

I ask my colleagues on the left, I ask my Democrat colleagues, to join with us and complete the reforms of campaign finance reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend the men and women of the Capitol Hill Police Force. I think it is important at this time that Members of Congress step forward to say thank you: thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for putting so much emphasis on training, and thank you for putting the emphasis on keeping this Capitol building and all the Members and staff and visitors who come here on a frequent basis to be safe, to be secure.

I think it is important, with so much attention right now on the Capitol Police Force, that all Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, unite to say that we support you; we think you are doing an honorable and good job.

Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that there are over 1,500 Capitol Police officers, men and women of diverse backgrounds from all over the country, and some from around the world. They come here to save lives, to protect lives.

There are over 3 million visitors that come to this historic place that we call our Nation's Capital, both Washington, D.C. and this Capitol building and this complex where we work, where some of us live.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with so much attention on the Capitol Police, it is necessary that we look at what they do on a daily basis.

It is not always easy, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the public, to see them on a daily basis; for visitors to come in, tourists, staff, Members of Congress; to see them on a daily basis. People aren't always courteous.

But what I found out about the Capitol Police officers, these men and women, is that they always will greet you with a smiling face, even when they are having a bad day; that their training is shown through by the way that they have acted over the years that they have been in service here on Capitol Hill.

As Members of Congress, we must say thank you: thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for your commitment, thank you for your dedication to our country, because after all, they are here to protect and save lives; and as Members of Congress, we should respect them for their dedication and their training; and we must honor them each and every day that we are here, because they are our colleagues as well here in the Capitol complex.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I said, to commend and honor the Capitol Police. It is the right thing to do. I think my colleagues should join with me in supporting the resolution that Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and I filed just this evening to honor them for their work and their service.

So I urge my colleagues to join with me on this resolution; and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to schedule a vote for us, so that we can honor these men and women who work with us each and every day.

Thank you to the Capitol Police officers.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about 527s. 527s are groups, shadowy groups, that work outside of campaign finance disclosure laws. They work outside of our campaign finance reforms that we passed just a few years ago. They are groups that do not disclose their donors in the way that other traditional campaign groups do. They are groups that have unlimited contributions. They are groups that come in and perhaps target members in different races or candidates in different races, yet they do not actually say who they are.

So today I want to say that as a conservative and as a Member of this House what I am fighting for is openness and full disclosure and allowing sunshine on this political process that we as Americans grow to trust.

Look, in 527s last year, in the 2004 campaign cycle, there is $370 million. $370 million, Mr. Speaker, that flowed through these groups outside of campaign disclosure. These groups can come in and do all sorts of campaigning, but yet they do not have to disclose like a campaign would. So the voters do not know who is working, who is out there putting this information out. $370 million, Mr. Speaker, flowed through 527s. That is more than both the Kerry and Bush campaigns combined spent on the Presidential election. This was done outside of campaign disclosure.

Over one-fifth of the $370 million funded through 527s came from four individuals; one-fifth of the $370 million, four individuals. So much for taking big money out of politics, which is what my colleagues on the left wanted to do through campaign finance reform and many active in politics wanted to do. So much for taking big money out.

We created a loophole that 527s are allowed to use, or have taken advantage of, I should say. Over 80 percent of 527 donors gave at least a quarter of a million dollars. Think about that. That is truly big money in politics, Mr. Speaker. Forty-six individuals gave at least a million dollars to 527 groups. That is even bigger money. So we have created a two-tier system in campaign finance: one where people have to disclose; another where they shadow a group's act.

Look, the biggest big daddy of them all for 527s was a billionaire, what I like to call the Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat Party, George Soros, the Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat Party. He is pumping wads of cash into 527s to influence elections for his left wing agenda. Soros is one of the richest men in the world. He spent $18 million on campaign finance reform to root out big money in politics. How hypocritical is that? He spent all that money for campaign finance reform, yet once campaign finance reform is passed, what does he do? He pumps wads of cash, millions, tens of millions of dollars to those shadowy 527 groups.

Fortune Magazine called him the world's angriest billionaire. He is without a doubt the most powerful Democrat in the country right now. He has a far left agenda and you cannot move any farther left to him until you go down south to Havana, to be honest with you.

Soros is an example of liberal lunacy, and it goes to the heart of what my colleagues on the left have been articulating, which is a culture of hypocrisy. A culture of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, that we need to take on as the majority in the House. As a Republican and as a conservative, I am going to point out the culture of hypocrisy that the 527 groups that the left wing in this body are taking advantage of.

That is why I think we need to come forward with true campaign finance reform, make the 527 groups accountable and disclose to the American people who their donors are and abide by the same rules and regulations that all campaign groups must abide by.

The original intent from the Democrats was to root out big money in politics. They said not just a few years ago, not but just a few years ago, `` . . . money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means, money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few have a disproportionate say over public policy.'' Yet today, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats and the left in this body are more beholden than ever to big money politics and 527 groups and we will reform this liberal lunacy.

Thank you, Congressman Price, and thank you for your leadership in the Official Truth Squad. I think it is important that we come to the House floor and articulate our views and our agenda for the American people as Republicans, as conservatives, and as Members of Congress. Today I think it is important that we bring up a pressing issue dealing with 527 groups. My colleague from Georgia has done a very good job of outlining what 527 groups are, what they do, how they operate.

The one thing he points out in his chart there is that funding is dominated by a few wealthy donors, unlimited giving is alive and well. Let's just go back a few years. Our colleagues on the left, the Democrat Party, said that big money is a corrupting influence in politics. And so you had men like George Soros, one of the richest men in the world, a multibillionaire, George Soros, who I like to call the Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat Party, he spent $18 million to root out big money in politics. Think about that. That is liberal lunacy at its worst, or I guess I should say at its best.

He wanted to root out the corrupting influence of very large donors. That is what he was quoted as saying, to root out issue advocacy phone calls, TV ads, radio ads. This last election cycle, he spent $27 million, wrote a check for $27 million to different 527 groups to do exactly what he wanted to ban through campaign finance reform. Liberal lunacy, hypocrisy. It is a culture of hypocrisy that we are fighting on the left.

Let's look at the facts and figures. $370 million flowed through 527 groups. $370 million. That is more than President Bush and Senator Kerry spent on the presidential election. This flowed through unregulated, undisclosed means. So voters didn't have the opportunity to know who these 527 groups are, who their donors are, what their true agenda is. And so it is important that we bring out and bring to light the need for 527 reform so that we can have accountability and transparency, two things that my colleague from Georgia has been talking about extensively.

We are going to point out the culture of hypocrisy on the left. Really at the heart of it is their reliance on a few billionaires to spend money through unregulated means to go out and influence elections. It is very deceptive to the voters. I think it is very unbecoming of who we are as a democracy. But I also want to say, Congressman Price, that I think our philosophy is similar. We believe that freedom works and that free and full disclosure is important to the nature of campaign financing. That is what we are trying to push with 527 reform.

Absolutely. I appreciate you putting up something visible for people to see. George Soros. What is his agenda? He is one of the greatest leftists this side of Havana and he is trying to influence elections for his left-wing agenda. I think it is important for the American people to be engaged in elections. But you should not allow billionaires to go in and buy elections. You shouldn't allow billionaires to go in, through undisclosed means, and influence elections. You see Peter Lewis. You see Herbert and Marian Sandler. You see Stephen Bing, a huge Hollywood producer. You have Hollywood money flowing through undisclosed means to influence elections.

My agenda, Congressman Price, just like yours, is full disclosure. I think that is important. My version of campaign finance reform is maybe akin to what yours would be, Congressman Price, and that is to allow full, open, public transparency of campaigns and allow them to be financed so that the American people can see who is financing them. We shouldn't limit that financing. Until we have that in America, through honesty in Federal elections law, we must level the playing field until we get to that point.

Congressman Price, I know you mentioned the telephone calls. Some of us get annoyed by these answer machine messages. Some people get annoyed by these recorded messages. Even when telemarketers are at the other end of the line. I for one agree with my constituents on that. But it is important at the end of that telephone call to actually know where it is coming from and who paid for it. Under section 527 of the IRS code, these groups don't even disclose that. They don't have to. They don't have to say who is paying for these phone calls. They have to say who they are from. As a Member of Congress, I have an obligation to communicate with my constituents. So when I make phone calls to them, I disclose that it is coming from the Congressman Patrick McHenry office and if they have a problem they can call me back at this number if they want to be taken off the list or they don't want to be contacted. You can't do that with 527s.

I don't know, Congressman Price, if you recall reading about, or Congressman Cantor, I don't know if you recall reading about a 527 group in one State who hired felons, known felons, folks with criminal records, to go out and knock on doors to campaign. It is absolutely frightening when you see these shady groups hiring shady people to be out in our communities. It is very frightening and the power that you see with $80 million coming from just four people to influence elections. At the very least we want to know what their agenda is, what they are arguing for. What we should be engaged in is more disclosure.

Congressman Price, do they leave a telephone number?

What group do they say they are with?

This goes right to my point. Somebody calls you and says they are with Working America or they say they are with Mom and Apple Pie, and yet this other person is very hateful. That is their message. It is always a negative message. There is nothing inspiring about it. It does not talk to the greater good. It talks to really the base elements of our society and of human beings.

Look, what I am for is allowing groups to participate who are honest and straightforward. I know, I know, Mr. Speaker, I know that is a laughable thing in politics. Honest, forthright, openness. Oh, goodness. I guess just as a new Member of Congress I still want to embrace those things, somebody who is not so focused on Washington. I am focused on my constituents. I want to make sure they get the information they need, that they have the ability to discern for themselves what is right and what is wrong and where we should go as a country.

Congressman Price, I appreciate you using a specific example because that allows the American people to hear, to hear what is happening all across America with this big interest liberal left wing money flowing into politics through unregulated, undisclosable means outside of our Federal election laws. That is wrong. And so what we need to get back to is openness and full disclosure and to make all groups abide by the same laws, that we do not have a two-tier system.

I do not think it is right in any form in our society to have two groups, lower-class citizens, upper-class citizens, big money billionaires who play by different rules than you or I as average Americans. And so it is important that we have a unified system for Federal election laws that say you must disclose, you must be honest. And that is why as Congressman Cantor, our chief deputy whip, said, who is a great leader on this issue, we will bring a bill to the floor next week and it will bring all these rogue 527 groups like the Daddy Warbucks of the Democratic Party, George Soros, who is funding left and right, left and right, we are going to bring this bill to the floor and say that these groups must abide by our Federal election laws. We cannot have rogue groups in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for yielding. I will tell you what we are trying to do is reform reform. Unintended consequences of laws are something that we as Americans deal with all the time, and the Federal election code has numerous unintended consequences as Congressman Cantor mentioned, and what we are trying to do is make fairness reign within the Federal Election Code.

There was a glaring omission with 527s, and what we are saying is, do not exempt these groups from Federal election laws. It is very simple, very basic, 527 fairness. We want to allow 527s to participate just like PACs participate, but they should disclose like PACs and like campaigns and abide by the same laws, rules and regulations.

I am so happy that we are going to come forward with legislation that does that, that ensures fairness and a level playing field for all Americans and all the people that want to participate in elections and make their views and their voices heard.

Because as I said before, Big Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat party, George Soros, he certainly does not abide by the rules and regulations that all average Americans have to abide by when it comes to funding elections. So let us make sure that the Daddy Warbucks George Soros, the Big Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat party, of the leftist agenda, has to abide by the same rules and regulations that all Americans do. It is a matter of fairness and good government and reform.