Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the extraordinary public service of two firemen who have each served the community of Northvale, New Jersey for 60 years. Arthur Bodrato and Frank Buonocore joined the company in 1947, a mere 41 years after the company was even founded. Their lives stand as a testament to how just a single life of volunteerism can make a profound difference in the lives of so many.

Not content to merely serve their neighbors in this brave role, both men took on extra responsibilities in the Northvale Fire Department and Northvale Fire Association to help their fellow firefighters. Frank Buonocore served as the Fire Association Treasurer for 18 years and as a Relief Association Officer. He also served as Lieutenant, Captain, and Chief of the Department. Arthur Bodrato served as Financial Secretary for the Fire Association and is the current President of the Northvale Fire Department Exempt Fireman's Association. He also served as a Lieutenant in the Fire Department.

As if to demonstrate the example these men have provided to their community, they have inspired a legacy of service. Arthur Bodrato's son, Briant is the current Chief of the Northvale Fire Department, and I look forward to returning to the floor some day to honor him for his service to Northvale as well.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard someone say, appropriately so, once they saw the Democrats' budget plan, ``Be afraid. Be very much afraid.'' And the reason they said that was because they were looking at one of the points that have already been raised here, and that is the Democrats' largest tax increase in U.S. history. As people have already noted, a $392 billion increase in taxes on American families. That certainly is reason alone to be afraid of this budget and what it will mean to the American taxpayer.

But mind you, the Democrats don't stop there. After they raise your taxes once, they are going to be coming after you a second time. And they do that in the form of trying to fill the so-called ``tax gap.''

What is the tax gap? The tax gap is their position of how they fill up any shortage in their funding by going after people who are not adequately paying their current tax amount.

I think the average American would say that we are already paying far too much in taxes. I think if you ask the average American, they would tell you that they are already paying their fair share. But the Democrats are saying that in addition to the $392 billion in additional taxes that American families are going to pay, they are going to go after you one more time.

Right now, 86 percent of Americans, according to the IRS, are paying their fair share and paying at the respective time. The Democrats are saying that they are going to go for another around $300 billion from Americans. Now, in committee, what they said they were going to do is go after those egregious loopholes in corporations and the like. I think Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that we should try to close those loopholes and go after corporations who are not paying their taxes.

But do you know what? In the testimony before our committee, the IRS Commissioner told us that when he goes after corporations, that is only about 10 percent of all the outstanding taxes that are out there. That means one thin dime on the dollar is maybe available.

I pointed out to you already that they want to get another $300 billion from you and I from this so-called tax gap. What does the IRS say about that? They say the most realistic figure they could come up with is around $20 billion. And not just in one year. It would take about 5 years in order to achieve that $20 billion.

So what does it come down to? It comes down to that the Democrats are raising your taxes on one hand and going with the other hand one more time at you to try to fill that tax gap. What does that mean to the average family, you and I?

Well, yes, they will tell you they are going to go after the bad guy out there who is not paying his taxes, but, in order to do it, they are going to have to change the Tax Code, strengthen the IRS, put more agents out there.

As a matter of fact, again, the IRS Commissioner came and testified before the committee. He said, in order to achieve even a part of what the Democrats want to do, they are going to have to impose draconian changes to the Tax Code. That means you put in a 1099 to pay your niece when she babysits or pay your neighbor when he mows the law. Draconian effects, added to this tax increase is what the Democrats would cost the American family.

Mr. Speaker, with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind before us this

year, we all have an obligation to consider reforms that both further education policy, and also maintain consistency with our constitutional duties.

The Federal Government began its interference, if you will, in education through land grants, and over time has transformed into a bureaucracy that we see today. I would like to highlight some of the serious flaws in this tangled web we have weaved and pose a question to my colleagues and our constituents as well. Are we better off today with the Federal Government's involvement in education as it has been over the years?

Since 1965, American taxpayers have invested more than $778 billion on Federal programs for elementary and secondary education. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, reported in 1994 that 13,400 Federally funded full-time employees in State education agencies work to implement Federal education programs. That is three times the number then working at the Department of Education.

The same report found that state education agencies are forced to reserve a far greater share of Federal and State funds for State-level use by a ratio of 4-1, due to the administrative and regulatory burden of Federal programs. And because it cost so much to allocate a Federal dollar than a State dollar, 41 percent of financial support and staffing of State education agencies was a product of Federal dollars and regulations. In other words, the Federal Government was the cause of 41 percent of the administrative burden at the State level, despite providing just 7 percent of overall education funding.

Again, according to the GAO, the testing requirements alone for No Child Left Behind will cost the States about $1.9 billion between 2002 and 2008. And that is if the State uses only multiple choice questions that can be scored in machines, as opposed to essays and what have you.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, No Child Left Behind increased State and local governments' annual paperwork burden by 6,680,334 hours at an estimated cost of $141 million. So while No Child Left Behind advertises that it helps to attract and maintain highly qualified teachers, some States, in fact, have now responded to it by actually lowering their testing requirements for new teachers.

Since the law enactment, Pennsylvania has dropped its testing after finding that too many middle school teachers had failed the test. In Maryland, New Hampshire and Virginia, they have made their basic skills test for teachers easier to pass now than before we had No Child Left Behind.

In Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada and West Virginia, they, too, have lowered their requirements for teachers trained out of state. So what is happening is as State officials become more familiar with the No Child Left Behind statute and with U.S. Department of Education's interpretation of it, more States have rushed to lower their own standards. So by September 2004, 47 States had filed requests with the U.S. Department of Education to approve changes to their No Child Left Behind plans that would, in many cases, make it easier for them to show adequate yearly progress than before.

Now, to address all this, in the near future, I will come back to the floor as I will be introducing legislation that will immediately cut both the financial and the regulatory strings between the Federal Government and the States that choose to opt out and relieve the Federal education system.

How it will work is this: Under my proposal, States that elect to opt out of the Federal education funding system would be eligible to keep their own money, keep it in their own States through a mechanism, a Federal tax credit. It would be a refundable Federal tax credit, and it would be available to all the residents in that State that chose to opt out. Therefore, what we have here is not only would that State free itself up from the education regulations and all the costs I have just laid out here, but by taking this deduction, those residents in those States won't have to be taking money out of their pocket, sending it to Washington, Washington handling it for a while, and some of it coming back to their States. In effect, what will happen is you will not have to send your money to Washington at all.

But the bottom line is this: We should not waste this unique opportunity that we have now, now that No Child Left Behind is coming up for reauthorization. We should use this as an opportunity to return sovereignty back to the States, and most importantly, back to the parents themselves.

So Mr. Speaker, I will close on this to say I look forward to the time when all education decisions are returned back to the States, to the legislatures, to the local school board, and most importantly, to the parents themselves.

I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding.

New Jersey is proud to be number one in a number of things. But, quite honestly, we do not like to be proud, we are not proud of the fact that we are number one when it comes to paying taxes in this country, whether you are talking about local taxes, sales taxes, State income taxes, property taxes. I think we are just about number one in all of those combined.

Yet when you take that and you add what is happening here, this could be one of the most expensive weeks for the citizens of the State of New Jersey if this House proceeds with what the Democrat leadership plans to do.

Now, I have the privilege of serving with you, the gentleman from California, on the Budget Committee. And as you know, we just debated, if you will, the Democrats' budget proposal just last week. Actually, we had a number of hearings over the last 3 months now, during which time we have had a number of experts come and testify on various aspects of the Federal budget and the ramifications of not doing some things in the area of mandatory spending.

When you think about all the rhetoric that we have heard from the other side of the aisle, and maybe it was disquieting at some times, I think the one thing that maybe we can reach across the aisle here and maybe hear one language, one word that we are on the same page on at least, in rhetoric at least, is they agree with us on this one point and that is that we should get to a balanced budget at some point. The distinction, of course, is how they get there and how we get there.

Now, anyone who tuned in to C-SPAN, if people did tune in C-SPAN and listen to those budget hearings that we had, they may realize, or they watch the stuff on the floor, what have you, might realize just how complex the Federal budget is. With talk of rescissions and special orders and earmarks and everything, it is a hugely complex matter that we deal with; and I appreciate your expertise that you come to the House with to be able to handle this.

But, in reality, if you just step back for a minute, what we all do here on the House floor and in Budget Committee isn't a heck of a lot different than what every single American family, my own included, and the residents of the State of California and New Jersey have to do every single year, every week, every month when it comes to their own family budget, and that is to say they have to live within their means.

Now, Washington doesn't have a good track record on this, but that is what families have to do. When it comes to families, I guess families don't really have a choice to say whether we are going to have a balanced budget or not. Washington does. People know how much money they are earning.

Absolutely.

No, you are absolutely right on point. The average family has to sit down and say, this is what my income is going to be for the week, the month or the year for the year ahead and say I am going to live within those means. At the same time, what they have to do is they have to set priorities. And I think that what the gentleman was also trying to elicit from the Democrats during this last budget hearing was to set priorities. What are your top-ranking priorities? What must we spend on and where should we spend it? And if there are other things that you don't want to spend on now because you don't have the money, what are they?

They would never agree to do that, if the gentleman recalls. That is why I think they came up with this hollow, empty trust fund which, in reality, they could have said the trust fund is this big, since it is empty, or they could have said it is this large. Because if there is no money in it, there is no limit to how large the empty promises are.

But the family budget can't do that, just like you said.

But the other thing that the Democrats in Washington are able to do, besides print money, that the average family can't do, you know what else the family can't do? They can't raise taxes. A family cannot simply go out and say, I am short on cash this week, so I am going to raise taxes. That is why I started off by saying, as you pointed out, that this is the most expensive week for a family in the Fifth Congressional District for the State of New Jersey.

Let me just give you one other number while I stand here. It was the New York Times, that paper did a study just recently looking at what the Democrats in the House and the Senate are proposing. They looked at it a little bit slightly differently but came up with a little bit different number, but still draws the point.

They looked at an average family of four making $70,000 in the State of New Jersey. Now, if you are from the State of New Jersey, I don't think anyone from either side of the aisle would say that a family making $70,000 is rich by any means. It is expensive to live in our State.

But they said that family, who did very well under the Republican tax decreases in 2003 that we passed with the creation of jobs and the like, that family, under the Democrats' budget that may pass this House this week, would see their taxes go up by $1,500.

So if you think you are rich at $70,000, which I guess the other side of the aisle thinks New Jerseyans making $70,000 are able to pay more in taxes, those taxes are going up by $1,500. I think that is a burden that that average family should not have to bear in light of the property tax.

The overall average is the number that you brought out for the entire State of New Jersey, approximately $3,000. You may have it in front of you. I don't have it here.

So around $3,800 or almost $4,000. And you think about it. What could that $4,000 be used for? If you are the family and the husband and wife sitting down with your family, well, I would like to use that $4,000 to go on vacation this year. I would like to be able to use it on some other niceties or what have you. Or maybe, if they can't use it on that, maybe they have health expenses.

I have a daughter in college right now. Maybe they have college expenses, other things like that. I am sure they could find a use for $4,000 to spend.

I will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I remember one of the comments from the other side of the aisle during budget process, I think you shook your head when they said this as well, where they said, Well, if we do a tax cut, the Federal Government is subsidizing that taxpayer. And we just shook our head at that because a tax cut is not a subsidy to the American taxpayer. A tax cut is simply saying to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer and family that you don't have to send quite as much of your hard-earned money each week to Washington. You are able to keep $3,800 of that money. And maybe you want to use that $3,800 in New Jersey to go on vacation to a beautiful State like the State of California.

I will just close on these thoughts: the difference that we are seeing here between what the Democrats will be proposing in their budget and the Republican alternative budget that should also come before the floor is in three areas, I think. We are both aiming towards the same goal, fortunately, of trying to reach a balanced budget by 2012, 5 years from now. But the Republican budget will reach that goal of 2012 without raising taxes by almost $400 billion, which is what your chart behind you shows. And that is critical.

So, number one, we will not put a burden of almost $4,000, $3,800, on the families in the State of New Jersey, $1,500 if you are a family of four making $70,000.

Secondly, by not raising taxes we will not be undermining the pro- growth policies of this administration and of this government over the last 10 years. Those pro-growth policies, for New Jerseyans at least, have created tremendous employment, very low unemployment, so that that family that is making that $70,000 a year or more or less in New Jersey at least knows that the unemployment rate is almost at historic lows at this point. So they know there is the opportunity for jobs, and because of that, there is great opportunity to improve yourselves in careers and what have you. And because of that pro-growth policy, we have seen the deficit shrink by 26 percent.

And, thirdly, and I think this is very important to everyone at home, is that we are making sure on the Republican proposal that those dollars that we do spend, because we are always going to have some spending by the Federal Government, that those dollars will not be wasted, not waste, fraud, and abuse, but will be spent on those things that are critical to my State, to your State, to national security, to homeland security, and to our veterans as well.

So balance the budget without raising taxes, make sure we continue the

pro-growth tax policies that we have had in the past to create jobs, and make sure that those dollars are wisely spent. They all come under the umbrella of one thing, and you said it: to realize that these dollars come from the family budget. And our focus should be on the family budget and not on the Washington budget all the time.

Madam Speaker, this weekend, West Bergen Mental Healthcare will honor the Honorable Michael A. Chagares and Mrs. Margaret M. Chagares for their distinguished service on behalf of the mental health community in Bergen County, New Jersey.

The Chagares' have a long and proud history of service to their community, both as attorneys and as citizens. Michael Chagares has served as a Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for the past year. Prior to that, he had served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division, where he was the Director of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit and later Chief of the whole division. Judge Chagares also served as a hearing officer for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.

Peggy Chagares is also an attorney and volunteers her considerable legal talents to representing the underserved. A mother of four young children, she also volunteers her time to educational activities. For instance, she chairs the Sicomac School's Fifth Grade Activities Board and the school's Art Docent program. She has also served as chairperson of the Parents' Board of Grace Church Nursery School. And, Peggy Chagares has been a coach, a Sunday School teacher, and a Brownie and Girl Scout Leader.

They've put tremendous energy and time into helping West Bergen Mental Healthcare fulfill its mission of serving the community with compassion and quality care. It began as a Child Guidance Clinic more than 40 years ago. Today it offers a full range of services to over 2,000 people a year. They are a model of volunteerism and professionalism, and I applaud their commitment to the community.

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus and as a Representative of the State of New Jersey, I come to the floor to strongly oppose this unconstitutional taking away, diminution, and reducing of voting rights for citizens of my district in the State of New Jersey.

The sponsors of the bill do this in order to accommodate the equally unconstitutional creation of voting rights in an area of this country that is not a State. And it has been pointed out already that there is a legal and constitutional manner to enfranchise these people of the District of Columbia.

But in section 4.5 of the bill, the sponsor gives some citizens of another State, Utah, two votes in Congress for every one vote for my citizens in the State of New Jersey.

The Founding Fathers of this Nation never intended that one State would be more equal than another State. The Founding Fathers of this country never intended that Congress could strip away rights to vote from my State to give it to another. The Founding Fathers never intended that Congress would create a situation that one State would be second class to another State.

I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to announce a new series of weekly topics for the Congressional Constitution Caucus. I found that many Americans, including some of my fellow Members, are not as familiar with the Constitution as they might want to be.

Last Thursday this was demonstrated to us when three local schoolchildren, ages 8 to 12, came into the office. They were wearing these little ``Liberty Day Kids'' T-shirts and buttons, and they announced that they were going to door to door in the buildings asking congressional offices questions in honor of James Madison's birthday, questions such as what is necessary to override a Presidential veto, or where do all of the appropriations bills originate from.

Out of curiosity we asked them if most people had been answering the questions correctly, and the children emphatically shook their heads no. So tonight and each Tuesday after votes, we hope to help correct that problem by taking a walk through the Constitution, and I encourage other Members to join us as we educate each other and the Nation about our preeminent founding document.

So we begin by looking at the Preamble of the Constitution. It is perhaps one of most well-known sections, the Constitution's introductory sentence, which reads, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

So this passage sums up in a condensed version what the Founders were intending in this document. So let's look at some of the phrases.

The first phrase, ``We the People of the United States.'' Now, these words by themselves almost sound trite today, but they were groundbreaking pronouncements when they were written. You see, the previous document, the Articles of Confederation, was an agreement solely between the States, and other earlier documents, including the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France and the 1783 Treaty of Paris did not even include the word ``people.''

In convincing Virginia to ratify the Constitution, the Governor explained to them why the word was appropriate. He said, ``The government is for the people; and the misfortune was, that the people had no agency in the government before. If the government is to be binding on the people, are not the people the proper persons to examine its merits or defects?'' The Constitution therefore binds America together.

The next phrase is ``In order to form a more perfect Union.'' The Founders simply believed that the new government would be stronger than the one under the Articles of Confederation. You see, the loose confederation of States had led to bickering and ineffective government. But this new arrangement of States has allowed the States to retain their power, but also work together for the common good.

Thomas Jefferson wrote therefore, The union is the last anchor of our hope.

The third phrase is ``to establish Justice.''

This refers to a problem that had arisen in the State court systems. And so by creating a Supreme Court of the land, the Framers hoped to prevent egregious examples of trampled rights. But the Framers had a higher purpose in mind, too. In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote: ``Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.''

The next section is to provide for the common defense. This phrase is perhaps the most evident today. See, the War for Independence had been fought for that very reason; and in the years following the war, our fledgling Nation had been unable to defend itself against the Barbary pirates and also from Spain and England threats. So the States realized they needed to unite to preserve the Union.

The next one is very important for today. The phrase ``to promote the general welfare,'' this has been commonly interpreted to mean that the Federal Government can do almost anything as long as it accomplishes something beneficial. But you see, this definition ignores the Founders' real intent. See, they deliberately used qualifying words such as ``general'' because they meant to limit the powers rather than expand it. Think about it. Would it be proper and fair for the Federal Government to recognize certain groups over other ones, certain States over others? If the Founding Fathers didn't intend to create these special rights or special privileges or socioeconomic programs, there would not have been any reason to list the specific powers that are listed in the Constitution.

James Madison even stated that the ``general welfare'' clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand ``to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.''

The final section reads ``to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'' These words come from the previous phrase, for without law, it is impossible to achieve liberty for future generations.

I will close by saying we look forward each week to come to the floor on Tuesdays as we walk through the Constitution week after week to better understand this important document for this House and for this country.

I just come to the floor tonight to commend

you and to commend the work you have done on this area with your legislation, and also your efforts tonight to try to educate the Members of this House and also the American public as well. A couple of points come to mind, and you have touched on some of them, but they hit home for me, and that is the missed opportunities of resources, is one; the issue of parental rights is another; and the overall issue of the public being mindful of what they need to look out for when it comes to campaigns. I know you touched on each of those briefly.

I had the opportunity to meet today with different groups, as you know we do, all day when we are not on the floor and in committee rooms. The issue of education and the issue of raising our kids came up, and we were talking about other issues other than this one. But the bottom-line issue always came to this, who cares more about your kids than you do? Who cares more about my children than I do?

Other people may, the teachers in the school, the local school boards may care for them, the health officials or the county and the State in Trenton, my capital, may, the bureaucrats down here in Washington or someone else may have some concern, but no one is going to care as much as the parents. We know that loving interest that the parents have in their children is that they are going to be doing right by them. Secondly, the parents are going to know what is the best interest of that child more than anyone else.

Parents are going to know the difference between that child, who, as you described before, may be 11 years old and in many circumstances no way, shape or form is going to be sexually active; and parents know other children, 15, 16 years old have been, are starting to be sexually active, in which case this treatment, the shot or what have you, would be appropriate.

I think it's what the Founding Fathers intended for this country is to have control over our lives, at the local level most possible, and when it comes to children, the most local level is the home setting and the parents.

So the point is that those decisions that are touching the intimate aspect of our lives and our children are best left to the parents themselves and not some bureaucrat outside.

The second issue is resources. You were just touching upon one when I came in. You kindly yielded over to me. The issue is about the cost and how widespread this will be, how many kids, children, this could be used for across the entire country, if what is being done in Texas and elsewhere is going to be spread across the country.

We live, as you know here, with limited resources, certainly limited medical resources. We want to make sure that those limited resources go to the most areas necessary. I always say, in our budget meetings, you can spend a dollar once, but that is it. You can't spend it a second or a third time. Once it's spent, it's spent.

So when it comes to our health care dollars, we have to decide. I rely on health officials or health professionals such as you to help us to make those decisions where those limited dollars should go, and where there is not a need. When you are talking about 8, 9, 10, 11- year-old girls who are not sexually active and most likely will not be sexually active until their maturity, there is no medical necessity for that.

The third point I think is this: I think this whole discussion here should be an eye opener, a light bulb going off, something. As I say, an eye opener for parents and citizens across this country to see how things can move so quickly and touch upon your families without you even knowing about it.

One day you are sitting at home and your wife and kids in the kitchen are just going about your normal routine, getting ready to go off to school, or what have you. The next day, all of a sudden, you are getting an edict from the Governor someplace or some other bureaucrat telling us your child is going to have to be inoculated for an ailment that they are never going to get.

How does that happen? It happens in a way in this case as we saw with an instructive affirmative campaign in various places around this country, saying, you know, a push by certain factors, pushing out, saying this should be done.

Then what happened after that? Well, the media jumps on board, as they often do, and sells us, says this is a great thing, how can you say no to this. All of a sudden it has become politically incorrect for you to stand up and say, wait a minute, I may have a question about this. Wait a minute, these are my little kids you are talking about. Wait a minute, my personal physician or pediatrician says there is no need for this. All of a sudden you are backed into a corner.

This is a case where I think a light bulb should go off for all parents and citizens across the country just to see how quickly these things can come down. That is why I came to the floor tonight just to commend you for throwing the light of day on this very important topic and illuminating it for all of us and for the people watching this evening to realize this is happening now. There may be other things that they need to be paying attention to, again, with regard to the health care of their children.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

You brought up another fact, which was good, and then you went on to the details of it more. But I think the point you raised was a good one and I would like to elaborate on for 30 seconds, and that is this: That young girls do go in this country to see their doctors, they do go to see their pediatricians. And the concern I had before, that I mentioned just about 5 minutes ago, that this current action is intervening and causing a wedge, is causing a wedge between the parent and the child.

The point that you are alluding to here as well is now we are actually having another wedge. I said before, the closest relation out there should be between the parent and the child, father and mother and the daughter. Maybe the next close relationship is between the doctor, the pediatrician and the child. And that is what we are talking about here when you are talking about a 9-, 10-, or 11-year-old girl is a child. So not only are we driving a wedge between the parent and the child now, the State is now also driving this wedge between the doctor, the pediatrician and the child as well.

The American College of Pediatrics and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are opposed in these circumstances to legislation which would require HPV vaccinations for school attendance, because they know that they are already having that correct and proper relationship. They are already seeing that little girl once a year usually for examination. They are making the examination, and I presume that they would be able to make that determination if that child is becoming sexually active and what have you. And so they would be, just as the parents are, in a better position than a bureaucrat in a State capital someplace or a bureaucrat here in Washington to determine what sort of treatment or what sort of inoculations are needed.

So I just want to draw out that point you raised, that two wedges now of very close familial contact have been created by this new proposal to require this for young children. So I appreciate your bringing that point out.

Madam Speaker, today, the Arc of Warren County, New Jersey will break ground on their newest group home at Camp Warren. The Arc has long presented a wide array of services to individuals with developmental disabilities throughout this corner of Northwest New Jersey. They are now expanding into residential services with this barrier-free home for six adults, which they hope to have open by the end of the year.

The Arc of Warren County was founded more than 50 years ago by parents, educators, and others who wanted to meet the needs of children with developmental disabilities in a comprehensive way. It is part of a national network that serves more than 3 million people across the country every year. The more than 1,000 people that the Warren County chapter serves each year receive quality services ranging from residential to recreation to advocacy.

Arc staff and volunteers not only help the disabled individuals, but also their families. And, in the process, they provide a great service to the community at large. The Arc helps these individuals live more self-sufficiently and blend seamlessly into the community around them. And, the tremendous support they get from people of all walks of life throughout Warren County speaks volumes as to their success.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I will leave the final word to the gentlewoman.

I just wanted to come to the floor to commend your work here today and the press conference that we had earlier today and the work of the RSC on this matter.

As was indicated earlier, the soothsayer said to Julius Caesar ``Beware the Ides of March.'' And that is exactly where we are right now, the center of March. A time of doom, a bad omen in many ways. And it is a bad omen for many Americans because many Americans across this country right now are sitting at their kitchen tables or their dining room tables getting all their paperwork together to do their taxes. Actually, I don't know how many Americans still do their own taxes. Many people actually pay now to send it out to some of these accountants out there, that you were referencing before, to do them, because it has gotten just so complicated. It has gotten just so incomprehensible.

Earlier today we saw the little stacks of books of the regulations and the Code that is made up of the incomprehensible regulations. And that is why Americans can't understand the entire Code. And for that matter, and I raised this question earlier, I think it would be interesting if someone did a survey of all the Members of the Congress and the Senate, 535 Members of the House and Senate. These are the people who actually made that Tax Code. How many of them actually do their own taxes anymore? I don't do it anymore because, quite honestly, I find it incomprehensible, as well, and I send it off to an expert.

The initiative that we are all pushing here tonight is to say that it has gone far too long to have an incomprehensible Tax Code. We can't be sure that we are paying a fair amount if we don't

know what we are filling out. So what we are doing here is not only citing the problem, but setting the road to recovery of that problem as well by coming up with a comprehensible system of paying our taxes.

While that is incomprehensible, how you fill out your taxes, what is not incomprehensible is the fact that we have been paying and spending far too much in the Federal Government for far too long. The American family realizes that they have to live within their means, that they have only so much of a paycheck each week and they have to make sure that that goes as far as their expenses, and they can't spend any more than that.

The Federal Government, as we know, does that every day, spends far more than they take in. That is what the American public doesn't understand. If the American public has to live within their means, why doesn't the Federal Government have to do so? The initiative that we are talking about here would say, balance our budget, be just like American families at home, and live within our means.

The final point is this: We have talked in the past, also on this floor, with regard to ethics, and I may be wrong but I think it was in an article in The Washington Post that said, why are we exceeding our spending and why do we have these ethical problems on K Street and the like? And one of the reasons they said, and this references the point that the gentleman from Iowa said before, is because we exceed our constitutional authority, as Mr. King was pointing out; that we spend in areas that the Constitution never permitted us to do in the first place.

The Washington Post article made the same reference. If we live within our means, live within the constitutional boundaries, we would meet the objectives of the American family.

I see by the clock on the wall we are coming to the end of the time. And I appreciate the gentlewoman's work in this area.

Mr. Speaker, it's been more than seven months now and many have forgotten about the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hezbollah: Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and Gilad Shalit. Hezbollah seems to have forgotten that last year's hostilities ended only after there were promises regarding the return of the Israeli men. This just goes to reinforce the fact that terrorist organizations cannot be negotiated with.

In 2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 called for Hezbollah in Lebanon to disband. Despite a half-dozen statements from the Secretary-General, they continued to occupy the border region as UN observers looked on. We don't know for sure, but these very observers may have watched Hezbollah cross the border and kidnap Goldwasser and Regev.

Security Council Resolution 170, which ended the most recent conflict, again called for Hezbollah to disarm and return of the soldiers. They remain in Lebanon and Gaza and not even international organizations such as the Red Cross have been able to see them and be assured of their fair treatment.

Israel has demonstrated its commitment to the Resolution by ceasing hostilities and pulling back its soldiers, but yet again they are dealing with opponents who show disrespect to all and whose word cannot be trusted.

We stand together with Israel to call again for the unconditional release of these three men. We pray for their safe return and for peace between Israel and its neighbors. They will not be forgotten by their families, by their nation, or by this body.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Affairs, I am proud to congratulate the nation of Greece on the 186th anniversy of independence. Though it began the cradle of Democracy and formed the foundation of Western thought, Greece was ruled over by various empires until 1821 when the people of Greece threw off Ottoman oppression and set about founding a government that would be ruled by Greeks and for Greeks.

The ancient Greek city-states provided young American with a strong foundation of government and philosophy to build our democracies. In both our nations, the Golden Age of Greece continues to be a guiding light.

During the last 50 years, the United States has been proud to stand with the Greek people as they confronted communist oppression, solidified their democracy, and became part of the vibrant European economy.

Independence, once achieved, is not guaranteed for all time. We know that at all times there must be those who are willing to sacrifice to retain liberty. Both of our nations have faced struggles for survival since the initial moment of independence. We must continue to support each other in the causes of freedom and democracy.

Again, I congratulate the Greek people on this historic day. It is a day to remember the sacrifices of the past, to take pride in your nation, and to look forward to a bright future.

Mr. Speaker, nearly nine years ago, the people of Northern Ireland took a great step forward into building a lasting peace. The Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, set forth a plan for establishing a peaceful civil government for both Catholics and Protestants.

Today, we are close to ending an enmity that stretches back across centuries. With the establishment of an assembly there will be a substantial forum for the people of Northern Ireland to sort through their difference peacefully.

The years of calm since the signing of the agreement have seen developments that seemed nearly impossible decades ago. The acceptance of the Police Service of Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein in January of this year marked one ofthe last hurdles to the full implementation of the agreement. With one neutral force to fairly administer the law, the people of Northern Ireland can stop seeing the police as adversaries and instead see them as guardians of the peace, as it should be.

It is now critical that a final agreement be put in place so that the assembly can continue to meet and lead the people of Northern Ireland. Now that the IRA, as confirmed by third-party observers, has decommissioned its weapons, it is time for the Democratic Unionists to come together to rule in cooperation with Sinn Fein.

With so much progress made it would be a great shame to see the dissolution of a body freely elected by the people of Northern Ireland. This Congress supports blueprint for peace signed nearly a decade ago and wishes to see last democracy and tranquility in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to announce our support of the A-PLUS Act authored by my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). I stand here as the founder and chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Normally, when I begin my weekly floor speeches, I quote the relevant portion of the Constitution that corresponds with the evening's topic. Yet today I have difficulty choosing a coinciding article and section from our founding document. You see, the Constitution does not contain the word ``school'' or even ``education.'' Contrary to common modern misconceptions, there is no constitutional right guaranteeing each citizen an education.

Now, this does not mean education is unimportant or that the Constitution is silent on the issue. The 10th amendment unambiguously states, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

Historically, in the United States, education has not fallen under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Parents, local schools and the States were responsible for children's academic training. It has only been in the last 50 years or so has the Federal Government begun overstepping its constitutional boundaries by parading the increasing bureaucracies of the Department of Education.

Mr. Hoekstra's bill seeks to correct many of the problems associated with a Federal bureaucracy by putting control over education money back into the hands of the taxpayers and, most importantly, the parents.

Under the current system, the Federal Government essentially bribes States into complying with the burdensome No Child Left Behind program. Yes, States can opt out of these regulations, but doing so would mean losing millions of dollars in aid every year.

Under its bill, first it will free States from following needless Federal regulations and mandates. Currently, the No Child Left Behind program restricts academic innovation and ignores the diversity present in each State, region and school district.

Secondly, A-PLUS Act will reduce the amount of time and money that school officials currently devote to complying with these mandates. Each

hour and dollar spent in administering No Child Left Behind could be funneled instead into improving our schools.

Thirdly, A-PLUS Act will ensure that parents, schools and the States are held accountable for the education process. Rather than allowing oversight to rest in some far-flung bureaucracies here in Washington, it will be right at home here in your local school district. But most importantly, giving States the freedom to keep their education dollars in oversight within their own State is exactly what our Founding Fathers originally intended.

James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution, will be remembered this coming Friday, March 16, on the 250th anniversary of his birth.

In a way, Madison predicted this situation we now find ourselves in, when he wrote, ``In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''

It is time for us to explain why we are not controlling ourselves. Our Founding Fathers deliberately wrote a Constitution of enumerated specific powers. While some countries have attempted to limit government by writing Constitutions that specify every single thing and every single line, our government Constitution does not do that. Therefore, in Article I, Section 8, the founders specifically listed congressional powers, and in the 10th amendment grants that all other legislative powers are in the hands of States or the people respectively.

So, in essence, it makes sense that Congress should perform duties only prescribed by the Constitution. When you think about it, the United States has thrived as a nation precisely because the freedom of the people has been protected by a limited government. The Constitution is the anchor that protects American citizens from the storms of a controlling central government.

James Madison wrote also in The Federalist No. 45, ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.'' He would add, probably, that education is not one of them. So Mr. Hoekstra's common-sense legislation follows Madison's insights by ensuring that the States have the opportunity to retain control over their own education dollars. Doing so will not only improve the quality of the education system, but will help return our Nation to the principles of limited government, federalism, and the 10th amendment.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to announce our support of the Enumerated Powers Act authored by our good friend from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. As the founder and chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, I urge my fellow Members to cosponsor this legislation.

Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: ``The Senators and Representatives before mentioned . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.'' On January 4, each of us followed this constitutional mandate and swore such an oath. Yet in the past two months, we have passed legislation without first considering the very document that grants us legislative authority. As a result, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on programs and projects that overstep the constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government. And personal freedoms and State priorities are being overshadowed or even forgotten.

Unfortunately, this trend is not new to the 110th Congress. In recent decades, there has been a sharp escalation of funding for existing Federal programs and creation of new ones. The bloated bureaucracy we have today is certainly not the type of central government envisioned by our forefathers. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1808 letter, ``The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.''

It is time for us to explain our distribution of taxpayer dollars. Our constituents should be assured that we are upholding the document that protects their freedoms. Otherwise, the Federal Government will continue to overstep its boundaries, encroaching on the freedom of the people.

Our Founding Fathers deliberately wrote a constitution of enumerated powers. While some countries have attempted to limit government by writing constitutions that specify every single area in which the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction, the framers knew that such a constitution would be unnecessarily tedious. Therefore, in Article I, Section 8, the founders specifically listed congressional powers. The 10th Amendment grants all other legislative powers to the states.

It makes sense that Congress should perform only the duties prescribed by the Constitution. The United States has thrived as a nation precisely because the freedom of the people has been protected by a limited government. The Constitution is the anchor that protects American citizens from the storms of a controlling central government.

James Madison assured early Americans in The Federalist No. 45 that ``the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.'' Madison continued to operate under that belief even after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, his last act as president was to veto the Bonus Bill, which authorized federal funds for public works projects.

Today, Members justify passing legislation that is even more expansive than the Bonus Bill. They argue that Article 1, Section 8 allows us to pass any legislation, as long as it provides for the ``general Welfare'' or is ``necessary and proper.'' Madison would have been appalled by our liberal interpretation of these terms. In The Federalist No. 41 he asked, ``For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?''

James Wilson, the author of the General Welfare clause explained to the Pennsylvania ratification convention that the words ``necessary and proper'' are ``limited, and defined by the following, 'for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution.''

For these reasons, Madison explained that he could not sign the Bonus Bill unless an amendment allowing such an expenditure were first added to the Constitution.

Mr. Shadegg's commonsense legislation follows Madison's logic by ensuring that every bill introduced in the u.s. Congress include a statement declaring the specific constitutional authority under which the law is proposed to be enacted. Following such a guideline would help return our nation to the principles of limited government, Federalism, and the 10th Amendment. And, such a principle is not only consistent with our oath, but it is also a smarter use of our constituents' tax dollars.

The Enumerated Powers Act will stem the flow of unconstitutional legislation by compelling Members to reconsider the intended role of the Federal Government. I strongly urge all members of the Constitution Caucus to co-sponsor this legislation. Congress must begin to justify its actions to the states, local governments, and, ultimately, the people themselves.