Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this late evening, dedicated defender of the Constitution, to engage, as we do each Thursday evening, part of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend work period.

Tonight I am here to discuss a topic that has been in the media for some time of late, earmarks and the appropriate role that your tax dollars and the Federal Government should have with them. I am here to inject just another thought into this discussion. While Members enjoy the opportunity to brag about all the money that they bring home to their districts through earmarks, you have to ask the question, is the process of earmarking really the best for all parties involved, for the States, for the districts, for the projects, for the people who eventually receive those monies?

Remember this: Money for earmarks is not new money we order to be printed from the Bureau of Engraving every time we pass an appropriation bill. It is, of course, simply dollars that have been taken from the Treasury, money that has been collected from Federal taxes, money that has been raised, obviously, by the hardearned taxpayers back home and sent to Washington D.C.

Also, those listening to a dialogue also have to remember that it is simply not a dollar-for-dollar cycle. Some of that money that we spent is spent on fees and expenses and Federal employees' salaries. The Federal Government, as big as ours is, believe it or not, is expensive to run.

Finally, money is not distributed to all the States evenly or in proportion to those States. For example, I come from the State of New Jersey. A hardworking person in our State works all day, earns his money, raises a dollar, sends that dollar to Washington D.C., hoping to return back to the State of New Jersey, in equal amount, a dollar for purposes in that State. Instead, New Jersey receives only 54 cents on the dollar. That, my friends, is the dollars and cents of the issue.

Now, let me bring you a little bit closer to home in terms of the mission of our caucus and what we are talking about tonight. That is the question of who really is best able to decide how these dollars are spent?

Now, when you think about it, when you send your tax dollars to Washington, you back at home lose all control over it, even if it is spent on what you would say is the intended best purpose or interest. This is just a little brief history or discussion on how it all works. It is spent here in D.C. Requests are submitted. They are vetted in committee, discussed on the floor, amended by Members from all over the country, way far away from where that issue may be back in your hometown, negotiating in conference with the Senate, and then, if you are lucky, maybe a little sliver of that comes back to your own district. But this money they ultimately receive might not fund your community's greatest priority or need. It might just simply be funding a project that is, well, politically popular here in D.C. or simply a project that is able to make its way through the system.

I am here to promote that there might be a better way to do this. But, you know, I don't really have to do that because our Founding Fathers were the ones to set out what the best way was. The 10th amendment really does that for us. This, of course, is the amendment that limits the powers of the Federal Government; all those powers not delegated specifically to the Federal Government are retained by the States respectively. That is where the best allocation of those dollars would be.

The Founding Fathers understood, which explains why they authored this amendment, that decisions are most effectively made at the most local level possible, that the types of projects that earmarks usually fund, roads, bridges, environmental projects, would be better served if it is money that was kept in State in the first place. The decision on how those dollars are spent would be made by the local residents right there at home. Here in Washington, those decisions are made by bureaucrats through layers of red tape with political consequences always in mind. But at back at home, those decisions are made for what is best for the people back up there.

In closing, let me just mention this, that limited government really isn't just an ideology of policy wonks here in Washington or politicians any place; it isn't just an idea that was proposed by some rich white men over 200 years ago in this country when it was discovered by our Nation. It is a system of government that will have the best results for all for whom government is supposed to serve, the people who gave it the authority to act in their interest in the first place.

With that, I come to a conclusion and to wish everyone a safe return after this Memorial Day weekend.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the gentlemen from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Also, before I begin, I just want to thank the chairman for all of your hard work that you put into the committee and into this bill, and all of the members of the committee.

And may I also echo the words as far as those members of the committee and the staff who do not normally get their names mentioned on the floor for their work; as the former chairman, I know there are many people behind the scenes that do not get recognized and I appreciate your recognizing those people of your committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I also want to voice my strong support of the Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program. The chairman may know that

I thank the gentlemen for his support.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use my entire 5 minutes.

This is an amendment on an appropriations bill that we have seen in some other ones that have passed previously, and it goes to the issue of how we have addressed over the last couple of days spending.

Regardless of which side of the aisle that you may come from, I think Members from both sides of the aisle will agree with one thing, and that is that our deficits are too high. When we are spending our taxpayers' dollars, we must be ever vigilant to be sure we are spending them wisely. Again, this amendment is a commonsense limitation on those hard-earned tax dollars.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his comments, and I will then conclude my remarks simply by saying that this is an issue that has already been addressed in the Senate, somewhat extensively, pointing out the egregious examples in the past where extraordinary numbers of Federal employees have gone on international conferences.

So what the amendment simply does, at the end of the day, is put a finite number on that. In this bill it limits it down to 50 conferees to attend any international conference. We believe that is a reasonable number. We believe that any agency will be able to

live within those numbers, and again I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of this amendment.

While those on each side of the aisle may differ on how we got there, I think that most Members of this body agree that our deficit is far too high.

That is why the amendment I am offering is a commonsense approach to help limit spending and abuse of all of our constituent's hard-earned tax dollars.

My amendment will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this bill to 50. The amendment also limits that dollar amount that can be spent to $8.2 million, which is the level spent in FY01. We have seen about a 25 percent increase between then and FY05, far too great an increase while we are operating with such high deficits.

Recently there has been a trend by our government to send a far excessive amount of staff to these international conferences, costing taxpayers millions of extra dollars.

While like all of my colleagues, I understand the importance of staff, I am simply seeking to make sure that only essential staff are utilized during these expensive foreign conferences.

While one more staffer here, and one more staffer there doesn't sound like much, it could mean one more shift a worker in my district has to work instead of being home with his family.

Due to my limited time I won't bore the floor with all the egregious examples. But I will note that unfortunately these conferences are a pattern of excess government.

This amendment has passed in various appropriations bills and is an excellent way to show this body's commitment to fiscal responsibility. I urge all of my colleagues' support.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise again this afternoon for what I believe is a commonsense and important amendment to the legislation before us; commonsense simply because at the end of the day all the amendment does is to say we should be enforcing the current law.

As it stands right now, 8 U.S.A., section 1183, states that an affidavit must be filed by a sponsor of an incoming alien to the country. That affidavit is a legally binding guarantee on the part of the sponsor that the immigrant that they are sponsoring will not become a ``public charge.'' What I am citing here is nothing new. This public charge requirement goes all the way back to immigration policy of the 1880s.

So what this amendment does today is simply restate that in strong terms saying that no funds appropriated under this act, under the Food Stamp Program, will be spent in noncompliance of current Federal law. The reason we do this is to reinforce the fact that the laws on the books should be enforced.

And, secondly, it addresses another point as well. Some people might argue that there is not enough money in the Food Stamp Program for all of the needs that are out there, and we can debate that from one side to the other. But if you honestly believe that there isn't enough money out there for the entire Food Stamp Program, I think we all agree from both sides of the aisle that the money in the program should be going to the people that it was intended for in compliance with the statute and in compliance with current law.

So on that, I will conclude by saying we are asking nothing more than the Food Stamp Program currently in existence today comply with the laws set forth.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

I appreciate that, and I will be very brief, just to say that Members on both sides of the aisle may disagree on exactly how we got to this point, but I think most people will agree that our deficit in this country is too high.

If people watched TV last night and watched the debates on the floor with regard to our budget, there was much disagreement on our spending levels and the like. But one thing we all came to agreement on at the end of the evening is that we are spending too much and that when we spend too much it creates a deficit. So when we can at an appropriate time try to limit and rein in those spendings, I think that is an appropriate and common sense approach to do that. To do that we have this amendment.

This amendment is basically to say that when Federal agencies travel overseas on international conferences there should be some limit as to how many members and their staff goes. The amendment picks out a reasonable number and that is 50.

No one would disagree with the fact that we should attend international conferences and no one would disagree with the fact that we should allow staff to go to them. Our amendment simply says that only essential staff should attend those conferences, and we therefore set a limited number.

I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to this amendment in past legislation, and I certainly appreciate the fact that the amendment once again is agreed to by the chairman at this point in time as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a hero and a patriot who was killed while defending our Nation in Iraq. Army Specialist Armer N. Burkart died this week when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle.

This brave 26-year-old soldier was serving as a gunner with the 1st Battalion of the 10th Division based at Fort Drum in New York. Prior to this tour in Iraq, Specialist Burkart served for nearly a year in Afghanistan.

Specialist Burkart's father, John, says that Armer ``was proud to be in the Army. He volunteered for combat. . .he had a nice safe position which he chose to give up.'' This extraordinary young man had always wanted to be in the Army, following in his grandfathers' tradition of military service in the Navy. In fact, even as a high school student, he served in the ROTC.

America should be grateful for Armer Burkart's honorable service, and we should all remember the heroism of the other men and women who have been serving by his side. America should also be grateful to the loving families these servicemen and women leave behind. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Specialist Burkart's wife, father, and younger brother, as they do to the others who selflessly give of their family time that our Nation and our world may be safe and free.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this, the RSC budget, simply because I care. I care about my constituents, the family budget. I care about American taxpayers everywhere. I care about the fact that they send their money to an overly bloated Federal Government. I care about growing our economy. I care also about the fact that we are growing deficits instead.

Over the last several hours now, we have heard Members from both sides of the aisle agree on one thing, and that is that we need to reduce Federal spending, lower our deficits, balance the budget. This budget plan will do that.

At the end of the day when all the rhetorical smoke clears, we are left with the fact that deficits will burden our children. My kids, your kids, our grandkids, American taxpayers today will all be burdened. So we can no longer simply afford to push this issue off into the future. We need to address it now.

I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee and on the RSC as well, and I am not going to stand here and say that this is a perfect budget. But I will say it is a good budget, a budget that will do what it says it will do, rein in Federal spending, get us to a balanced budget. And anyone who wishes to reduce deficits should support this, the RSC budget.

Mr. Chairman, like many proud parents this spring, I will be attending with my family the joyous occasion of watching my oldest daughter graduate high school. Unfortunately, due to this, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to participate in afternoon votes on Thursday, May 11, 2006.

I wish to submit the following statement as to my position on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that I am proud to support and would have given a strong yeah vote had personal matters not called my away from our nation's capital.

I commend this body, including the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, for their work on crafting this authorization for our Department of Defense that will protect our troops as they ensure for the safety and security of Americans and our allies at home and abroad.

The men and women serving and who have served in our armed forces are true American heroes. We must do what we can to give them the tools to win the War on Terrorism and win it safely.

My heart and prayers go out to all who risk so much defending our liberties and freedoms. I wish all a safe and speedy return home to their friends and families.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight and I begin by commending the gentleman from Utah for his efforts every week as we take part in the process of bringing back to the American people the importance of the U.S. Constitution as part of the Constitution Caucus.

At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas to make a point with regard to his very important legislation that he was referring to, H.R. 3499.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to remember that expression of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson addressed the issue of education. One of the points of the Constitutional Caucus is to take a look at what does the Constitution actually say as to what the role of the Federal Government is.

As we discuss education, we should ask: Is the role of the Federal Government in the area of education? I would hazard a guess it is not. Thomas Jefferson was asked that question as a Founding Father of this country. He was asked the question: Why is it the Federal Government is not involved in education?

His response to that question was: as soon as the Constitution is amended to include language giving us that power, we will be involved in education. Of course, the Constitution has never been amended to allow the Federal Government to involve itself in education. Neither the word ``education'' nor ``school'' is anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

With that being said, no one here, not the gentleman from Utah, the gentleman from Texas, nor the gentlewoman from North Carolina would ever make the statement that education is not important. We all agree about the importance of quality education in all 50 States. We just believe there is a better way, and that is return control of education to the local authorities, local school boards, and to the parents.

One of the problems when we look at the issues out there, people put a test of importance on the issue. Just because an issue is important, does that mean that the Federal Government should become involved? Again, I would look back to what the Founders said. There was never a test of importance by the Founding Fathers as far as the Constitution is concerned. They did not say if something is important, therefore the Federal Government should become involved. Rather, is it constitutional?

Each night here, when we pull out our card to vote, we should ask ourselves: Is it in the Constitution? Is it constitutional?

In the area of education, it is not. We have lost control of education from the State level to the Federal level. Lest anyone think that we are doing a better job of this, I refer them back to the 1960s when the ESEA, Elementary Secondary Education Act, was first put into place, when education standards in this country were some of the highest. Since that time, the Federal Government's role has increased dramatically, and we have seen where that has brought us. The level of education in this country, unfortunately, has gone down.

That is why I am a proud supporter of H.R. 3499. It will return control to the people who are in the best position to exercise that authority: parents, local school boards, localities, and the States. I know also when you talk to those people who are on the front line, they will tell us of all of their frustration they have dealing with Federal mandates and with all of the Federal strings and controls.

In New Jersey, I asked exactly how much money are you getting from the Federal Government. In our State, I don't know how it is in other States, we get around three cents on the dollar from the Federal Government. In return for those three pennies, the Federal Government is basically exercising all of this control, all of this regulation that the local school board must comply with or else. And that is why H.R. 3499 is so important. H.R. 3499 will return that authority back to the local school board.

They will be in the position to say do we have to comply with these Federal regulations or not. I would hazard to guess in many instances local school boards will tell their legislators, we do not want to have to comply with all these Federal regulations. We do not want the legislation to go in that direction.

I conclude by reminding this House and the Federal Government that we should look to the U.S. Constitution for direction, is it constitutional in the area of education, and leave it to the appropriate parties. I again commend the gentleman from Texas for his excellent work in moving in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from California for your work.

It is critical that we scrutinize lobbying activities to help restore the confidence of the American people in their government. And this bill makes real progress addressing some recent high-profile scandals that have basically rocked American confidence in government. In fact, it includes one of the proposals I introduced several months ago requiring lobbyists to itemize their reports so we know how much money lobbyists spend on Members and their staff. You know, we do this in campaign finance, and the same openness should apply to these transactions. And I thank the gentleman for including that proposal in this package.

But, you know, looking at lobbyists and lobbying reforms is only part of the process. We have to look also at the way we behave as well in this House. In particular, Congress must address earmarks.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my fervent hope that we would not simply stop with earmark reform for appropriation bills. As authorization bills and tax bills often include infamous and egregious earmarks, we should seek to make these processes open and honest as well. Again, I am not opposed to earmarks in general. I think that the legislative branch has a role to play in this area. It is not simply an area for the executive branch to play. But it is an area where the transparency and the light of day should shine on all earmarks. Transparency will then make sure that the good ones rise to the top and actually will be passed and the other ones which are not so good will obviously fall by the wayside.

If I may add one other comment, Mr. Chairman. As this legislation goes through the process, I am a little bit concerned about GSEs and government-sponsored entities, and I would commend the gentleman to look as it goes through the process as we revisit this in conference.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join in celebrating the anniversary of Israel's independence. Israel is one of America's closest allies. We rely on her good will in our War on Terror. We enjoy mutually beneficial economic agreements. And, we value Israel as the only functioning democracy in the world's most volatile region.

On May 14, 1948, or the fifth day of the month of Iyar, which is the Hebrew date of the formal establishment of the State, members of the ``provisional government'' read and signed a Declaration of Independence in Tel Aviv. After decades of no homeland, the State of Israel was finally returned to the Jewish people. This year will mark the 58th anniversary of ``Yom Ha'atzmaut'' or Independence Day.

Yom Ha'atzmaut in Israel is always preceded by Yom Hazikaron-- Memorial Day for the Fallen Soldiers. The message of linking these two days is clear: Israelis owe their independence--the very existence of the State--to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for it, a sentiment not lost on Americans.

The official transition from Yom Hazikaron to Yom Ha'atzmaut is a moving event that takes place a few minutes after sundown with a ceremony on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem in which the flag is raised from half staff to the top of the pole. The President of Israel delivers a speech of congratulations, and soldiers representing the army, navy, and air force parade with their flags.

I wish our good companion, Israel, safety and security, prosperity and good fortune over the upcoming year. I vow to continue standing with you and working to ensure that the friendship between our two great nations remains strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true leader and visionary, the Honorable Eleanore Nissley of Ridgewood, New Jersey. Eleanore is being honored for her outstanding civic contributions by the Center for Civic Responsibility next week. It is an honor richly deserved and long overdue.

Eleanore Nissley has been a shining star in New Jersey politics and community life for 40 years. She served as Bergen County's Republican Committeewoman and has offered her talents and political acumen to candidates and campaigns at every level. In fact, given the integral role Mrs. Nissley has played in New Jersey politics, the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women named her Woman of the Year. Her longtime friend and President of the NJFRW, Dot Romaine calls Eleanore ``the epitome of the Republican woman.''

A native of Rutherford and an avid sports fan, Eleanore has served on the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. Eleanore also gives her time and energy to the Boy Scouts, and she serves on the Board of Directors for the Interchange Bank.

One would think, Mr. Speaker, with all that Eleanore Nissley gives to her community that she hasn't a spare moment to herself. But, in fact, Mrs. Nissley's business abilities are equally renowned. And, Eleanore is committed first and foremost to her family. The mother of four and grandmother of many, Eleanore always finds time to devote to her loving lineage.

I am pleased beyond words, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to add my thanks and praise to this chorus as well. Eleanore Nissley has time and time again given me advice and counsel that is priceless. I value Eleanore's friendship. And, I look forward to years of working with her to make North Jersey an even better place to live and work and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to, first of all, commend the work of a gentleman from whom we will be hearing shortly, the gentleman from Utah, for his efforts to come to the floor on a regular basis to lead the charge of the Constitutional Caucus to return the focus of this House and also the American public on what our Founding Fathers intended, and that is the basis of this country, the U.S. Constitution; and also to rise to commend the work of a Member from Texas who has just previously spoken on his efforts toward that goal and his aim on his legislation that he spoke to previously just a few moments ago on setting up a Sunset Commission in order to try to rein in this ever-growing government that we have today.

We know this government has been growing over recent years. If we can go back to 1925 when then-President Calvin Coolidge said then, when the government was as small as it was at that point in time, he said, quote, government is growing, quote, to encumber the national government beyond its wisdom to comprehend or its ability to reach alternatives and to advocate for the people, end quote. Even then in 1925, Calvin Coolidge realized the government had far exceeded the merits the Founding Fathers intended for this country.

Today we see it as well. Today, of course, we have official reports to confirm the same thing. GAO recently came out with a report and certified and stated that the GAO cannot certify the government's financial records for the last 8 years in a row. They say there are weak accounting practices, mismeasurements and mismanagement of assets and liability and costs. We see that today.

Why is this that we see this? Because of certain problems in different areas. The size of government has grown tremendously, we have cause to understand. There is a sense today that a larger government will meet the requirements of the citizens today because one size fits all. We know that in practical life that does not ring true, nor does it ring true when we have a country today of over 300 million people and a government that has tried to meet it with one-size-fits-all philosophy.

We see it also in a sense that a government is not like a business. You know, in the private sector, there are certain economies of scale. As a business grows bigger, there are economies of scale that makes it more efficient. That is not the case with the government. There are no such economies of scale.

Instead, there is a lacking of coordination. There is an overlapping of agencies, and, again, what we have to do is look to recent GAO reports that just recently came out. This case, in the case of FEMA, overlapping of the agencies, of other agencies, mismanagement in the agencies, we saw that this agency could not deal with the circumstances that came before it.

Our Founding Fathers understood this. Thomas Jefferson realized that as the government grows, he said, quote, the natural process of things in government is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. Government has gained ground in too many specific areas, and our liberty has been yielding. Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas for his efforts to try to rein in that size of the government.

I would just make some suggestions as we go forward with that piece of legislation. What we need to do, I believe, is make sure that legislation has some real teeth to it to be able to get the job done. We know that there is already outside organizations that are always looking at the Federal Government to see to it whether it is being efficient or not.

We need an agency within the Federal Government that will have teeth, be able to get the job done. It needs more than just to analyze it. One of the ways we can do that is to have that Sunset Commission have a BRAC-like formula to it so that way it will be easier for the proposals to come to Congress, just like we did with the BRAC Commission to have simply an up-or-down vote on those agencies that are no longer doing their job and those agencies are just simply not getting the job done.

But we have to go a little bit further than that, because we are not simply looking at duplication of services and efficiencies. We also have to add one additional criteria to that BRAC-like commission for the Sunset Commission. That is a very fundamental one, and that is the question, are the agencies that this Commission is going to be looking at, are the agencies doing something that they have the legal right to do? That is to say, do they

have the constitutional right to do what they are doing right now?

You know, it is not enough to say that it is efficient. It is not enough to say that it is not duplicating services someplace else. It has to be legal in what it is doing. When Members of Congress come to vote each day on floor, we bring out these little cards, and we put them in the little slot here. I think every Member of Congress every time he votes should be asking that question: Is it legal, is it constitutional? And that is exactly what the Sunset Commission should be doing as well.

I will just conclude on this, Mr. Speaker. A former Member from years ago, Barry Goldwater, came to speak once, and he said that when he came to Washington, he did not come to Washington to make it more efficient or to streamline it. He came to Washington to eliminate it. The Founding Fathers had the exact same idea. They did not mean that our Federal Government should be simply an inefficient government of exceeding abilities of powers, but should be a limited one by our Constitution. That is what the Constitutional Caucus is all about. That is what the Sunset Commission can do as well. I applaud the Member for advocating that and moving along with that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

This Act authorizes the President to offer further assistance to the African Union Mission in Sudan to protect civilians and humanitarian operations. It also provides the President the authority to impose sanctions on those individuals who have committed acts of genocide and calls on the international community to contribute more aid to end this horrific crisis.

The United States and our allies must do whatever we can to help end the atrocities that have been occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan over the last four years. During that time over 400,000 southern Sudanese Christians have been massacred and over 1.6 million people have been permanently displaced from their homes.

To this day, the Sudanese government in the north is continuing to attempt to ``ethnically cleanse'' this area of its Christian population. These serious violations of international human rights and law--not to mention, plain human decency--must be stopped.

The rest of the world must put pressure on the individuals and institutions involved to put an immediate end to these crimes without regard to their economic or political interests in the area. Human life must be the guiding factor.

I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Chris Smith and Donald Payne, both of whom are from my home state of New Jersey. I also thank Chairman Hyde for his tireless efforts on this legislation as well and ask that all of my colleagues support H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I come to the floor today to speak to a very important issue, and that is the issue of port security.

I have been listening to the debate, and much of the debate is on the positive impacts that this budget will have on the economy and on the family budget, which is where the focus should always be in our lives here and not so much on the Federal budget. The positive impact that this budget will mean is it will have more money in the family budget, more money that the families have to decide where they want to spend it, as opposed to where Washington wants to spend it.

But let me suggest, as secure as a family can be in their economic situation, that truly is of no moment if they are not secure at home and in their business from a physical point of view,

if we do not have strong homeland security in all that we do, if economic security does not rise to that merit of importance. That is why I support what we have done in this House and in this Chamber and in this conference and in this budget with regard to homeland security and with regard to border security as well.

When it comes to the overall perspective of homeland security, look at what we are doing in this budget. While other aspects maybe have been frozen, as far as spending on homeland security, we are seeing a 3.8 percent increase in spending; and that is as it should be because we are setting the priority in the right manner.

Now, I do represent the Fifth Congressional District of the State of New Jersey, the nice part of New Jersey, the very top of it, from river to river, from the Hudson River to the Delaware River. My district is one that lives in the shadows of the Twin Towers and 9/11. Mine is a district that overlooks the Hudson River. Mine is a district that overlooks that river with two significant ports, Port of Newark and Port of Elizabeth.

So anything that occurs with regard to homeland security is of paramount interest to my security. Anything that occurs with regard to our ports obviously is of paramount interest in my district as well, whether it is the fact that the people in my district work at those ports or that the containers come through our district. What happens there is important.

What happens overall to our security is important in my district. What happens overall to security of our borders is important, but the ports are the gateway into this country; and for that reason, we have to do everything we can to make sure they are secure. This budget does do that.

As I say, a 3.8 percent increase in homeland security, plus specifically on ports, we are seeing the Container Port Security program, that is the CPS program, has grown from $61 million in fiscal year 2004 to $137 million in fiscal year 2006.

What does that mean? That means an average annual increase of 49.9 percent, almost a 50 percent annual increase, in port security, appropriately setting where the priorities should be.

Really, Mr. Chairman, that comes down to what we are talking about here. What this budget does do is set priorities. It sets priorities in what is important, economic security, homeland security; and I congratulate the chairman for setting the appropriate points.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Utah who just spoke previously, a fellow member of the Congressional Constitutional Caucus, who had indicated that we come to this floor on a regular basis to address what the Founding Fathers intended with the American public and the other Members of this body, their intention for the framework of the Constitution and the framework of the government of the various levels.

James Madison stated in Federalist Papers No. 45 that the role of the Federal Government is limited and defined, whereas that of the States and the people, their powers are broad and numerous.

To remind this body, the caucus' function primarily is to focus upon the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which in essence says that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively.

When you read that and when you think about that, it is really pretty simple what the founders were trying to do there. And when the Constitution was ratified in 1787, they probably thought it was pretty simple, too. They thought they had probably in place a plan that would be existing for future generations would understand that the role of the Federal Government would be limited, that the sovereignty of the States and of the people would be respected. They probably thought to themselves that there is probably no way that they could have written it even more clearly than they did; that future Congresses should follow suit, should be ones to limit what the Federal Government does, and to retain to the people and the States what their responsibilities are.

Unfortunately, if you simply look out any of the windows of this building on this growing city that we have before us in Washington, D.C., you see representative of what is a growing Federal Government in all facets of our life. I am sure that our founding fathers would be disappointed in the largesse of the government, the excessive spending, the number of line items that is now in the budget. As a matter of fact, the budget is something that we were just debating and discussing on the floor of this House for a number of hours. I serve on the Budget Committee and have the opportunity to discuss it there as well.

What would our Founding Fathers think if they were to see our spending levels today? Would they ask the question that I think we all should be asking: Is it inconsistent the size and scope that the government has grown to today? Is it inconsistent in the nature of the spending that the government has grown to today?

If the Founding Fathers were with us today, I think they would give us a resounding no to what we are doing. They would say that it is inconsistent, that we have grown too large.

But we are all leaving here now and going back to our districts. Many Members will be going back and using this time to get involved with the media. We are actually in a 24/7 media cycle in this country now with the advent of all the communications that we have, whether it is in press and press releases or whether it is going on the radio or TV or e-mail. Many Members use this as an opportunity simply to go back to their district and to brag about all the money that the Federal Government is spending, all the new areas that they are enveloping as far as their responsibilities, just as the one that the gentleman from Utah was just talking about as far as the delineation of wetlands and how it impacts upon the people back at home.

Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared, that we have grown so far apart from where the money comes from and where it is spent. Their goal was that the money should be spent closest to the people. That way, the people would have the greatest voice in how it was going to be spent. Unfortunately, we have just the opposite today. The inverse is true instead.

Let me just give you a couple examples that come to mind. Think about your local board of education and the schooling. Parents know who their teachers are, parents know who the principals are, parents know who the board of education is in their town that run their schools. But do parents know who the bureaucrats are down here in Washington, D.C. that now control education dollars that go back to those schools? People back at home know about the pothole in their front streets, people back at home know the name of their local mayor who may be responsible for making sure that street is paved. But do people know who the bureaucrats are in the U.S. Department of Transportation who are responsible for the transportation dollars that may or may not get back to their town to fix their potholes, but may instead go to someplace as the infamous bridge to nowhere?

Maybe this is exactly what our Founding Fathers were thinking of when they were looking at a government so far away across a broad ocean in England, and realizing that that English government was no longer connected to our government here, and so that is why they put the limits on it that they did.

We could go down with other examples, with the growing deficit that we have today, with the subpar service that we have in such agencies as FEMA, and ad infinitum as far as this

goes, as far as the overgrowth and the problems that they have.

I just simply ask that our Members do this, and I think that the American public should be asking that their Members do as well: Is what we do the best for the schools? Best for medicine? Best for care best? For bridges? Best for all other services? Is it in line with what our constitutional framework says and what our Founding Fathers intended?