Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I think it would be instructive to my colleague to realize what we are doing is saying the agency doesn't have the right to continue to cherry-pick. Fourteen suggestions 3 years ago; we have been waiting for 2 years. They have said eight were approved. What we have is businesses who would like to expand the business, businesses that would like to bring American products to the American marketplace, and the third-party testing burden is placed on these businesses. The CPSC is not doing their job to create the right environment. I would encourage everyone to support this amendment. Let's make certain that these agencies do their job and work with the industry to be certain that we create the environment for jobs growth to take place in this country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very simple amendment. As the Clerk read, you saw it is just two lines. Let's reduce another $2 million of that IRS enforcement account, and let's move this over to help another Federal agency do its job. Because we have had one agency that is making life difficult for taxpayers and business owners, now let's have an agency that is supposed to be doing their job. Let's make certain that they do it. What we are doing is redirecting this million dollars over to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget for third-party testing relief to assist them in completing and meeting their statutory requirements. What has happened, in August, 2011, Congress passed an amendment to the CPSC Improvement Act mandating that they identify ways to reduce the third-party testing burdens that are facing our American businesses. That was to reduce the burden. After soliciting comments in November of 2011, CPSC staff identified 14 ways in which this could be done. In October of the following year, 2012, they approved eight of the 14 recommendations, suggesting ways that the Commission could move forward. However, as we stand here 2 years later after that period, I am sure few are surprised to hear that CPSC still has not followed through with this mandate. In fact, the only action taken thus far has been a single workshop held on April 3 to identify materials that may not require testing. In fact, the only action taken thus far on these approved recommendations has been to solicit comments from industry on three separate occasions and to hold one workshop. It is clear that the agency has placed the requirements of burden reduction on the industry, not on the bureaucrats at the CPSC. It is important to note why Congress passed our CPSC amendment in the first place. Our current economic situation is indeed dire. It was then and continues to be. The American people depend immensely on our American businesses to provide jobs. Even more so, the American people are depending on us to help create the environment that will spur job growth. The third-party testing burden hinders the ability of these companies to hire more employees and to expand their product lines. It hinders the ability of these businesses to grow the economy. It is detrimental to our workforce. Additionally, the testing hinders Americans who own small businesses, as they are the ones who are having to absorb these extra costs. The Commission claims that these third-party testing regulations are paramount to our safety when, in fact, our domestic industries spend millions of dollars each and every year on unnecessary testing, including on materials known to never contain harmful chemicals. Congress recognized this back in 2011. We took action. We expect the CPSC to follow through and to take the necessary actions. It has been 3 years since the mandate went into effect, and it is time that we encourage the CPSC to get their act together and move forward with the implementation on the mandate.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate their arguments. I am not going to argue with much of what they had to say. Indeed, the committee has met its goal. But to say this is not the context, I would beg to differ with the gentlewoman from Ohio. If we wanted to spur energy production in this country, the President could go out here and do a one-stop shop. He could lift the ban on leases. He could open up U.S. production and exploration. Yes, there is a way to do that, and we would love to see him do that rather than restricting energy production. When it comes to across-the-board cuts, whether it is a Democratic Governor like in Missouri with Nixon or when you have Cuomo in New York, they have done across-the-board cuts. Why do they do them? Because it works. It spurs economic growth. Go back to 1964 with Johnson and the Revenue Act. Why did they lower unemployment and generate revenue growth? Because they cut Federal spending. There is a benefit to getting your fiscal house in order. While we may have set a goal and met that goal, which I applaud, I continue to say it is not going to be enough while we continue the deficit spending. It is time to get our fiscal house in order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition of my amendment, and it is only a two-line amendment. Before I get into the specifics on that amendment, I do want to thank Mr. Dent, the subcommittee chair, and Chairman Rogers for the work they did on another issue on this bill which deals with the Department of Energy rules finalizing for ``Standards for Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and prohibiting money from being used on that regulation because of the impact that it would have on our constituents and on the price of ceiling fans. I appreciate the good work that they have done on that issue. I also appreciate the great work that they have done on this bill. Mr. Chairman, we have got a $34 billion bill in front of us. I so appreciate the work of the appropriators as they have approached this and the responsible manner that they have gone about in bringing this bill forward. It is a bill that is going to spend $50.5 million less than in 2014. That is a good thing. The appropriators are to be commented for that. In addition, it is $326.9 million less than what the President wanted. All of those are the facts and figures. Tonight, this two-line amendment that I have says this is great work, but we have got problems. When you look at the economic situation in this country, when you look at what is happening with our debt, as we are pushing toward that $18 trillion in debt, you have to say: How is it fair for us to keep borrowing money, borrowing money and spending it on Federal programs that are going to be left for our children and grandchildren to pay for? These are programs that many of them will never use. They are programs that will have outlived their usefulness by the time my two grandsons earn their first paycheck. By borrowing and not continuing to cut a little bit more and a little bit more, what we are doing is passing the bill to them. It is passing the buck onto future generations to pay for it. My amendment is another 1 percent across-the-board cut. It would be another $341 million in savings. What it says, very simply, to all of our agencies that are involved in this bill, everybody, a penny on the dollar; just reduce your spending by one penny on a dollar. Get in here, challenge yourselves, challenge your employees to save a cent, one penny, out of what they have been appropriated. Do it responsibly. And do it not only for the sovereignty of this Nation; do it for our children and our grandchildren. Don't burden them with debt. What is happening with all this Nation's debt is the ultimate cap- and-trade. What we are doing is capping our children's future and trading it, trading it. While there has been tremendous work done and our Republican-led Appropriations Committee is doing work which never has been done and reducing this spending and pulling it back, we need to challenge these agencies to join us in this effort. Just as our businesses in each of our districts are cutting back and saving money, the Federal Government needs to be doing the very same thing. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, today, I am rising in support of H.R. 4836, the Providing Rigorous Oversight to Terminate Extreme Criminal Transfers, or PROTECT, Act. The PROTECT Act is a piece of legislation I have introduced with Congressman Wolf of Virginia. It will ensure that Guantanamo Bay detainees do not ever end up on American soil. The PROTECT Act will prevent the transfer to the United States of Gitmo detainees or any other unprivileged enemy belligerents captured overseas. Current transfer prohibitions are tied to annual funding bills. The PROTECT Act is a long-term solution to the detainee issue and punishes unlawful transfers by up to 5 years in prison. It is supported by the 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. We do need the PROTECT Act. Why do we need it? Because of lawlessness. This administration has demonstrated a pattern of lawless behavior that is creating a constitutional crisis in our Nation. The most recent example of this was the President's failure to notify Congress about the release of the Taliban Five. Make no mistake. The administration fully intends to bring Gitmo detainees to American soil, read them their Miranda rights, and give them access to our civilian courts. Gitmo detainees do not belong here. Their presence would endanger our local communities. We need a solution that will deter this administration from looking for ways around the law. It is important to consider the administration's actions regarding this detainee issue. First, President Obama signed Executive Order No. 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Second, in November 2009, the administration announced 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in New York. It later abandoned the idea. Third, on December 15, 2009, a letter signed by Hillary Clinton and several other administration officials was sent to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, stating the administration's intent to bring Gitmo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. These actions triggered an avalanche of opposition and forced the President to temporarily abandon his plan to bring these Gitmo detainees to the U.S. However, in this year's State of the Union address, the President renewed his pledge to close Gitmo by stating: And, with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Cliff Sloan, an administration special envoy for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, recently told ABC that the administration would have to work with Congress on changing the law so that detainees could be brought here. He stated: For detention and trial and prosecution, we think people should be allowed to be brought to the United States. Our supermax facilities are very secure, and we have hundreds of people convicted of terrorist offenses in our supermax prisons. The President may not like having three branches of government, and he may not like checks and balances, but this system of checks and balances has served our Nation well. His lawless actions are creating a constitutional crisis, and it must stop. Gitmo detainees are coming to American soil unless we pass the PROTECT Act. Its criminal penalties will ensure that the President respects the law. I encourage my colleagues to join me on the PROTECT Act, which includes a transfer prohibition, provides a long-term solution, enacts criminal penalties, and provides an exception for American citizens.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for the diligent work that they have done to do their part to get this funding bill, this appropriations bill, to begin to bring the costs down. I think that it truly shows how dedicated many of us on this side of the aisle are to having government get its spending under control. We all know Washington does not have a revenue problem. It has an acute spending and priority problem. We see it every single day. My constituents in Tennessee see it, and they talk about it a lot. Last week, I heard a lot about the outside spending that takes place in this town, and the thing that really offends my constituents is that Congress spends, D.C. spends money that they don't have. All of it is taxpayer money, and it is so inappropriate that the spending continues to grow year by year, and the taxpayer has to pay more. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that there is something immoral about citizens and taxpayers struggling to live within their means, so they can pay taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means. That is why, every year, I come to the floor and offer bills for 1, 2, and 5 percent across-the-board cuts, and then during appropriations season, I know I kind of wear a path in the carpet here, offering amendments that would cut a penny on the dollar, 1 percent across the board, and that is the nature of this amendment that I offer today. I do it because my constituents know that Washington spends too much money, that we borrow too much money and, therefore, what we are doing is capping and trading our children's future to the people that own our debt because we couldn't be spending it if we weren't borrowing it. Go talk to China, Japan, OPEC, the top holders of our debt, and they own a lot of it right now. They are the ones who will be making the decisions--probably decisions we won't like--and at some point, they may call that bill due. Now, across-the-board spending cuts are not a partisan issue. In 2010, Peter Orszag, who was the President's pick for Director of the Office of Management and Budget, turned to the executive departments and agencies and said: I want you just to go in and cut 5 percent across the board. Governor Christie of New Jersey is well known for turning around that State. It was a 9 percent across-the-board cut; Governor Cuomo of New York, a 10 percent across-the-board cut; Governor Perry of Texas, a 10 percent across-the-board cut. States do it because it works. What it does is it engages the rank- and-file employees who know where you can make these cuts, so I think it is time for the Federal Government to begin to do this. In our history, we have had six across-the-board cuts. They have ranged from 0.22 percent to 1 percent of covered appropriations. At those times, it saved us from $1.1 billion to $8.5 billion. For this bill, we need to be doing the same thing; and yes, we are below the funding levels, to the credit of the appropriators who have worked on this. We are below the 2014 funding levels. That is a good thing, but we need to do a little bit more because we are borrowing way too much. It is time to get our spending under control. I encourage my colleagues to support the 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction to this bill, and let's take one more step to bring this spending problem under control and move to a balanced budget. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleagues of a couple of things. Number one, going back to the letter dated December 15, 2009, it says in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.'' Now, I have to ask my colleagues: Who do you think is going to be there? This is a prison that is empty. It is empty right now. We know what is going to happen. This is going to be used to receive Guantanamo Bay detainees. The 9/11 families support this amendment. It is supported by these families. They do not want to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees here on American soil. They do not want them to have access to our civilian court system. And passing this amendment will save us millions of taxpayer dollars that could end up being used not only to house, not only to give access to the courts, but to pay for lawyers to defend enemies who have taken up arms against our brave men and women in uniform. It was clear from 2009 what the intent was. It said it in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees.'' I encourage support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of my amendment to shut down the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The amendment would prohibit any funds being made available for operations, renovation, or construction at Thomson Correctional. Section 529 of our CJS bill prohibits funds to construct, acquire, or modify a facility in the U.S. to house detainees. However, my amendment goes further, by not allowing any funds for operations at Thomson. In addition, I recognize that CJS also prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. However, the administration has proven resourceful at finding pots of money to achieve their goals. Thomson Correctional Center is ground zero in this debate. As long as it remains operational, we run the risk of seeing Guantanamo Bay detainees on American soil. One of the President's first acts in office was signing Executive Order 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close Guantanamo Bay detention center. The administration has attempted to purchase the facility since 2009 to hold these detainees. We have the letter from December 15 to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, which was signed by several administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating the following: As the President has made clear, we need to continue to detain some individuals currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. To securely house these detainees, Federal agencies plan to work with me and other State officials to acquire the nearly vacant maximum security facility in Thomson, Illinois. It later adds: The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo. Congress passed language in subsequent bills to prevent the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo prisons to the U.S. However, the administration, once again, went behind the intent of Congress and purchased the Thomson facility in 2012 for $165 million, using money from various DOJ accounts. Supposedly, that was to combat prison overcrowding. Mr. Chairman, today, the prison is still empty. President Obama also requested $43.7 million in his fiscal year 2014 budget to begin activating Thomson. I think that we all know that this administration intends to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. When it is shut down, those detainees are going to go somewhere. The handwriting is on the wall. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats have clearly stated their intent to bring those detainees to American soil. I think that it is imperative that we accept this amendment and make certain that there is no money for operational funds for the Thomson facility. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin first by thanking Chairman Wolf for his patience. Every single year, as he has shepherded this appropriations bill, I have come to this floor and offered an amendment that would include a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. He has been very gracious and very kind, even though he opposes. And even though I appreciate the good work that the committees have done to reduce spending and to get these levels down, I believe that we can do more--and that we should be doing more. I think it is admirable that the committee is showing us a 0.8 percent reduction. But if we would pass my amendment, we would save another $400 million. And that is a step that we need to take. I think it is important to realize that this amendment exempts the $8.5 billion budget that is for the FBI. We think it is important that they get that for their vital mission that they conduct every single day in protecting American citizens at home and abroad and in conducting the activities that do help to keep the homeland and our people safe. My amendment will not affect the efforts that are combating terrorism, cyber crime, human trafficking or violent gangs. It is a targeted spending cut that will result in a savings to the taxpayers of over $400 million. Given the $51 billion price tag of this bill, I do not feel that it is asking too much to cut a little bit more. I think it is important to note also that across-the-board spending cuts have worked at the State level. There is no reason not to utilize them here in Washington. We have heard from so many of our Governors and our mayors that have trumpeted the use of across-the-board spending cuts. We have heard Chris Christie, a 9 percent across-the-board spending cut; Rick Perry in Texas, a 5 percent savings. We have Governor Cuomo, who was looking at reducing 10 percent across the board; Schweitzer in Montana, 5 percent across the board. They work, and there is a reason they do--because it is an equitable cut. Mr. Chairman, we are $17 trillion in debt. This is something we can do for our children and our grandchildren and begin to responsibly roll back the amount that the Federal Government spends. At this point in time, we are spending the money that our children have not made for programs that they do not want and will never, ever use. What we need to do is be wise stewards of the taxpayer dollar, now and in the future. I also think this is an idea that the American people are beginning to support. I noted a recent poll--Washington Post-ABC News poll. This was March 6, 2013. Sixty-one percent of the American public actually supports not a 1 percent or a 2 percent, but a 5 percent across-the- board cut in all Federal spending. It is time for us to do a little more to save a little more, to make a few more spending reductions, and to think about what the addition of debt--piling on more debt does to our children and our grandchildren and to their futures. It is, indeed, capping and trading our children's futures to the people that hold our publicly-traded debt. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Chairman McKeon for supporting Congressmen Shimkus, Rokita, and me, in support of adding the DOTCOM Act as an amendment to our National Defense Authorization Act. I support a free market multistakeholder model of Internet governance. In a perfect world, ICANN AND IANA would be free of government control and fully privatized. However, we don't live in a perfect world, and we know full well that China and Russia have a different view of perfection and are willing to aggressively pursue it. Their end goal is to have ICANN and IANA functions migrate to the U.N.'s ITU. Passage of today's NDAA and inclusion of DOTCOM gives the multistakeholder model a chance to succeed, but it does so with congressional oversight. However, if we begin to sense--even for a minute--that that model isn't working, I will be the first Member to call on this body to taken stronger actions. Again, I thank the chairman and my colleagues for bringing this about today.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming for her superb work on this issue and for her guidance as this bill moved through the Natural Resources Committee. It is amazing. We had two committees of jurisdiction that oversaw this legislation, House Admin, chaired by Congresswoman Candice Miller, and Natural Resources, with Congressman Doc Hastings. This legislation came through each of these committees on a unanimous vote--a unanimous vote, something deemed impossible in Washington--but everybody agrees that it is time that we come together and that we have an appropriate, bipartisan approach to addressing the collecting and the enshrining of what women have done in the fight and the cause of freedom. Now, Madam Speaker, I do want to highlight just a couple of things. There has been so much misinformation distributed about the bill. This is a 10-page bill--I should say nine pages and about three lines. I think that Congresswoman Maloney, who has worked so diligently on this effort, will say, and as she and I discussed this morning, we basically have come forward and agreed on a new approach for all museums that could possibly want to be considered. That approach is Congress, not a Presidential commission, but Congress having the ability to determine, in a bipartisan way, who serves on the commissions to review these museums and do a feasibility study, which is something those of us in business always do before we embark on any project. It is appropriate that the Federal Government do that, also. This is a fiscally conservative approach to addressing the cost of a museum. Now, the duties of the commission my colleagues are going to find on page 4, and you will see there are several things that will be covered in this feasibility study: the availability and cost of collections, the impact of the museum on women's regional, history-related museums, potential locations in D.C., whether or not the museum should ever be part of the Smithsonian, the governance and organizational structure, best practices for engaging women in the development and design of the museum, and the cost and construction of operating and maintaining. In other words, they have got to have an endowment. They have to be able to pay their operational costs and their upfront costs--all of it--with private funds--never, ever with one penny of taxpayer money into this project. Now, after 18 months of work, the commission will report back to Congress, an independent review will be done of their work, and then there will be a determination by Congress on whether or not to proceed with this project. That is the point at which there will be a vote on whether or not to carry forth with a museum. But I would highlight with my friends this is about chronicling the history that women have participated in, the freedom and opportunity of this country and the fullness of opportunity in this country. We talk so much about how we work with other nations and especially some of these nations that have struggled in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East, and we show what freedom can do for hope and opportunity for women and children. Wouldn't it be great if we had a museum that told that story? Like the story of the suffragists--Seneca Falls--that convention which--by the way it was Republican and conservative women and the Quakers who called together the Seneca Falls convention to start looking at the issue of suffrage. You probably are also interested to know Frederick Douglass was the one gentleman invited to speak at that convention on suffrage, then, of course, the suffragists who led the fight, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Anne Dallas Dudley--strong Republican women. It is time for that story to be told. The ratification of the 19th Amendment with women receiving the right to vote took place in Nashville, Tennessee, my State, at our State capitol, where I have had the opportunity, and the Speaker has also had the opportunity, to serve. We know that it is important to tell that story of what women have done in the cause of freedom. That is why we have come together to agree on the structure, to work to put a commission in place that will do the necessary due diligence, that will put the safeguards in place, and will guarantee that in perpetuity--forever--there will not be Federal taxpayer money that is spent on this. Madam Speaker, working to highlight what women have accomplished is a worthy goal, and it is something that in a bipartisan manner we should be able to come together and to agree on. This is a goal, and Washington, D.C., is an appropriate place that we can recognize this history, we can chronicle this history, and for future generations, our children, our grandchildren, and for other nations as they come to see us, they can see how women find victory through freedom, opportunity, and the doors that open and what it allows them to experience in their lives. I thank the chairman from Wyoming for yielding the time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I seek the opportunity to have a colloquy with Chairman Cole. I thank them for their work, the chairman and his staff, the work they have put into the legislation they are bringing before us this morning. As a member of the Congressional Yellow Pages Caucus, I strongly believe that if an activity is available from a private company that can be found in the Yellow Pages, it should either not be a responsibility carried out by the Federal Government or, at the very least, performed by a private firm under contract with the Federal Government. It is in that spirit that Congress needs to begin the process of leveling the playing field between the Government Printing Office, the GPO, and private industry. Nowhere is the overreach of the GPO and its statutory authority, found in title 44 of the United States Code, more egregious than in the area of secure Federal credentials. Consider this: title 44 was codified in 1968. Secure credentials, produced by the private sector, first appeared about 30 years later and then became pervasive after 9/11. I can't imagine that policymakers in the sixties could have ever envisioned title 44 expanding beyond the printing of copies of the Federal Register or the Declaration of Independence to cover credentials, let alone secure credentials, as the kind of printed products the GPO has traditionally produced. The GPO's statutory monopoly on this issue has been challenged by numerous reports by the GAO and groups such as the National Performance Review. Secure credentials are a world apart from the products that GPO has traditionally produced and should not be subject to title 44. I hope that we can take steps to define a clear role for the GPO, create competition, and ensure that the private secure credentials industry and companies like MorphoTrust in Tennessee can perform these functions that the GPO has no business in carrying out.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the passage of this reaffirmation of the Taiwan Relations Act and to the longstanding relationship between the United States and Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act, TRA, helped codify our pledge to the people of Taiwan and serves as a reminder that the continued support and strengthening of U.S.-Taiwan relations aids our mutual interests and shared values. Over the last few decades, Taiwan has emerged as a global leader in innovative technology and the heart of Asia's IT and Knowledge Economy sectors. Through the implementation of sound free-market policies and promotion of democratic ideals, we have seen a small agrarian economy transform itself into a growing global leader in the technology sector. Taiwan is now the world's second largest producer of ICT goods, and companies like Acer and HTC are now household names. Our mutually beneficial cooperation and exchange with Taiwan has helped dozens of American companies meet their ever-growing demand for equipment and expertise. The partnerships between American and Taiwanese innovators and job creators ensured a virtuous cycle of economic development in Taiwan and lower costs for American consumers. The U.S. should welcome Taiwanese participation in efforts to advance regional economic integration, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership. Taiwan is one of the region's most dynamic economies and its entry into the TPP will substantially expand the market encompassed by the agreement. Additionally, Taiwan's recent experience transitioning from a developing, domestically focused economy to a globally integrated economy will be invaluable as TPP partners make difficult choices and reforms to comply with higher standards set by TPP. As a longstanding friend of Taiwan, I am proud to voice my support for this resolution today. Few could have foreseen the political and economic progress that Taiwan has undergone since 1979. Our commitment to broadening and deepening our commercial and investment linkages with Taiwan will ensure that the spirit of the TRA endures and contributes to mutual prosperity on both sides of the Pacific.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and the opportunity to stand and discuss the budget that we have before us. I find it so interesting that our constituents are watching this. They are paying attention because they are concerned, and with good reason. As one of my constituents said in a town hall meeting: I have got to tell you, I have got too much month left at the end of my money, and I am tired of it. I am tired of what this economy has been doing to my opportunities--wage stagnation, increases in health care costs. The American people are over it, and they are ready to see the Federal Government start to live within its means. Think about it like this. This is the week when millions of Americans are sitting around the kitchen table looking at their income tax form, filling it out, trying to make certain that they do it right. Let me ask you a question: Is it fair, is it right, for the men and women, the taxpayers, hardworking taxpayers in this country, is it right and fair to require them to send money to Washington, money that they don't have, money that causes them to struggle to meet their bills and to live within their means--they are struggling every month, and they have to send money to Washington to a government that refuses to live within its means. This is what we are talking about, and this is why a budget that actually makes $5.1 trillion worth of spending cuts is important. It is why it is important that we have a budget that says there is a pathway to economic growth. It is because it is what the American people want to see happen. I think our constituents find it very interesting that our colleagues across the aisle came to the Budget Committee room. What did they want to do? Plus it up, spend more--$1.5 trillion in taxes. More, let's take more from the taxpayer, let's grow the size of the government, let's make it bigger, let's make it more bloated. That is their solution to how to deal with what we have here in Washington as a spending crisis. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem, we have a priority problem, and we see this play out regularly. Mr. Chairman, it is why it is important for us to have a budget that balances in 10 years. I have to tell you, as a mom and a grandmom, I look a lot at what is happening to our children and our grandchildren.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You can call it draconian, you can call it all of these names, you can call all of us Neanderthals. But let me tell you what this is: this is a budget that is for our children because it is for reduced regulation, reduced taxation, reducing litigation, it is for innovation and job creation. That is what this budget is for. It is for fairness, because if we don't get this under control it will be my 5-year-old and my 4-year-old grandchildren that are facing draconian taxes, draconian rates, draconian cuts in order to be able to stand and live here in America. So as we look at this, yes, we put the focus on right-sizing government, flexibility for the States, accountability to the American taxpayer, accountability to the children who are going to inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.