Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Musgrave amendment. I think it is the wise move to make. It shows good stewardship to come in and look at this budget and say, where do we slow the growth and how do we slow the growth? As we all know and as we have learned from so many of our States that have balanced budget amendments that have to curtail the growth of the budget, across-the-board reductions work. They work. And the reason they work is because you get to go in and manage. The Departments get to manage where they want to make those reductions. We all know you can make those half percent reductions. Mr. Chairman, they have been proven to work. The thing that is so very interesting to me is, even if this were to pass, making a half percent reduction and saving the taxpayers $268 million, which is what Mrs. Musgrave is seeking to do, you would still have an increase. You would still have an increase in Science, Commerce, Justice spending. That would be there. But what we are seeking to do is rein in what the Federal Government spends. We can sit here and argue about the particulars of budgeting. We can talk about how baseline budgeting always sets us up for saying whatever is put on the table is a cut, and we can talk about how zero- based budgeting might be a better approach to how the Federal Government goes about setting its annual budget. But one thing we know is this, that the liberal elites always want to come in and spend more. They never get enough of the taxpayers' dollar. We are seeing that this is proving to be the ``hold onto your wallet'' Congress. As I said last week when our friends across the aisle were calling us the ``fringe,'' FRINGE does mean ``fiscal responsibility includes no government excess.''

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I know this is beginning to sound like a broken record, but the ``Hold on to Your Wallet Congress'' is at it again. In today's latest episode, the liberal leadership has proposed another spending bill that will most likely be dead on arrival when it hits the President's desk because it shows disrespect for the taxpayers' dollar. The Democrat Transportation-HUD spending bill provides for a whopping $104.4 billion in spending for the next fiscal year, which is more than $4 billion in new spending and more than $2.8 billion above what the President requested. The legislation increases spending for earmarks. And it does fail to address the very real solvency issues of the highway trust fund, which will face a $4 billion shortfall in 2009. The bill is irresponsible, sets the wrong priorities, and adds to the already staggering level of additional new spending in the 110th Congress. The current Congress pledged to curb runaway spending, but instead they have moved it to the fast lane and they've set the pedal to the metal to see how fast they can spend your dollar.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, you know, this is so interesting listening to this fiscal debate and talking about we are the fringe. Well, let me tell you, FRINGE is a great acronym, and let me tell you what FRINGE is a great acronym for. And I think it is very appropriate for those of us on our side of the aisle because fringe means this: Fiscal responsibility includes no government excess. Fiscal responsibility includes no government excess. Now, Madam Chairman, that is what the people tell us they want. Get this fiscal house in order. That is what they want. They don't want you to spend more. They want you to spend less. Government does not have a revenue problem. Government has a spending problem. All of this about across-the-board cuts don't work. If I may tell you why across-the-board cuts do work, the reason is this. You have the opportunity within a department to decide where you would like to reduce. I would recommend, as with many of our States, you go in and you make those reductions out of the bureaucracy. You don't have to take one single penny out of any program. You can take it out of the bureaucracy. That is where you go, and that is why across-the-board cuts work. That is why they use them in State after State after State because they have balanced budget amendments, because they cannot spend more than the rate of growth of the economy in that State. They work. And, yes, fiscal responsibility includes no government excess. Now, yes, there is some real long fringe down there because, it is way down by great big, overblown, heavy bureaucratic programs that do not respond to the needs of the American people. I think it is time that we say let's get this under control. It is the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress. If we are not happy, they will leave you in tatters, not fringe.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I would remind one of the previous speakers that there are no title X cuts in this amendment. What this amendment does is to state that Planned Parenthood cannot receive those funds. Planned Parenthood in 2005 did perform 260,000 abortions. That is something that we know. I think it is also important for us to note that it was Planned Parenthood who was the lead plaintiff in the legal challenge against the partial birth abortion ban legislation that is now the law of the land. This is the right move. I commend the gentleman from Indiana for bringing the amendment forward and for bringing to our attention the need to make certain that taxpayer dollars are not used in abortion clinics around this Nation.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The motion to instruct would require the Secretary to deny a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, a TWIC, to any applicant who has been convicted of certain crimes. This card is the access card to our Nation's critical and sensitive port and maritime facilities. We have over 750,000 workers who access our ports daily. TWIC was created to ensure that they are all screened and that they pose no threat of terrorism. Now, our motion would specify that individuals convicted of certain crimes, such as treason, espionage, sedition or murder, would be permanently disqualified from receiving a TWIC card. This would further specify interim disqualifying crimes, such as smuggling, arson, kidnapping or robbery, that would disqualify an individual within a certain timeframe of conviction. This provision provides the right balance between ensuring that our ports are safe while ensuring that we have the workers we need to get the job done in a timely manner. We all agree that protecting our ports is one of the most critical duties that we have. All the guns, all the gates, all the guards in the world, every bit of that is useless if we give an individual a TWIC card to walk right past them. This would ensure that the screening of these individuals is thorough, and that it is complete. While some may argue that this will unnecessarily disqualify too many individuals, we have already provided for an appeal and waiver process elsewhere to ensure that individuals can apply for a TWIC despite their past history. This section that we are offering today in this motion to instruct passed the Senate 94-2. Our motion to instruct would accede to the language in the Senate provision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the body's attention, we had last week on July 10, a front page article in The Hill talking about this. The concerns with this clause, I know that this program, TSA is going to roll this TWIC card program out on September 1. I would hope that our security is of such importance to us that we would not weaken this program. We know that the security of our ports is important. We want to make certain that the workers that we are sending in to these ports have gone through the appropriate clearances. We know that these are critical and sensitive areas. Why would we want to give a card to someone who has been convicted of crimes such as treason, espionage, sedition or murder? I do not think that the American people want to see those individuals inspecting the cargo that's coming into these ports. We hear so much about security and food security, the issues that surround that. We are hearing about the security of human trafficking that is going through our ports. For goodness sakes, we want to be certain that the people that are walking into those ports to work every day are not convicted of these serious crimes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, the appeals and waivers process was put in place for a reason, and that is why it is there, and that's why you've got the look-back provision and why it is stated as such. Again, I will reemphasize the point. We don't want to do something that is going to weaken a tool that is in the TSA toolbox for being certain that we have the necessary security at our ports; that we know who is there and we know the reasons they are there, that we know that they have the appropriate clearances for being there. And with all due respect to the chairman and the chairwoman who have worked on this legislation, our wording here, acceding to the language that passed over in the Senate, 94-2, would be certain that we have in statute something that is going to give our citizens the security that we have done our job. It is the responsibility of this body to be certain that we have this national security interest at heart for the people of this good Nation, and certainly this language is one step in so doing. And at this time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Mississippi has no further speakers and is ready to yield back, then I will do so. But I want to be certain I have the right to close on this. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve at this point.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi spoke of the compromise language, and the compromise language does not give our TSA the tool in its toolbox that it needs. Indeed, the compromise language would weaken that tool that they need in that toolbox to be certain that they are giving Americans the certainty that they want to view our Nation's ports security with. They want to know that certainly the people that are coming into those ports have our Nation's best interests at heart. And I fully believe that they do not want individuals who are convicted of these crimes of treason, espionage, sedition, murder and, further, interim disqualifying crimes such as smuggling, arson, kidnapping or robbery to be in there watching the cargo and the transportation that comes into our ports and maritime facilities. Certainly, this is a regulation that TSA uses now with our truck drivers who are moving hazardous material. So the compromise language would take a tool out of that toolbox that TSA uses to give Americans the certainty that they are doing their best. Now, with respect to the question from the gentlelady from Texas, and I appreciate the hard work that she does at the Homeland Security Committee, but this would provide only a 7-year lookback, and I think that that is important to note in that screening process. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to be certain that screening is thorough, that it is complete, and that there is certainty given to the American public. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was just making his point, and in part of that he is right, but the important part of this is that what we have to do is be certain that a Secretary doesn't delete these provisions. And if you are going to give them that flexibility and if they delete it, then you have that hole that is there. So, because of that, we need it in statute to be sure that it is not altered. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today the liberal leadership of this House will call up H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act. It sounds harmless. But let's not mince words. This bill is not concerned with public safety. It's a payoff from the left to the powerful labor unions that finance many of their campaigns. The liberal leadership already bowed to union pressure by passing legislation to strip workers of the right to vote in a private ballot election. Now they are attempting to federalize collective bargaining for public safety professionals. The International Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the legislation because it would effectively take power from State and local governments during labor-management relations. I oppose it because it will likely make our communities less safe. Mr. Speaker, there is a time and there is a place for politics, but not when our lives and the safety of our communities is at stake.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today we will see another attempt by the liberal majority leadership to drive a stake between the American people and the brave men and women fighting in the global war on terror. Today's latest attempt is called a precipitous withdrawal. The American people would label it a cut and run. Our soldiers deserve the confidence of their leaders, not second-guessing arrogance by politicians half a world away. The leadership thinks Iraq is lost, despite the fact that the new mission has shown signs of progress, including the fact that half of Baghdad has been secured, the Baghdad Security Plan. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to provide us a progress report in September, but that is not fast enough for the liberal leadership. They expected the new strategy to win overnight. Don't they know that you don't find instant gratification in war? One thing is certain: surrender and failure in securing Iraq hold catastrophic consequences for freedom, the U.S., and the Iraqi people. Surrender would send the wrong message. It will say the U.S. is weak, that roving death squads in the streets of Baghdad and ethnic cleansing are acceptable to us. It may be fashionable to want to pull out of Iraq, but it sends the wrong message.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And while I have the utmost respect for the chairman, I disagree with him on this resolution and I do rise to oppose the resolution today. I guess I don't like the rhetoric of defeat. And I think that if we look at the situation in Iraq and if we look at the global war on terror, we have to ask ourselves: If we accept defeat at the hands of the terrorists, then what type message are we going to send? And I don't think that we would like that. Because if we pull out now, it is going to say that the U.S. is weak in the war on terror. It is going to say that we accept roving death squads in the streets of Baghdad, that we accept ethnic cleansing and a region engulfed in all-out chaos. That is the message we send. Just as when we were children, our actions carry a message with them. Our soldiers deserve the confidence of their leaders, and not second- guessing by politicians that are a half world away. I think that they need to know that we are with them. I had a message from a Marine parent. And they said, You know, we have our men out there fighting every day. They are using all the tools available to them. They are in combat. They are in patrols. They are using technology to stabilize, to train Iraqi troops. Then at night they come home, they come back to that post, that forward operating base, and they hammer out e-mails and blogs to those of us here to help combat the rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC. General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker have a plan, the Baghdad Security Plan. We find out now much of Baghdad is more secure than it was. Most of the troops to carry out this plan just landed, just got there 2 weeks ago to start implementing the plan. I think that for us to second-guess is inappropriate. I think that it may be the fashionable thing to want to pull out.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today we have 6 million children that are covered in SCHIP. We also have 600,000 adults that are covered in SCHIP.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. And yes indeed. You know, one of the things that one of my constituents is fond of saying when they come to town hall meetings and gatherings is, Marsha, whatever the government giveth, the government sure can take away. And we need to keep our attention to as we talk about this health care. Do we really want to put a bureaucrat behind a desk making a decision for the type health care that our child is going to receive? Or do we want to make certain that we, as parents, and as patients, with a physician, have the opportunity to make those decisions about health care, and do we want to make certain that we are moving toward a market-driven health care system? Or do we want to move toward socialized medicine system? And those are questions that the American people are certainly asking. You know, one of the things, as we've looked at this, and you hear the discussion about what it's going to cost, and generally, as with so many programs that come from the left, they will say, oh, but it's only going to cost this amount. And it's not going to be that much more expensive to pick up those extra 45 percent of the children to move us to 95 percent. It's not going to cost us that much. And it's going to pay dividends in the long run. Well, you know, the interesting thing about that is the way government structures its budget. We're not looking at the 10-year, 20- year, 30-year cost. We're looking at a 5-year snapshot. Many of our States, when they construct their budgets, they're doing cost accounting, which is a 1-year view into what is taking place. And even at this, you know, CBO has scored this bill at $50 billion, and we're finding out that the cost is more like a $108 billion to cover the cost between adding an additional 1 to 2 million extra children. And that doesn't even get into considering some of the income requirements for recipients. And this is going to be an interesting issue of debate. And I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is a pleasure to join you. And I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk with our constituents about this program. It is amazing to me as we are looking at this and looking at the reauthorization of it and looking at what has been a very successful program when it has worked as a block grant program, and then look at the problems that would arise as it moves to being an entitlement program. And this is something, though, that, unfortunately, it seems to be more or less the method that the Democrat majority is using as they move forward. This is the ``Hold on to Your Wallet'' Congress, and they are expanding programs. Today we have done the college cost of savings. It sounds good, but, my goodness, nine new entitlement programs that they have voted to establish today, nine. And it is not going to have an effect with making certain that people have the ability to get into college and then stay in college. You have got all these different programs that appeal to special interest groups but not to the average family that is sitting down at the table and taking out a pencil and a piece of paper and saying, How do we make all of this fit? I have just been amazed listening to the debate today as it pertained to education. And, of course, we are seeing this as we are working through our appropriations bills. They are spending more money. They are spending above the President's request. They are proving Ronald Reagan right at every turn. He has said, ``There is nothing so close to eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program.'' And certainly we see that. They are given the opportunity, and what are they doing? They are starting new programs. They are starting the bureaucracy; certainly not the kind of change that the American people thought that they were going to get. And we see that as we look at the SCHIP program. Now, those of us who have watched health care and worked on health care issues at both the State and the Federal level know the value of having this program and having it work and States having the flexibility that is there. But what we are seeing is the SCHIP program being hijacked to help the liberal left move their agenda of socialized medicine a little bit further toward the finish line. And when they talk about Medicare for everybody, when they talk about expanding Medicaid, and when they talk about moving SCHIP from a block grant to an entitlement and then expanding the reach of that program, that is what they are doing. SCHIP is to be for children. We have States that are using it to pay for adult health care. SCHIP was originally capped at $40 billion over a 10-year period of time for block grants, for children's care. What has happened, Congress has granted an additional $676 million in new Federal spending for State bailouts through 2026. So, there again, we hear accountability and we hear our constituents talk to us about accountability and the importance of accountability, but what we see is our colleagues on the left who will say, ``Well, if somebody gets in trouble, let's pay for it. Let's pay for it. Let's let the Federal Government pay for it.'' But the problem here is we forget, this is not Congress's money. It is not the bureaucracy's money. It is not SCHIP's money. It is not CMS's money. It is the hardworking family that goes to work every day, that earns that money, that sends it to the Federal Government. This is taxpayer money.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. And one of the points that I would make in this debate is that in fiscal year 2007 alone, SCHIP will cost the American taxpayer $11.5 billion. Now, under the plan that the Democrat leadership is pushing forward for expansion of this program, that cost would increase fivefold. That would increase fivefold. This is what it would cost turning it from a block grant with flexibility to the State and moving it to an entitlement where you're going to put it on auto pilot. And people say, what are entitlements? What's the difference here? When you're talking about Medicare, when you're talking about Medicaid, when you're talking about some of our Social Service programs that are entitlements that every year they just grow right along. There's not a check and balance. You're not working on outcomes. You're not working on making certain that you're achieving efficiencies. You've got it on auto pilot. Now we've established nine new today, nine new entitlement programs in education. That is what the Democrat leadership wanted. It's not what the American people wanted. That's what they wanted, entitlement programs. And what we know is they would increase the cost fivefold on this plan. Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the SCHIP expansion would generate a real shift away from private health insurance and that private health insurance market for children. And for every 100 children who get public coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children. So you change the way that market is going to work. And it is of concern to us. We know that this is something that will cause a lot of questions. We are very concerned with what we hear they are pushing to do to try to make this palatable so that they can pull in votes to pass this SCHIP program. We know that our physicians have a problem with the payment system for Medicare reimbursement, and certainly, the gentleman from Georgia, being a physician, understands this so very well. And we've seen reductions in payments for Medicare payments to those physicians. And so they're going to include this in the SCHIP bill. Well, the Medicare payments don't have anything to do with the SCHIP block grant. But in order to try to pull together those votes and pull together something that they think the Republicans can't afford to block, they're going to put that in there. Now, if I were a practicing physician dealing with the SGR and with Medicare reimbursement, I would be highly offended that I'm going to be used as a bargaining chip in the Children's Health Care Insurance Program. Now, they're also going to look for ways to improve programs that provide financial assistance to low income Medicare beneficiaries for premiums, cost sharing and prescription drugs. So they're going to set up a generational battle and say, well, we'll do this on SCHIP, but we're going to take away some of the benefits from the Medicare part D and the Medicare Advantage. So they're going to take away a little bit from the seniors and then try to put that into the children's health care. Now, if I were a senior citizen, there again, if I liked my part D and my Medicare Advantage, I wouldn't like the fact that they're going to use me as a bargaining chip. And then we find that they're going to provide a special focus on addressing the health care needs of those living in rural areas. Well, if I lived in a rural area, and if I had a community health center in my area, and of course, in my seventh District of Tennessee, I have plenty of rural areas and plenty of rural health centers. I wouldn't like the fact that I'm going to be a bargaining chip. And it is unfortunate that this seems to be the path that they are going to choose to travel. Rather than addressing the issue straight up, rather than addressing the needs of the States, rather than addressing how do we best meet the needs of children, they're going to pull all these different things and pull them into one bill and try to make something they think that there are plenty of people that they can't vote against it. So I find that, indeed, unfortunate and something that, when we talk about health care, preserving access to health care for all of our constituents, it is, indeed, unfortunate that that bargaining chip-type mentality, that let's make a deal with the hold on to your wallet Congress, is the way they want to operate and do business. And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You know, as you were saying that, I'm reminded of what we in Tennessee went through in 1994 and 1995 as we saw the advent of TenCare in our State, which was the test case for Hillary Clinton health care. And we know what has happened in our State of Tennessee, and the fact that TenCare now is consuming about two-thirds of our State's budgets. It is a very, very difficult program. And somebody always is going to pay. Somebody always has to pay the bill. And what we are seeing with the American public is, they know that it is the taxpayer that is going to pay; that there are not things that are free. Someone pays for that, and they, the taxpayer, going to work every day, American families holding American jobs, earning a pay check that, unfortunately, the Federal Government has first right of refusal on that pay check, they take their share before you get your share. And it happens every single pay period. And so many people are tired of it. They're tired of government not being accountable, and they are tired of Congress having an insatiable appetite for their hard-earned money. And it's what causes them to contact us when they hear about how these appropriations bills are being handled, when they hear about the increase in Federal programs, when they hear about the increase in spending. And, yes, indeed, as I've told my constituents this weekend, I'm not surprised that the numbers for Congress are as low as they are. People wanted things done differently. And this is not the kind of change they wanted. What they're saying, this is exactly what we didn't want. It's exactly what we didn't want. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is happening because States are deciding that they are going to take the money and then use it for some things other than the children. Maybe they don't have enough children that fall below that poverty level or the 100, 200, 300 percent of poverty, wherever those levels may be for those specific State programs, so you have part of that money being used for adults. Now, the problem that has come before us is SCHIP has to be reauthorized before September 30th, and the funding will expire. Now, this is a program we don't want to expire. We would like to see it continue as it was originally set up to continue. We do not want it to morph into other things and be a program that also covers adults, be a program that covers those that are not falling into the category of being needy children. We want to make certain that it remains a block grant, that States are given flexibility, and that the money is used to cover the children, the population for which it is intended. That is how accountabilities should work with these programs. Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it permanent. They are not interested in addressing how the money is being spent or whether a less costly, more efficient system could end up serving children better and meeting the needs of those children in the appropriate way. One of the things that they are also wanting to do is to change the income levels and include those that are at 400 percent of poverty. So what we would have is families that are making $60,000 to $84,000 a year would end up being eligible for SCHIP for their children. So what we would have is the IRS looking at a family's tax return and saying, ``You are rich. You are going to pay the AMT.'' And then the SCHIP program looking and saying, ``Well, you fall within the guidelines of 400 percent above poverty, and you qualify for this wonderful entitlement called SCHIP.'' So that is the kind of frustration that we see in the bureaucracy that causes frustration and a lot of questions from our constituents and causes them to say, ``Wait a minute. How is this money being used?'' Now, we also hear from our constituents that they don't want more of this control centered with the bureaucrat. They want to be able to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. They want to be able to make choices for themselves. And they sure don't want socialized medicine and government-run health care. We have heard one of our colleagues say, do you really want the bureaucracy that can't seem to straighten out Katrina, that can't seem to handle homeland security, that can't seem to get their hands around passports, to then manage health care from cradle to grave? And those are the right questions for our constituents to ask. And as they bring those questions forward, we say: And one of the ways that we need to address this is through making certain that SCHIP stays as it was intended to be, a block grant program that was put in place to assist the States in providing health care for children at low-income levels, those needy children. And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on the College Cost Reduction Act, which sounds good on the surface, but once you begin to peel back the layers of this onion, you find that it is just rotten to the core. It contains billions of dollars of new spending, and worse still, it will never even see the light of day. The President has vowed to veto the bill. And it creates nine new entitlement government programs at a cost of $197 billion over 5 years. That's nine new programs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg with the leadership spending this year. $20 billion more than expected on the President's budget. They had $6 billion more in new spending on January's omnibus, $17 billion they added to troops spending. It goes on and on, and it is enough to make a taxpayer cry. And if there's one thing that we all know, once you've got a government program, you've got a government program. Ronald Reagan said it best. There is nothing so close to eternal life on Earth as a Federal Government program. The leadership knows this bill will not fly with the American people. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for the work that he has done on this. I also want to commend him for his appreciation for how we approach education and how we approach access to education in this country. His work in the committee has not gone unnoticed, and we do appreciate that commitment. I do rise today to support the McKeon substitute that we have before us, and I think that it addresses some of the problems that so many Members on both sides of the aisle have problems with in the underlying legislation. You cannot deny that there are nine new entitlement programs that are contained in the underlying legislation, and quite frankly, we have heard from so many people who have expressed concern over this. As we are at a time when people talk about the need to reduce the size of the Federal Government, to reduce the bureaucracy, to reduce the number of programs, here comes a piece of legislation, and lo and behold, you're going to have nine new programs. Now, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there are so many that say, why would you do this? Why would you not do an assessment of the needs and then put the money where the needs are? And Mr. McKeon has done that, as he has addressed the Pell Grants and spending the funding, increasing the Pell Grants, which address the access component that is so important to our students. Another component that is in there that I think many of the Members would be interested in is the changes that it makes in providing funds for year-round Pell Grants, there again answering a question and solving a problem that we hear from our constituents and the type Pell Grant program that they want, the access that they want, being certain that we're going to help those students who wish to pursue their education not only in the fall, not only in the spring, but the summer as well. We know that this is very important as people look at new type schedules, as they look at moving on through the educational process and getting into the workforce. We know that we have different areas where we need employment and being able to finish a little bit earlier. Not everybody wants to go on a 4- or 5-year program. There are some people that want to go through in a 3-year program, 3\1/2\-year program, and so this addresses a societal change and a need that is there that allows that flexibility that students want. And that is where we need to place the emphasis, allowing people to take control, individuals to take control and make decisions that are going to suit them and not having the bureaucracy make those for them, which all too often, when we create nine new entitlement programs, with nine new bureaucracies, we don't see fast decision-making on something. We see this go into that black hole or the terminal put on hold that so many of our constituents continue to complain about every day. I would also like to commend to this body and thank Mr. McKeon for the work that puts the emphasis on our military by providing for them extended deferment options for our returning soldiers who may need extra time to get settled and to return to careers and be able to begin repaying any outstanding student loans. Certainly in my district, the Seventh District of Tennessee, this is something that has been recognized as a need. We have so many that have served so honorably with the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, and this is a provision that is important. It is one that is recognized by us, by the minority, by those of us on this side of the aisle, and it's one that we do express our thanks for being included. The McKeon amendment, the substitute is the right move. It is the right balance. It puts the funding where it is needed by increasing those Pell Grants, and I do rise in support of it, and I thank the gentleman for his work.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, since we have all been gone, the Glasgow Airport has been bombed, Piccadilly Circus in London was the site of an attempted terrorist attack, another attempt on a hospital, and within 48 hours, the British Intelligence Agency rounded up several credible suspects. Their use of intelligence should be commended. They have faced terrorist attacks on their soil for over 30 years and put in place the tools to deal with these. On the other hand, it seems the liberal leadership of this Congress wants to backtrack in our attempts to track and survey potential terrorists by scaling back our critical intelligence-gathering efforts. They took issue with the program designed to monitor phone calls from potential terrorists. They railed against the PATRIOT Act. They even shifted funds from critical intelligence-gathering programs to put it into a slush fund to study global warming. Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, global warming didn't have one single thing to do with putting a bomb in Piccadilly Circus or trying to blow up the JFK airport. Global warming didn't bomb the USS Cole or take down the Twin Towers. Climate change can be studied, but it need not be done at the expense of human intelligence needed to help eliminate international terrorism. We need to adjust our priorities. It's time to get to work.