Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor James King, M.D., a family physician in Selmer, Tennessee and president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). King was elected to the position by the Congress of Delegates; the AAFP's governing body, in October 2006, where he previously served 3 years as a member of the AAFP board of directors. Dr. King received his bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee, Martin, and earned his medical degree at the University of Tennessee Center of Health Sciences, Memphis, in 1982. He completed his residency at the University of Tennessee Family Medicine Residency, Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, in 1985. King is board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine and is an AAFP fellow. King is in private practice in the rural community of Selmer and serves as assistant clinical professor at the University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences, Memphis. He is also on the medical staff of the McNairy Regional Hospital in Selmer and serves as medical director of Chester County Healthcare Services. Prior to his service with the AAFP, he was an active member of the Tennessee Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP). King has served on the committees on public relations, finance, and legislation and governmental affairs. He also has served on the Long-Range Planning Committee, Nominating Committee and Membership Committee. As a member of the TAFP board of directors, King has served as vice president, president-elect, president and board chair. King received the Outstanding Model Office Teaching Award from the University of Tennessee Family Medicine Residency, Jackson, in 1990 and the TAFP's Family Physician of the Year Award in 1997. Active in his local community, King has presented the AAFP's Tar Wars tobacco-free education program to area fourth- and fifth-graders on behalf of the TAFP since 2000. He has also had many State and regional appointments, including serving as the chair of the McNairy County Board of Health, a member of the TennCare Steering Committee of the Tennessee Department of Health, a member and then chair of the Primary Health Care Liaison Committee, State of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. James King for his extraordinary contributions to medicine and for the profoundly positive impact he has on our community.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The majority has adequately explained the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I note that during the full committee consideration of this bill the minority was assured that this act was in no way to be construed as advancing any effort to establish a national holiday honoring Cesar Chavez. Further, the majority gave assurances that this bill was not going to be used to promote House Resolution 76, which urges the establishment of such a holiday. With this understanding, we will not object to the consideration of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank Mr. Jordan for the good work that he is doing right here. He is exactly right in the amendment that he is bringing forward, hold constant, hold it level. Mr. Chairman, we hear this from our constituents every single day. We all know that the American people are certainly frustrated with the way they see Washington spend money, and the amount of money that they spend. What our amendments are doing is just to say, just pare it down a little bit. Let's require the bureaucracy to institute some efficiencies. Let's require them to get their House in order. Now, quite frankly, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think that it is a very positive step to look forward and say let's hold the bureaucracy accountable. Should they be able to move forward and not put best practices in place? Should they be able to just every year get an increase when we have men and women who go to work every single day? They may work for a period of 2 or 3 or 4 years and not see an increase in their salary. We may have families that look at their budget and say that they are not seeing an increase. To say, you know, to not increase spending puts us on a downward trend. I truly take exception with that. It is our constituents who are saying you need to start putting some accountability measures in place, you need to reduce what this Federal Government is going to spend because they tax too much and certainly, in order to pay for all of this increase in spending, and this is an increase, it exceeds the President's request by $1.9 billion, which is a 7.6 percent increase. In order to pay for this, they are willing to push forward the single largest tax increase in history because they spend too much money.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been watching as we are pulling together this year's energy bill for the House; who is doing the cobbling; what they are including in the package, or, curiously, what they are leaving out. This is the current House leadership's second attempt this session to produce an energy bill that would address our energy dependence on unstable parts of the world, our strategic vulnerabilities that arise from that dependence, and the disastrous effects that high energy prices have on our ability to retain and produce American jobs. You would think that the Energy Committee would be a pretty good place to start on this. But last week, provisions in our committee's bill promoting additional energy production, especially production focussed on the clean and efficient use of American coal, were stripped. And unless my colleagues in committee are successful in putting them back in this week, then the Democrats will deliver another energy bill that does not produce an ounce of energy. It is time for us to address this issue.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of MG Schuyler Bissell, USAF (Ret.), who passed away on June 13, 2007 at the age of 76. Major General Bissell lived his life with honor. He exemplified dedication, and he committed himself to serving others. This is the inheritance he leaves his family and all those who knew him. A fellow native of my hometown of Laurel, MS, General Bissell began his service in the Air Force in 1952. He would eventually complete 119 combat missions over North Vietnam at the controls of his F-4C Phantom. For his heroism he received three Distinguished Flying Crosses and was awarded the Air Medal a remarkable 10 times. A Command Pilot, he would eventually accumulate over 5,500 flying hours. After several commands in the fighter community, General Bissell transitioned into the field of military intelligence. He would go on to serve as the U.S. Defense Attache in Israel, as Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Intelligence, and would conclude his career as the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. General Bissell and his wife Polly settled in the Nashville area in 1992 as he began a second career in service to our community. At St. George's Episcopal Church, he served as a lay Eucharist Minister, as an usher and greeter, as Chairman of the Parish Life Committee, and as a member of the Capital Campaign Committee. General Bissell would found a group called Champions in Christ at St. George's in 1999. His leadership led to the exponential growth of this program. Most recently, he felt God's call to begin working on a Pastoral Healing Ministry. General Bissell was dedicated to his country and community, but above all to his family. In addition to Polly, he leaves behind two daughters and six grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of MG Schuyler Bissell.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is quite a debate that we are having tonight, and I appreciate the vigor and the energy that colleagues on both sides are bringing to this debate. Mr. Chairman, I do have to stand and really oppose some of the things that are being said here. How interesting it is that we are hearing spending reductions called irresponsible, that we are hearing that it is jeopardizing our foreign operations, that it is devastating. You know, what we may want to do is reframe this debate. I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for trying to make a 1 percent reduction. Now we heard this referred to as the Matthew 25 bill. Maybe we should make it the Genesis 1:1 bill and go back and look at the beginning and talk about how did we get where we are today. They want to talk about deficits. Well, it is historically what my colleagues on the left have done to grow a huge bureaucracy that continues to need to be fed and programs that grow and grow and grow. Now one of the things that we have heard is that we are going to have to fix this now. My colleagues only want to talk about today, yesterday or the day before. They don't want to go back and talk about previous administrations where we have piled on, we have piled on, we have piled on, and now we want to grow this budget 9\1/2\ percent. We want to pay for it with the largest tax increase in history. I would offer to my friends that, yes, indeed, let's go back and make it a Genesis 1:1 bill and look at the very beginning. You tax too much; you spend too much. And it is right that we would choose to find a 1 percent reduction. What we are irresponsible to is the American taxpayer who is sick and tired. They are truly ill and fatigued when it comes to paying more and more of their budget.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I said, what an incredibly wonderful debate we are having. It is a philosophical debate. Government is not the answer. Government many times is the problem. More spending is not the answer. It is priorities and where you choose to put that money. That is where you find your answers in this. Now one of the things that we are saying is make a reduction. My goodness, look at the States. Many of our States have made across-the- board reductions. You know what? Across-the-board reductions work. My State of Tennessee, oh, my goodness, we were going to have to have an income tax. Oh, my goodness, they were going to shut down every program in the State, had to have it, had to raise taxes. You know what? We defeated that income tax, Mr. Chairman. The people of our State said, no, we have had it. We are not putting another penny into the State treasury. Now what we see is a, believe it or not, Democrat Governor who came in and took what we Republicans had said and made across-the-board cuts. Not 1 percent. Not 2. Not 5 percent. 9\1/2\ percent. 9\1/2\ percent. And I would encourage my colleagues to know that greater efficiencies were there, that they now have record surpluses. One of the things that we have to realize, the American taxpayer is tired of sending money to Washington and see it go into a bureaucracy and know that they are not seeing the results that they get. Mr. Chairman, maybe it is because I have the old Davy Crockett district. I know that what you have to do is be very careful with the money that you have to spend. You have to make priorities. And yes, indeed, national security is a priority. We know that. We know that border security is a priority. We know that. But what we have to realize is we have to be a good steward of the taxpayer dollar. Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to start to tighten its belt. Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize it cannot grow. Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize we need to be responsible to the taxpayer and reduce what we are spending at the Federal level. They are tired of paying for the largest tax increase in history. They know that government spends too much. They know that this budget is bigger than it ought to be, and they don't like it, and we are hearing about it. What my colleagues and I are saying is, you know what, let's find some ways to make some reductions. Let's make certain that we are good stewards of every dollar that comes our way.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a philosophical difference of how we approach things. This is about respect for life, our's and those in other countries. I commend the gentleman on the amendment, and I do rise in support of this amendment and of the Mexico City Policy and making certain that we pass the Smith-Stupak amendment. It will strike the language that would undermine that policy. It is not going to take away the $441 million for family planning. It is going to put a bright line of separation between abortion and family planning. The U.S. should not be in the business of exporting abortion overseas. It has been a tragedy for women here in the U.S., and it will carry the same hurt, it will carry the same trauma if it is used abroad. So I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are again. Another day, another several billion dollars in new spending proposed by this ``Hold Onto Your Wallet'' Congress. They have already passed the largest tax increase in history, and they spend too much money. Today's tax du jour comes in the form of the Foreign Ops bill. The bloated 2008 spending bill will fork over $34 billion of your tax money, an increase of more than $3 billion. A subtle change means that under the current bill language, the Mexico City policy, which assures that nongovernmental entities that promote abortion would not be provided U.S. funding, could be completely disregarded and these entities would receive U.S. taxpayer funds. The provision would mandate U.S. subsidies to organizations that actively promote abortion in foreign nations. Abortion has been a tragedy for many women here in the U.S., and it will carry with it the same hurt and trauma when it's used abroad. If this language stays in the bill, the American taxpayer would be actually paying for an abortion for someone half a world away. I urge my colleagues to vote against new spending and ``no'' for taxpayer-sponsored abortions.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we in America are at an energy crossroad. Now, one road will lead to price controls and a potential energy crisis that would remind us of the 1970s. The other would lead to cutting-edge technology that will provide affordable, reliable energy for decades to come. Yet, the liberal leadership in this House has chosen to revert to the 1970s and repeat that history. Today, the Energy appropriations bill under consideration will underfund nuclear production by $20 million in one account, hydroelectric power by $20 million in another account, and other forms of American productivity by hundreds of millions of dollars. And where does the money go? Well, it goes to fund research for climate change in another bow to the religion of global warming. And in coordination with other House and some Senate legislation, we find out that some of these proposals could end up raising the price of a gallon of gas over the next couple of decades to $6 a gallon. We need to focus on energy independence today. It is what the American people want.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is that the Federal Government does spend too much money. We all hear it from our constituents. They are really aggravated with the amount of spending that they see coming out of this town, and there is a good reason for that. It is because it is their money. They earn that money and they send it to Washington, and then there is a lot of aggravation with how we choose to spend their hard-earned dollars. And the gentleman is so correct in his amendment, moving this back to last year's levels. Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is it would give a $1.3 billion savings for the American taxpayer, and we know that principles like this and operations like this work. When you go through spending reduction, it works. Our States are great labs for finding ways to find efficiencies in government, and there's a reason for that. It's because many of our States have balanced budget amendments. And many of our States have frozen at previous years' levels, or they've been reduced 1 percent, 2 percent or 5 percent across the board. And what they have found out is that, in their operations, they can move in and find efficiencies and find ways to seek a savings, and still have the same caliber and quality of program that they have had. But, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that they do find is that many times those programs are more effective. So I commend Mr. Jordan for the work that he has done to find a $1.3 billion savings to make certain that the pressure is there on these departments to live within their means, to try to do our best, to avoid what the Democrats are wanting to pass, which is the single largest tax increase in history, and to make certain that we give a message to our constituents that we have heard them and we agree with them. Government spends too much of their hard-earned money.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the body join our Tennessee delegation in a moment of silence in remembrance of our former colleague, Robin Beard.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the body aware of the loss of our colleague and friend, Robin Beard, former Congressman from the old Sixth District, who passed away last Saturday. His district basically overlapped with the current Seventh District of Tennessee. He served in this body from 1973 until 1983. Robin Beard really had a storied and amazing life in which he dedicated himself to public service, and he did love it. He received a B.A. in history from Vanderbilt in 1962. He was a veteran, serving 4 years in the Marine Corps, where he was a Marine Corps officer in charge of the Gemini IV offshore recovery mission, and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. While in Congress, he served on the Armed Services Committee. He was a strong supporter of and friend to Fort Campbell, which was located in both his district and mine. He was appointed by the House Speaker as a congressional advisor to the Strategic Arms Negotiations in Geneva and the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament. He also served as an assistant Republican whip, was cochairman of the Republican Research Committee on Defense, and an executive committee member of the Republican Study Committee. His expertise extended to domestic issues, and he served as an executive committee member of the Congressional Task Force on Economic Policy. After leaving Congress, he continued to serve the public, twice named as NATO Deputy Secretary General. He is being laid to rest today in the Protestant French Huguenot Church in Charleston, South Carolina. He is survived by his wife, Cathy, two children and five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I read in the Charlotte Observer about a gentleman who decided to retrofit his 1981 diesel Mercedes with vegetable oil and got a knock on his door by the tax man. His crime was choosing to take a stand against the rising cost of gasoline, OPEC, and other international energy cartels by converting his car into clean- running alternative energy. His punishment was a $1,000 fine by the North Carolina State Government and $1,000 notice from the Feds. So much for innovation and alternative fuel research. The predicament was chronicled in the Charlotte Observer on June 15, and what we're finding out is he's not alone. Many innovators around the country are creating unique ways to exercise energy independence. In so doing, they're demonstrating to the Federal Government that the American people are more than qualified to break their addiction to foreign oil. Good old American ingenuity always comes through. As we take up consideration on the Energy Approps Act for 2008, it's instructive to consider what they know. If you want to get more innovation, incentivize it. If you want less of it, tax it.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, American businesses in the private sector continue to advance the use of information and e-commerce technology to strengthen their bottom line and increase customer service. However, too many government agencies continue to use antiquated operating systems that do not use taxpayer dollars efficiently or create optimal conditions for customer service. Right here in the House of Representatives, we offer Americans e- commerce services in the form of ``Write Your Rep.'' I am sure most of my colleagues and their staff use this program, and they use it with efficiency. It helps us to stay in touch. I have a military post in my district, Fort Campbell. It is located in Montgomery County, Tennessee. I also have 60,000 veterans that are there. One of the things we find is that many times our agencies, working with these constituents, continue to do business on antiquated systems that don't optimize efficiently. That is why I am offering this amendment today. Increasing the use of e-commerce technology and procedures in the bureaucracy will allow critical agencies funded under this act to operate more efficiently. But, more importantly, it will allow our members of the military and our veterans to gain access to records, especially health records, that they need in a timely manner. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing this important business objective. The underlying legislation takes a step forward to the goal by encouraging the agencies to expand the use of e-commerce. My amendment, however, is an important step further. It would direct the agencies funded under H.R. 2642 to expand the use of e-commerce technologies in the conducting of their business practices within the limits, within the limits, of the existing statute and funding. It is a straightforward, simple amendment. As we know, the bureaucracy is not going to do this on their own. They need the oversight from Congress. If successful, we have got three points we hope it would achieve: number one, lead to greater transparency in agency asset and records management; number two, enhance governmental reform and efficiency; and, number three, spur agencies to build best practices and conduct themselves in a more businesslike manner.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for thinking about the records process with our veterans and our military. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we have had a wonderful, vigorous and robust debate on the floor of this House for the past couple of days. It has dealt with earmarks and transparency in those earmarks. I think it is noteworthy that the American people have spoken out, and I thank them for the support that they have shown us and their participation with us in this debate. And I thank them for their awareness of the fact that this is the people's House, that how we spend their tax money is very important. They deserve to know how we're going to spend that on the front end before we vote, and they do expect the reforms that we initiated last year on earmarks to be enacted this year. They also were asking, Where's the fence? They are aware that there is gamesmanship that is taking place. So, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I say, Let the gamesmanship stop. Let's be focused on addressing the security of this Nation. Let's be respectful of one another in word and deed.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I do rise to support his amendment. As a point of clarification, I think the gentleman from Iowa, who has worked in the business world and has dealt with ICE on employment issues, has such a good understanding of how this works. To the esteemed chairman from North Carolina, who has spent much of his life in academia, I think that what we have got is apples and oranges and what we need to do is pull it together. Having trained people with ICE who are in the field, who actually would help encourage employers to use this program, it is an important part of internal enforcement for our employers, knowing how to use it, having that tool to be certain that they know how to use the Basic Pilot Program, to be certain that individuals who are going to work for them are indeed who they say they are and that they are in the country legally. That is important for employers. It is an important tool for having immigration enforcement in this country.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in response to a comment that was just made, I would remind my colleague that in this day and age and in this time in which we find ourselves, every State is a border State and every town is a border town because of the situation that we find on the southern border of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, 283 Members of this body voted to build a fence, so it is incumbent upon us to appropriately and fully fund that fence. I support the amendment of the gentlelady from Florida. I rise to support her efforts. I commend her for this. The bill before us underfunds the effort of building the fence.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on Ms. Foxx's amendment, and I thank her for being one that realizes one of the threats that we face is a growing Federal budget and out-of-control Federal spending. And as we have talked about threats this morning as we are debating this Homeland Security budget, it is not lost on us that this is a $36.3 billion budget. It is 13.6 percent more than last year and, as our ranking member has so wisely stated, 6 percent more than was asked for and more money than needs to be in that budget. And, certainly, it does not make good fiscal sense that this would be the type of budget document, this would be the type of appropriations that would be passed for this. As we talk about threats, one of my colleagues mentioned that we were holding hostage the budget and loved using that term ``holding hostage.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that probably the American people who watch this debate feel like they are the ones that are many times held hostage and their paychecks are held hostage by the Federal Government. The Federal Government has first right of refusal on that paycheck. They take out what they want before the taxpayers and our constituents see that paycheck. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think they are tired of it. And they are tired of the type of out-of-control spending that they are seeing from this new majority. They didn't like the spending that was there when we were there. Certainly there are many of us that think that we spent too much, and certainly many of us worked very hard for the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, that reduced $40 billion of Federal spending. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think the American people thought that you all were going to do better than that, that you were going to cut more than we had cut. But that is not what they are seeing. We have got hundreds of billions of dollars more in spending certainly, $105 billion more in new appropriations, 13 percent more in this single budget alone. It is out of control. Our constituents feel like their paychecks are held hostage, and, quite frankly, we think information is being held hostage. Now, on the security issue and on this fence, sometimes those of us who are mothers talk about setting up situations that are going to be win-win situations for our children. We like to create an environment where things can succeed. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to funding the fence, what the liberal leadership has done is set up a failure, because what you do is underfund the fence. Then you come along and $700 million of this funding gets pulled into this gray bureaucratic red tape area that probably you are never going to see that fence built. Now, we had a vote last year. We had 283 Members of this body go to a machine, put in their card, and punch the green button for the fence. That was the vote that was taken. So that leads us to say was that a politically motivated vote? Did they do that because they thought they were looking for reelection? Did they feel like that was what their constituents wanted? Because, certainly, we know one of the things we hear from many of our constituents is ``secure the border first.'' But now we have a Homeland Security bill and in this $36.3 billion with a 13.6 percent increase over last year, we can't find the appropriate amount of money to fully fund a fence. And that is something that the American people want to see done. Mr. Chairman, the debate that is taking place here, quite frankly, I think, is a very good debate. It is the type of debate we ought to have, and we ought to do this more often so that people can see what are the philosophies of the left and what are the philosophies of the right. So then they can get an understanding for the philosophical differences of how we view how to go about our jobs, how we view going about handling the taxpayers' money. I think this is a good thing for us to come here and talk about if we want to spend more, if we want to spend 13.6 percent more, or if we want to return to the model of the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, and reduce $40 billion worth of spending.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, precisely, there are 13 jurisdictions that have this program. It works. We need this Nation right. The cop on the beat needs the information to get to these criminals that are on our streets. Let's fully fund the 287(g). We're looking at $36.3 billion. There is money to do this right and be a good steward of our taxpayers' money.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady of Virginia, and also in support of the 287(g) program. I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning our program in Nashville, Tennessee, and talking a little bit about that. He gave us some information about why this program works. I would like to expand on that for just a couple of minutes, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a couple of minutes of remarks. The program in Nashville, the 287(g) program there, is working. We understand that it yields results. You heard about the first week's results from this program. Now, the reason we need to put our money where our mouth is and the reason the funding needs to support the language in the bill is because this is a program that saves local governments money. And it works. And there is a waiting list to get into this program. Now, a follow-up on the comments that the ranking member made from the June 10 issue of the Nashville Tennesseean. Fifteen deputies from the Davidson County department underwent training, and now they check the immigration status of every foreign-born person that is booked to that jail. Also, they have 213 inmates that were held on immigration orders during the program's first 45 days. It is a sharp increase from the 151 metro jail prisoners subjected to immigration holds in the year of 2006. This is paying for itself. It is getting results. That is why this program deserves to be fully funded. At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his 2 minutes of remarks.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to sit here last night and then today and listen to some of our colleagues who find it incumbent to step to the microphone and say this is not a worthy debate and to talk about frustration and talk about anger and talk about this being a debate of little substance. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to everyone that serves in this Chamber and the people that they represent, this is indeed a very worthy debate. It is a debate that deserves our best effort. It is a debate that deserves our focus and our undivided attention. It is also a debate that we should enter into with respect for the American taxpayers, the ones that are sending their hard-earned dollars here and their expectation that we should be, that it is incumbent upon us to be good stewards of every single penny that comes to this House. So for those who feel that the moments we are spending on this floor are not worthy, I would commend to them to think about the taxpayer that is hard at work right now, maybe in a job they don't even like, maybe doing something they don't really love, but they are working hard to provide for their family and they are working hard to meet their obligations and pay their taxes and to make certain that they do their part to be a good American citizen. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the frustration, anger and ``of little substance'' that was spoken of by one of my colleagues a bit earlier this morning, is probably exercised by the American taxpayer who looks at the increases in spending that have been brought forward by this majority. They are the ones who are frustrated. I think they are the ones who are angry. And I think that they are probably the ones who look at what is taking place and they fear that money is being put into items that are not substantive. Now, this new majority has already increased appropriations $105 billion. This is a 5-year cost of what they're wanting to appropriate. For '07, we've got $587 billion they've appropriated. They've already designated $23 billion in an '08 budget and it goes on and on and on, the increases in spending. Certainly we know that the bill before us, this homeland security bill, would be a 13.6 percent increase. And as I speak on Mr. McHenry's amendment, I commend him for bringing forward something that would cut just a little bit, just a little bit, out of these expenditures. But the truth, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a philosophical difference in how we approach this debate from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now, we heard last night that the decision on how appropriations should be done and how earmarks should be handled should be delegated to some of the professional staff. I heard from a couple of my constituents on this issue who really could not understand why we would want to delegate that authority, not review these earmarks ourselves, not want to cast a vote on those. They feel like that is our job, just as they feel like it is our job to oversee this budget, just as they want to know how this $36 billion is going to be spent on homeland security. They want to see a more transparent and a more open budget process. They don't want to see secret slush funds returned. They heard about these. They didn't believe it in the 1970's. They didn't believe they really existed in the 1980's. And then we had the advent of the Internet, 24/7 news, people could log on, and they started realizing, yes, there were these secret slush funds and smoke- filled rooms and that's how money got appropriated and sequestered for specific projects, something that they really didn't like. That is one of the reasons that we saw a change in '94 and things were done differently. I enjoyed that debate. I enjoyed that little history lesson last night. But I think as we review our situation that we find ourselves in today, what we see is a need for more transparency. We see a need to rein in this funding.