Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I rise to remember the life of Charlie Norwood. I know Charlie had an impact on everyone that he came into contact with and we are all grieving the loss. I had the privilege of serving with Charlie on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Charlie loved a robust discussion of the issues. He loved the ability to debate an idea and he loved espousing his conservative beliefs. When his microphone went on in committee, you could see the gleam in his eye as he readied for a hearty exchange. His love of engaging the issues was appreciated by all his colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Charlie was a man of deep conviction and integrity. He will be deeply missed, not only by this body but also by his constituents and his family. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and accomplishments of Congressman Charlie Norwood.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We know this because the terrorists tell us it is so. In poll after poll, the American people tell us they fully believe that what happens on the front line in Iraq affects their security every single day. You know, the Democrats have every right to disagree with the President's plan, but a nonbinding resolution is not the way to go. It sends a message of no confidence and no support to our troops in the field, weakening their morale while encouraging and emboldening the enemy. Our men and women in harm's way are fighting the insurgents and they are fighting the battle of ideas every day, not only in Iraq but in 30 different countries around this globe. They know that what we have to do is continue to win in that battle, and they don't have time to fight the war of public opinion in this country, which is what some of my colleagues in this House would seek to have them do. The Democrats have no alternative plan; they have no way forward. I welcome a responsible debate on this war, but let's make sure that we keep the focus on encouraging our troops, freedom, prosperity and ideas, and that we not encourage those who seek to do us harm.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time, as we come to the floor to debate this nonbinding, no confidence resolution that is going to serve to discourage our troops and embolden our enemies. I have noted that this obviously is the best that the Democrats have to offer when it comes to national security and to their thoughts on how we deal with the situation in Iraq, and that is a disappointment to me. I think that the question that we have to ask is, whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of winning? Are you on the side of freedom? Or are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand? And as I begin my remarks, I do want to thank the troops that live in my district, those of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, members of the National Guard who have served with distinction, Reservists who have been deployed more than once. I want to thank their families, and I want to thank the veterans that served in an advisory capacity to me as we look at these issues and as we make decisions about how best to approach preserving freedom, preserving liberty, and preserving the sovereignty of this great Nation as we know it. I thank them. I am grateful for their sacrifice. I am grateful for their service to this Nation, and I want it to be noted on this day. They have a commitment and a perspective and a love of freedom that few Americans will ever know. I wish that we all did. I am grateful also that they can articulate so fluently their mission and what they are called on to do every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the 30 countries around the globe where Americans fight to preserve freedom. They articulate this in e-mails and blogs, and even in notes and letters to their Member of Congress. I also, Mr. Speaker, want to recognize the Kurdish community that calls Nashville, Tennessee home, and recognize their commitment and their appreciation to our U.S. troops. One of the points that many of them make to me regularly and also one of the points that our men and women in uniform make regularly is to remind us of why we are in this fight, why we are in this fight and providing the historical perspective that is so important. This didn't begin on September 11. It did indeed begin long, long, long ago. Indeed, the radical Islamists have fought Judaism and Christianity not for decades but for centuries. This is something that we all know. The Islamic radicals did get a toe-hold in Iran in the late 1970s with the approach at that point by President Carter, then President Carter, and those around him. And now those radicals tell us, they tell us that Iraq is indeed the central front in the global war on terror. We know that they want to change the Middle East and then they want to change the world. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not the type change that we want. I want my children and grandchildren to live in freedom. I want them to know an America that is free and strong and independent. Our soldiers are fighting. They are fighting every day. They are fighting the insurgents in the field, they are fighting the battle of ideas; and the battle of ideas is a very, very powerful fight in Iraq at this point in time. Now, too many in this Chamber want to add another fight to our military men and women, to their agenda every day. They want them to have to fight the battle of public opinion here in the United States. I see that as a disservice to the men and women in uniform. This legislative body does have a role in oversight of the war, but I do believe, I personally believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we try to micromanage from the comforts of Washington. I do believe that we should be listening to our troops and our commanders in the field. General David Petraeus, who has taken the command, accepted the coalition flag this Saturday, said it very well and I will enter his comments for the Record. He reminds us that progress is being made and lays that out, and I will enter that for the Record and have the opportunity to talk about it again later. I think that what we have to do is realize the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, will not build morale with the troops on the ground, and it does give the terrorists just what they want. We have to fight back. We have to realize sacrifices do have to be made in order for us to further the cause of freedom and liberty in this great land. The situation in Iraq is exceedingly challenging. The stakes are very high. The way ahead will be hard and there undoubtedly will be many tough days . . . however, ``hard'' is not ``hopeless''; indeed, together with our Iraqi partners, we can and we must prevail. (General David Petraeus, Commander MNF-I, 2/10/07.) What They're Saying: General Petraeus Takes Command This Mission Is Doable: ``Our job in the months ahead, supporting and working with Iraqi forces will improve our security so tht the Iraqi government can resolve the tough issues it faces and so that the economy and basic services can be improved. These tasks are achievable, this mission is doable.'' (General David Petraeus, Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07) Enemies Who Brag of Inhuman Acts Against Fellow Human Beings: ``Tragically, barbaric enemies have prevented Iraq from making the most of the abundant blessings bestowed by the Almighty on Mesopotamia. These are enemies who brag of inhuman acts against fellow human beings, who invoke religious justifications for actions that no God could countenance, who try to drive wedges between religious and ethnic groups that have lived together in harmony in the past, and who in recent weeks have even targeted a girls' school, innocent laborers, marketplaces and pet shops in their efforts to spark sectarian violence.'' (General David Petraeus, Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07) Together We Can Defeat The Enemies of Iraq: ``Surely the Iraqi people realize that these enemies do not want the best for Iraqi's citizens, and surely now is the time for all Iraqis to reject violence, crime and corruption and to rise up against those who employ such methods to further their agendas. It is against these enemies that all Iraqis must now fight. And I pledge the full support of the Multinational Forces Iraq in this endeavor. Together we can defeat the enemies of Iraq.'' (General David Petraeus, Commander, MNF-I, 2/10/07)

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, as I rise I do want to say a special thank you to our troops who are deployed tonight, to those that are from Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District, many of those from Fort Campbell, and our National Guardsmen, our Reservists, certainly to our veterans. I can think of no more wonderful gift to give those and to leave for those you love than the gift of freedom. And certainly, on Valentine's Day, on Valentine's evening that is an important, important thought for us to have. And I appreciate all of our men and women and the efforts that they make to keep this Nation free, and to be certain that our children and our grandchildren have the opportunity to grow up in freedom and to enjoy the America that we have enjoyed. As we have talked about this resolution, the 97 words that exist in this very short resolution, we have talked about it from different angles, how a nonbinding resolution and a no confidence resolution affects our troops, the thoughts that went into creating this resolution. And one of the questions that I continually come back to that actually was posed to me by some of the veterans in my district, is whose side are you on? When you offer a resolution like this, whose side are you on? And the other question that keeps coming back is who are you listening to? Certainly, I would hope that we would all be standing on the side of freedom. I would hope that we would all be standing on the side of our troops. And I do hope that we would all be listening to our commanders in the field. There has been some mention this evening of General David Petraeus, who this weekend took control of command in Iraq. And I will give you some of his quotes, some of the things that he has had to say in the last few days as he is over there and working those. And I quote from him. ``Our job in the months ahead, supporting and working with Iraqi forces, will improve our security so that the Iraqi Government can resolve the tough issues it faces, and so that the economy and basic services can be improved. These tasks are achievable. This mission is doable.'' Indeed, those on the ground believe this is doable. We know that it is doable, and we know in the global war on terror we have to win. We cannot lose. We have to win. The civilized world depends on defeating terrorists and winning. We also know that Iraqis are making progress. There has been some debate and some mention tonight about progress not being made in Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, I will offer to you that indeed you are not going to hear this on the 6 o'clock news, the 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock news around the country because the major media outlets just don't want to report it. But we are finding out that while this body sets aside a political debate that some think will benefit them, what we see is our troops in the field in Iraq are making progress. They understand their mission. They know what they are about every day. We see that even just in the last few days, when you are talking about Baghdad, three Iraqi Army brigades are now deploying to Baghdad to reinforce the six Iraqi Army brigades and nine National Police brigades that are already there. These are steps that are taking place. This is progress that the Iraqi people are making on behalf of their quest for freedom. These are their steps, these are their steps toward freedom and toward leadership. How dare we discount that? How dare we not recognize that? How dare we not encourage that? And how dare we take steps to embolden and encourage the enemy who would seek to strike them down? Mr. Speaker, we should be very, very careful whom we listen to, and we should be very thoughtful as we answer the question, Whose side are you on? I am so grateful, Mr. Speaker, that those that have gone before us chose to be on the side of freedom.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, I continue to stand and support our troops. I feel it is imperative that we continue to strongly speak out in favor of the efforts that our troops are carrying out against terrorism, not only in Iraq, but in 30 different countries around the globe. The terrorists tell us, just as my colleague said, that Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror. War is not quick, and it is not painless. It is up to us here in the people's House to continue to support the troops and to be behind their efforts, funding them 100 percent of the way. In order to win, Mr. Speaker, we must not only succeed on the battlefield; we must win in the battle of ideas. We must win the civic and economic battles with the Iraqi people. They are as critical as any firefight that they face every day. The idea of freedom and prosperity is a powerful idea. Our coalition is breathing life into that idea with the Iraqi people. We need to stand firm, fund our troops, support our men and women in harm's way.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. I do rise on the point of conservation and pointing out some conservation. You know, it is amazing to me to hear all of this talk that we have about global warming. But you know what, the debate that we are having here just points out, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between conservationists and environmentalists, and this is one of the debates that points this out. Conservationists walk the walk. Environmentalists talk about it, but they do not walk the walk. You know, I remember, I appreciate so much the gentleman from Tennessee's comments about global warming and the threat that is there. Well, you know what? I am old enough to remember having been in high school in the 1960s, and I remember in the early 1970s, going into college where we were all going to freeze to death. We were going to freeze to death. It was on the cover of every magazine out there. We had an Ice Age that was coming. I was scared to death. I thought, my goodness, I will never be able to have children, watch them grow up, because we are going to be living in igloos. Well, but you know what? It did not happen, and now we find out, guess what, 100 years ago, they thought they had a warming cycle; or they did, they documented it. Then we find out that the rises and falls in temperatures of this great Earth are cyclical. It is there, and, yes, it is rising a little bit right there. But in 1969 and 1970 and 1971, the Ice Age was coming, and there was scientific proof. You know, at Energy and Commerce Committee last year, we had some great hearings. We talked about the fallacy of the hockey stick theory. We discussed that. We heard testimony, and we can have all of our community of scientists who are trying to serve the purpose of validating one another's theories, but not wanting to go back and use the evidence from 100 years ago, and it just proves the point, as is often said on this floor, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to a different set of facts, and that is the truth. You know, it is of tremendous concern, on a day when we are talking about the environment, that we do have an example being brought forth that would be spending, not only $22,000 an hour, but would be spending a lot in emissions, in gases. This is something that does deserve to be discussed, Mr. Chairman. I tell you what, we have named this, we have talked about this being the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress, and for every hour that our friends across the aisle are in charge, they are racking up, not thousands and millions, but moving to billions. Hold on to your wallet because of what they are choosing to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money on. It is of great concern to me, when I read reports that are coming out of all sorts of papers and news organizations about how this is coming to be, people returning to smoke-filled rooms, picking up the phones, calling, saying, this is the way it ought to be done. Mr. Chairman, it is of great concern to me, I think for those of us who are conservationists, who want to be certain that we leave this Earth a better place than we found it. We are wise to stand and to question the bill and to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, we are discussing national security every single day on the floor of this House, and our Border Patrol agents seem to be the forgotten soldiers fighting this war on terror. They guard our border every single day and protect our country from terrorists, from human traffickers, from drug traffickers. Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were recently convicted of shooting a drug smuggler while they were patrolling and protecting the border. Then they were sentenced to a decade in prison. You may have read that our own U.S. Attorney had this drug smuggler brought from Mexico, gave him immunity to testify against our agents, and then the smuggler was released. Now the drug smuggler is suing the U.S. Government for damages. As soon as Agent Ramos began his sentence in a Federal prison, he was assaulted by drug smugglers and drug users who were inmates in that prison. Ramos was doing his duty, protecting Americans from the thugs and the drug smugglers. Now we have failed to protect him.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield, that is an excellent point, because every dollar we spend is not ours. It is not the government's. It is the taxpayers'. And this is a government of, by and for the people. It is not a government of the government. And our friends across the aisle, through the New Deal, through the great society, putting all of these programs that sound good, that really answered a lot of questions and needs, you know, they put these in place, and then it grows and grows and grows. And then you have a big, big bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy becomes unresponsive. And the constituents want accountability with that. I had at one point said, you know, it reminded me very much of The Little Shop of Horrors, that stage play that we have all seen. And the plant grows and grows and grows, and then finally it says, feed me more, Seymour, and it envelops everything because that is what the government is saying to the American taxpayer, feed me more. We have an expert who is with us on so many of our family budget matters, our Republican Study Committee, RSC, chairman, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, and I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, how pleased I am to join the gentleman from California and my Republican Study Committee colleagues in this special order hour. As we talk about the budget and we really begin to focus on some of the components in this budget, you know, I think that many of my Republican Study Committee colleagues are interested in digging into this document, and their constituents are well served by that, like the gentleman from Tennessee talking about his First District constituents who are logging on to his Web site, who are looking at this budget. And certainly we want to direct people to the Republican Study Committee Web site. Here it is: RSC@mail.house.gov. We will be happy to point out some of the fallacies. Our colleagues across the aisle like to talk about fiscal responsibility, but then they don't practice it. They don't practice what they preach. And we have appropriately dubbed the work that the Democrats are doing as the ``Hold on to your wallet Congress'' because they are definitely coming to a pocket near you. And they want more of your money. That is one thing that you can basically take that IOU to the bank. They are going to try to cash it in. It is in the form of your hardearned dollars. So RSC@mail.house.gov. We invite everybody to work with us through this process. We want to be certain that we have your ideas. And we know, as the gentleman from Tennessee was saying, as Ronald Reagan, so many times has said, government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Government never gets enough of your money. You know, one of the things that I have repeatedly done in my town hall meetings is to say, how much is enough? How much is enough for government to tax? What is the ceiling? When are they going to say, we have got it, we are flush with money? We all know that, and I will yield to the gentleman for comment.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we do know that the war in Iraq will come up for debate in this body, as it should. But the debate on this floor should not be about partisan politics. It should be about doing what is in the best interests of our troops, making certain that we win in this global war on terror, and how we are going to keep this Nation and our communities and our cities safe. I recently read a quote from Specialist Tyler Johnson. He is serving his first tour of duty in Iraq. When asked about the criticism back home, he said that passing no-confidence resolutions does send a message to our troops overseas: ``You may support or say we support the troops, but you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It all just doesn't make sense to me.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree with Tyler and our troops. Passing no-confidence resolutions does send a message, and it is not a message of courage, of confidence and strength. I agree, let's support Sam Johnson's House Resolution 511. Stand with and fully fund our troops.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. One of my constituents this weekend was talking about this very issue, and he was very concerned. He had been reading some of the reports, hearing some of the things about the tax reductions that had been put in place in 2003 may be allowed to expire; and he said, Marsh, you know, it is all too often that I have got too much month left over at the end of my money. His point to me and his admonition was the time has come to achieve greater efficiencies. Every one of our constituents can go through their district and see any number of Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies that are wasting taxpayer money. They know they cannot do that in their family budget. They know that they cannot do that in their small business budget. As we have said time and again, this is the hold-on-to-your- wallet Congress. They are determined to get more of the taxpayer money, and we are going to stand solid with the taxpayers to make certain that we help protect those pocketbooks.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia; and I was so pleased that the gentleman from California mentioned Ronald Reagan and his birthday and brought up the Ronald Reagan quote that government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending problem. This is something that we all know and we all realize and certainly because of the tax reductions that were put in place, and the gentleman from Georgia showed us the charts that showed how the tax reductions went into place in 2003, and we have seen not only growth in our GDP, not only jobs growth but a reduction in the deficit and record revenues for the Federal Government. Because when those rates of taxation go down, we know that revenues to the government go up. I was listening to the gentleman from California, and I recalled a conversation with one of my constituents this weekend. He came to me and he said, Marsha, look at this here in the paper. It was a note that on February 3, 1913, is when the Federal income tax went into place. So here we are at a time when that is being remembered. February 3, 1913, a 1 percent temporary tax, only on the wealthiest, went into place to pay for a war. And look at what we have got now: an IRS that is big and is bloated and is cumbersome and wants more and more and more, a government that wants more and more and more of the dollar that the taxpayer earns. It is like another saying that Ronald Reagan had: The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a Federal Government program. 1913, a tax was put in place to pay for a war, to fund a defense effort; and today it is bigger than ever and is still in place. So how appropriate that we come this week and we talk about the budget and we talk about what the President is bringing forth and we talk about the Tax Code and the changes that should be made and the changes that ought to be made and the steps that we should be taking to be certain that the American people retain more of their paycheck. It is an important thing to do. As I was looking through the President's budget that he is offering forth this week, one of the things that caught my eye and that I was pleased to see is that he is recommending the elimination of 141 programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness, that need to be revisited, that the duties could be shuffled to another one, that could be merged with another program so that services are delivered more effectively and more efficiently. I was very pleased to see that because, as I said earlier, we know that there is a spending problem in Washington, DC. We have had our focus on addressing that; and what we want to do is reduce that spending, eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness and make certain that we do not raise taxes. It is important that we move forward balancing the budget. It is important that we get the fiscal house in order. It is imperative that we do it without raising taxes. So I am looking forward to working to make certain that we focus on waste, fraud and abuse, working to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that we eliminate those programs and, Mr. Speaker, working to make certain that we keep the commitment to the American people that their tax bill is not going to go up, that their tax bill is going to be going down. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, today President Bush presented his budget to the American people, and even though it is bigger and more bloated than I think it should be, I am pleased that it does include a balanced budget without raising taxes. As stewards of the taxpayers' money, we must be diligent in working to achieve savings and making this government run more efficiently. We have plenty of data from the GAO and from our Inspector General showing that money is wasted throughout the Federal Government, and the President's budget does target 140 programs that could and should be removed. So whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, there is consensus among the American people that we do have a spending problem in the Federal Government. It is not a revenue problem. Tax reductions have generated record revenues. It is definitely a spending problem, and it is time that we begin to fine-tune our focus and decide what is a priority with this government. So I hope that my colleagues on either side of this center aisle will join together, will take a good hard look at this budget, and will find a way to balance it without raising taxes.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the Franklin High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad for winning the 2006 TSSAA Cheerleading (Large Squad) State Championship. On November 18, 2006 at Middle Tennessee State University, hundreds of hours of hard work were rewarded as the Lady Rebels narrowly upset another squad that had recently won a national championship. This recognition reflects a dedication to practice and commitment to excellence. The teambuilding skills acquired by working together as a squad will doubtless benefit these young women for a lifetime. Madam Speaker, please join me in thanking the parents, coaches and faculty of Franklin High School and again congratulating the members of the 2006 State Championship squad. I am sure this is not the last we will hear from this talented group of young women. Laura Satterfield, Lindsey Jones, Taylor Kennerly, Kathleen Engstrand, Christie Kibler, Stacey Caravetta, Carly Joseph, Hannah Johnson, Chelsea Steen, Kacey Capps, Kelsey Raymond, Kate Allman, Rachel Mezger, Mary Musgrove, Kelsi Cates, Corianne Carter, Chelsea Ridens, Taylor Harrell, Grace Tenkhoff, Paige Tenkhoff, Kathryn Chambers, Courtland Harrell, Caroline Watson, Chandler Howell, Sara Thames.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this Democrat joint resolution, which really is nothing more than a big old omnibus bill. It is a bill that uses what appears to be budget gimmicks and what appears to be some misleading rhetoric to mask their true passion, which is spending more of the taxpayer dollars on government programs. And we know government does not have a revenue problem. Government has a spending problem. And despite their campaign promises, they are refusing to allow the House to discuss and vote on something that they advocated just last month, which would have been a true continuing resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and to pay down the deficit. Now, as my colleague from Texas said, Representative Campbell offered an amendment, which would have been a true CR. It would have spent $6.2 billion less. But they didn't want that. They wanted the omnibus. If they were committed to fiscal responsibility, they would join us in that CR. They would help pass Paul Ryan's line item veto bill, and they would show what fiscal responsibility looks like. It is another action of the hold-onto-your-wallet Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. He does such a wonderful job of pulling the Truth Squad together and helping us focus on the issues that are important to our constituents and of concern to our constituents and of concern to all Americans. Certainly the process that we have seen carried out here in the House of Representatives is one that causes us concern. For those of us who respect regular order, who respect the integrity of the House, to see an omnibus spending bill go straight from the drafting table of a couple of Members, one in the Senate and one in the House, and then come directly to the floor for a vote is of tremendous concern. We all know that our Nation has a process that was laid forth in the founding of this Nation, a process by which this body would conduct its business on behalf of the people, the people's House. Today, as I heard some of my colleagues across the aisle talk about how we had returned to regular order, I thought, oh, my goodness, I do not think this is what people had in mind. I really do not think, Mr. Speaker, that when people went to the polls in November and voted and said we want to see a change in things, we want greater accountability, we want greater transparency and we are frustrated with what we have seen in Washington. I do not think this is what they had in mind, and certainly we would hope this is not the process that the Democrat majority will follow as they talk about what is going to be regular order. What the gentleman from Georgia just said about the omnibus is so very true. As he said, this is a continuing resolution. It requires two sheets of paper. It is a total of about 40 lines of type. That is it. It just says we abide by the budget that was in place in 2006. Our constituents may remember that the budget that we passed in 2006 was the budget that made 1 percent across-the-board reductions in spending, 1 percent. It was a $40 billion savings to the American people. Now, the budget, this omnibus budget, this 137 pages is going to end up spending about $17 billion more. So they are reducing and doing away with the savings that we worked hard to put in place. The thing that is of tremendous concern to me, and I am so delighted to see the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who is such an advocate for our military and is really, having chaired our Armed Services Committee, speaks so well to that issue and I know he is going to talk about it, but it just breaks my heart to know that our National Guard troops and our troops at Ft. Campbell, which is located in my district, are going to have far less money for quality of life because of the actions that were taken in this budget and the way in this budget, in this document, H.J. Res. 20, and people can go online and pull this up and look, and how they have taken from military quality of life, money that should be going to our military families and have moved that to other departments; how they took money from our military quality of life, $50 million, and that is given to the Palestinian Authority. That is something that with my constituents has certainly raised a lot of questions. The thing that interested me when it came to the issue of the earmarks was they had said, oh, no earmarks are going to be in this budget, and then I found out that, well, there were earmarks that were in the budget. Nevada seems to have earmarks. Other States seem to have some curious earmarks that are left in there, but then there are funds that are turned back to the agencies. I said, well, how does this money get spent? Is it done with letters of instruction? How is it done? What I found out was that the process that they would revert to, and I guess this is regular order, would be the process before money started being earmarked. It is where you pick up the phone and you call the agency and say let me tell you how I think we need to spend that money. My constituents long ago said they did not want the activities of smoke-filled rooms. They wanted more transparency and the American people wanted to see greater accountability, and I think that we will continue to hear from our constituents. They want a smaller budget that is going to be more responsible of their money. This is not our money. It is the taxpayers' money. Government does not have a revenue problem. With the tax reductions that have been passed, the Federal Government has brought in more money than ever. What government has is a spending problem. It has a priority problem, and this big, bloated budget that was passed today is a budget that will continue to fund a bloated bureaucracy that just cannot get enough of our constituents' money. I was disappointed today with the actions of the majority. I was disappointed in how they chose to carry it out. I do hope that we see a change in the way they carried forth, and to the gentleman from Georgia, I will tell you, I hope that we continue to see a return to a respect for how we address the people's business in this House. We talked some about one man, one vote and the sanctity of that and the importance of that, and I do hope that everyone will continue to keep their focus on being certain that we respect that for our constituents. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, the hold-onto-your-wallet Congress is at it again. Just a week after raising costs to nearly all of America's small businesses, they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little or no explanation of where it is going. After months of campaigning and pledges on open government and more accountability, the Democrats are still behind locked doors spending billions of taxpayer dollars with very little transparency. Tomorrow, they are going to cram through an omnibus spending package, not a continuing resolution, which basically is going to pay the government's bills; and the price tag is $463 billion, a $463 billion budget. And from what we understand, it has been crafted by a couple of folks, that's all. The Budget Committee didn't hold hearings. It was not reviewed for waste, fraud and abuse. But from what we are understanding from the reports in the news, we have two Appropriations chairmen who have put it together, and you and I are just supposed to trust their judgment. I think so, Madam Speaker; we need to have accountability, we need to have review.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, the subject of Iraq and the war in Iraq, the global war on terror, is indeed a subject that is a tense subject, it is a difficult subject. In districts like mine, with Fort Campbell, with our National Guard men and women, it is one that we talk about a lot. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I do fear is that in this debate, as we talk about it, we have lost civility in this debate. It has been of great concern to me that I have heard of some of the actions of the protesters who came to our Nation's capital this weekend. I am deeply disturbed by the report of a veteran who was counterprotesting the protesters that were here, and he was spat upon by those protesters, spat upon, a man who fought for our freedom, to protect the freedom that allows them to have a protest. That is shameful, and they should be ashamed; they should be dealt with. You know, one of the things that we continue to hear from the Iraqis is, do not leave us until we are stable. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that we need to remember. It is imperative that we make certain that they move to stability and productivity.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time and the opportunity to talk with my colleagues about an issue that is of tremendous importance to us. It is certainly one that I have heard from from my constituents in Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District. They are quite concerned about this. It seems that all of a sudden last week, outside of regular order, outside of the normal committee process, an old idea resurfaced and came before this body in the form of a piece of legislation that is not going through regular order, is not going through the committee process. And I had many constituents who were quite concerned about this, and how could a bill that is important to us, important to our Nation, important to our structure and our way of governing come before us without people being aware? This issue is the issue of delegate voting. We are going to hear more about this today and tomorrow. Then the Democrat majority is going to push this to the floor for a vote so that they can circumvent what is the constitutional underpinning of this great Nation. Now, we as Republicans believe in the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. We think that that is important. It is important to adhere to that, that everyone is equal under the law. Everyone is entitled to their vote, everyone is entitled to that representation of one person, one vote. And to change that principle and allow delegate voting would require an amendment of the Constitution. That is not a statement that comes only from me but the Democrats can look at their former Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, who is on record in 1970 when this old issue came up at that point. In 1970, former Speaker of the House Tom Foley, a Democrat from Washington State said, and I am quoting, it is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole, which is the full House. Now, Mr. Speaker, this act by the Democrats is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab that they want in order to be able to further their agenda. So we feel that it is important to stand against this. We feel that it is also important that we look at the Constitution, when it says that the House shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States, not delegates representing the non-State territories. There is a distinction here. There is a bright line here. We also feel like that it is important to note that this plan would run over that tenderly held principle of one person, one vote. The average congressional district has approximately 650,000 people. Mine in Tennessee has a little bit more than that. We know that Speaker Pelosi's has 640,000 people. But we also know that American Samoa has 57,000 people, the Virgin Islands 108,000, and Guam 155,000. So the Delegates that represent those numbers of individuals could vote to raise your taxes, but--and this is another point that concerned my constituents--they would not have to pay them. So their Delegates can vote to raise the taxes of my constituents in Tennessee but those Delegates' constituents wouldn't have to be paying the taxes. They get benefits, they want a vote, they want to use that money. They are just not having to pay the taxes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this is something that many people would say, well, if we're going to have equity under the law, if they're not going to have to pay though those taxes, if they're going to have a Congressman for 57,000 people and they have their vote for 57,000 or 108,000 or 155,000, then why don't we just change the rules for everybody? The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, we know is because this Constitution means something. This is a Nation of laws. It is a Nation that is built on the rule of law. And to give Delegates the right to vote is inappropriate. It is a circumvention of our law. It is a violation of our Constitution. Now, we know that the Democrat leadership is trying to ram this through the House and there are some reasons for doing this. They feel like they can literally do it on the sly this week. Tonight is the State of the Union. They feel like they can do this in the shadow of the State of the Union without going through the process of the committees, without going through the process of amending the Constitution. We also know that they would choose to do it before they establish regular order. Mr. Speaker, you know, we have not been in the committee process. The committees have not been functioning. We have been having bills come straight to the floor without the due diligence and the oversight that is done by the committees. We know the Democrats would choose to circumvent that process and pass this before regular order is established. It is an issue of great concern. I appreciate very much that my constituents have been involved in the issue.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlemen for yielding their time back and doing it in the spirit of bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I hope that now that the 100 hours is out of the way and we are to the point of having the State of the Union, that we will see this body return to a format of regular order and regular process and rules that we have had in place and have respected and this body has abided by through the course of this great Nation. That would, indeed, be welcomed. In the 100-hour agenda we have seen the majority party take action on some of the issues that they had chosen to address. Their 100-hour agenda has included legislation on student loans that really is not going to do anything to make loans more accessible and available to those students that are trying to get into college. It is not going to reduce the cost of college while it is there. And it will take effect after a person has graduated and then is working and is looking at consolidating those loans and paying them back. So that one was a little bit of a head-scratcher for a lot of our constituents because we have worked tirelessly to make college more affordable, to raise the caps on what could be loaned for students to get those Stafford loans, Pell Grants and increasing the funding for those, things that actually would make a difference, and that is an accomplishment of the Republican majority over the past decade. Minimum wage. One of our colleagues had just mentioned minimum wage. And I will point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this body that the actions that were taken on minimum wage, we heard from our small business community. Certainly small business employers that are in my district were very concerned about this. We have heard estimates of 5 to 7 to as much as $17 billion in costs that this would be to our small businesses. That is of tremendous concern. That is a cost that is going to get passed on. That is a cost that is going to get passed on. And of course in the minimum wage bill, we had the unfortunate error of Tunagate that was crept into that bill somehow in one of the sessions as the bill was being drafted, and there again, not going through regular order in making its way to the House. And we hope that we will see that situation addressed. And the tuna producers that American Samoa were exempted from that, American Samoa was exempted from that minimum wage. That is not fair to the rest of the tuna producers in this country. It is not fair to the rest of the companies that sell tuna and tuna products, and we do hope that there will be attention placed to that and that issue will be addressed, because it was a northern California, San Francisco, company that produced the tuna that is harvested in American Samoa. We do have concerns about favoritism that was shown there. The Medicare bill that was passed in the first 100 hours will indeed yield additional costs to the VA. We have had some numbers there that are of quite concern, as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars that this would end up costing, be an additional cost to the veterans health care system, to our veterans for their pharmaceuticals. And what we have heard from our seniors is that they are pleased with Medicare part D. They are pleased to have access to affordable health care. They are very pleased that prescriptions and pharmaceuticals and therapies that at one point they did not have, that they now have access to that. It was a little bit of a head-scratcher, Mr. Speaker, that a program that has been so well received by our seniors, that the new majority would come along and say, well, we are going to change it. We are going to tweak it. It does not matter if it is working well. And it leads us to question: Is it just they want programs that only they design and only they grow, or do they want programs that are going to be of service to the American people? Another of the bills that came through was the 9/11 Commission implementation, not exactly what had been promised in campaign promises. But, you know, the new majority did take the bill up and did take action. And we have heard from a lot of our businesses that are in logistics and transportation with great concerns, great concerns about the cost. Mr. Speaker, when you pass additional fees and additional mandates, and additional costs on to business, guess what? Ronald Reagan was right. It is the people that end up paying those costs. It is not businesses that are bearing those costs and absorbing them. They get passed on to you, to me, and to other consumers, the taxpayers, who see their costs go up because the business that they are doing business with is having to meet the mandates of who? Guess what? The mandates of the Federal Government. So, yes, this has been a very expensive first 100 hours. And it has been troublesome in that regular order was not abided by, the bills were not going through committees and having hearings and having the due diligence process that we as Members of Congress are bound to do. And then they were just coming to the floor without those hearings. I just had another of our colleagues mention something on health care. Of course, this is an issue that we know the President is going to speak a little bit about this evening. Before we move on to a couple of other points, I do want to make a couple of observations about health care and some of the discussion that was taking place on the issue of health care. We know the President is going to talk about health care tonight. Now, the Republicans, the conservatives, have an approach that they think is a right approach. We think that it is appropriate for small businesses to be able to band together and come together under an umbrella and purchase health care, health coverage, health insurance for their employees. That is very good. Our Nation has 40 million uninsured, and to be able to have groups come together, small businesses, let us say all of your florists, or all of your auto supply companies, or all of your plumbing companies, or companies that are a part of the Chamber of Commerce or other small business organizations, or women-owned businesses, businesses of like groups can come together and make that purchase of insurance. It is called small business health plans or association health plans, very good idea for helping our Nation's 40 million uninsured, and the right type, the right type step because it helps make health care insurance affordable. Mr. Speaker, that is positive. That is a free-market way to address the situation. It is a pro-small-business way to address the situation. It is the right step. Another good step is allowing a tax deduction, $5,000, $7,500, for small business that buy insurance. That is the great step. That is the way it should be. You know, when you start looking at the end of the year and filling out your taxes, that is money that you have earned, and being able to take that deduction because you have done something that is right, way to go. It should be incentivized. There should be deductions for that. And it is appropriate that that take place. Now, those are private sector, free market responses to addressing the health care situation. They work very well with the health savings accounts that were passed as part of the Medicare modernization when that bill came forward in 2003. Health savings accounts have been tremendously popular. We now know that we have about 15 million Americans that are insured through health savings accounts. The number is growing. By 2010 we know that there will be over 20 million American families that are there and insured through health savings accounts, having the opportunity to take responsibility for their health care from dollar one. And continuing to incentivize health savings accounts, tax deductions there. There again, it is a private sector, free-enterprise solution to the health care situation, more market-driven, allowing people to have control of access, to take control of their health care decisions, and to participate in those, have choice over who their physician is. Those are the right things to do. Now, one of my colleagues just made a statement about the haves and the have-nots in health care, and made a statement that health care could be provided and, I think I am quoting this correctly, said: We could do it without any additional cost to the system. Oh, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, when I hear things like that, without any additional cost to the system, it certainly causes me to pay a little bit closer attention, because one of the things that we have realized, Mr. Speaker, is you know what? Nothing is free. There is nothing free. Nothing. There is no free lunch. There is nothing free in health care. Somebody is paying the bill. What we see take place many times is cost shifting, and you will see costs shift within a system. Now, in my wonderful State of Tennessee, we have had an interesting situation take place. We have had a program that went into place in January 1, 1995. It is called TENNCARE, and it was basically a template for Hillary Clinton's health care plan. And one of the talking points on it was: There will be no additional costs. We will just spread out the risk. We will allow those who are uninsured, up to so many percent of poverty, 400 percent of poverty, to come in and to access health care, and we will spread the risk. We will do it through managed care organizations. And managed care organizations can compete for the opportunity to provide this insurance. Well, it has been a program that has had quite a bit of turmoil. We now see that nearly 30 percent of the individuals in our State are on the program, and it is eating up about 36 percent of our State's budget. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is because whenever you are trying to give things for free, someone else is paying. In the case of TENNCARE, it has been the citizens of our State, the taxpayers of our State. And there is no way to ever keep up with the exponential growth of that program. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to be very, very thoughtful as we move forward on the health care debate. There is no such thing as being free. There is no way to do this with no additional cost, because, as you try to make more things free, what happens is your access is restricted. What happens is you have fewer physicians who are available for those individuals that need those services. What have you when things are free is people flood into that State trying to get that for a reduced fee, and your own citizens of the State who need the program many times are not able to access it. So I would step very cautiously as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about health care that is going to be free, and universal health care and Hillary Clinton's health care plan. There are some pitfalls that are there, and they deserve to be recognized by the body of this House. As we talk about health care, I would love to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a distinguished Member of this body who is an expert on health care, for some of his thoughts on the issues of the day.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. I will close our hour by referencing some comments I have had from some veterans in my district. I love the fact that I have absolutely wonderful veterans who participate with me on these issues in our National Security Coalition, in our Veterans Coalition, which are advisory groups for me. And I have had great discussions with them and have sent them information about the new strategy going forward in Iraq, about some of the conversations that have been taking place here, and have sought their best judgment, men and women who have worn the uniform and have been there and who have fought and seeking their best judgment. And a couple of their comments, I think, are so incredibly significant. One of them says: ``We have to continue our push forward and let our military make the decisions in this war. When the House and Senate changed, there was no doubt there would be a change of efforts. Our enemy knows this and will continue to strike as long as they think our country is not united.'' And another of the veterans said in this e-mail: ``What is important is that we show a unified front to the enemy and we give the new plan and the deployment a chance to work. If we win, if we defeat radical Islam, then maybe, maybe, this is all going to be worth it.'' Mr. Speaker, these men and women who have put that uniform on and have gone into battle know that this is the price that we pay. They understand that this is not going to be easy. They know, and they are watching the President's speech tonight, and they are watching our response. And I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our enemy is watching our response. And I will submit to you that, while we all have different philosophies, we all come from different districts, and we are a very diverse body, I would commend to you and my colleagues that it is important that we stand with our men and women in uniform, that we show a unified front and show that we are committed to being certain that this Nation continues to stand as a great Nation and that we persevere.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. And one of the things that we have our focus on as we prepare for the State of the Union tonight and for the work that is before us for the rest of this Congress is certainly making certain that we are successful in our efforts in Iraq and making certain that we are successful in the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, our constituents know that this has been a long war. They know that the terrorists started attacking us over two decades ago, and they also know that on September 11 this Nation decided we were no longer going to respond to terrorist attacks as civil disobedience. What we were going to do was to change course, and we were going to respond to it as what it is: an act of war. And our constituents all know, especially constituents in my district, National Guard families, Reserve families, families at Fort Campbell that are in our district, they know that this is a very, very difficult time for our Nation, and it is a difficult time for our men and women in uniform. And they know that freedom is worth protecting. And when I talk to those men and women, many who have been deployed in Afghanistan, have done two deployments in Iraq and know that they may be going back, they will say, Yes, we are going back because our job is not done. And they understand it, Mr. Speaker. And they know that we take a step forward and then we take a step or two back, and that it comes very slowly, and that progress is very slow. We have seen, and our colleague John Shadegg had handed me an article from Real Clear Politics that pointed out some things that have been happening recently that just haven't caught the eye of the media, and I wish that they had because I would like for them to catch the eye of the American people. First of all, there appears to be some retreating by al Qaeda from Baghdad because they know that troop levels are returning to where they were during the electoral process that took place in January of last year in Iraq. They know that the radical cleric, al Sadr, has decided to call off his boycott, and that his people are returning to participate in that newly formed Parliament, and they know that he is lowering his profile. And they also have seen Prime Minister al Maliki begin to take a change of course and to put some distance between himself and al Sadr. But this is of tremendous concern to us when we hear the naysayers talk about cutting funding and not supporting the troops. And this morning I was on the floor speaking about our colleague Sam Johnson, who truly is a hero and has a wonderful piece of legislation that steps forward. It is House Resolution 511, and it really pushes forward on the idea of supporting our troops and funding these men and women who are in harm's way, making certain that they have what they need to do the job that is in front of them; sending the message to them that we stand with them and we are not going to desert them. We know that this is difficult work. We know that it is a job, as I said, that is slow; that progress is slow. But, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today preparing for the State of the Union, and as we expect to hear this evening from our Commander in Chief that the state of the Union is indeed strong, we also want these men and women in uniform to know that it is strong because of the work they do. We have the ability to stand here every day and talk about freedom and defend freedom and talk about having a Nation that is so wonderful and so diverse that we all, each and every one of us, can pursue our dreams, can focus on hope and opportunity that is so important to us. We do that because men and women have put their life on the line, many times more than once, many times for days on end, to be certain that freedom remains. And we feel that it is appropriate to bring forward a resolution that says fund the troops and fund their needs. We think that it is important that we move forward letting the men and women know that, when they are in the field, we are listening to them. We are listening to the troops. We are listening to the commanders, and we respect their judgment. That is an important message for us to send. And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, repeating again from the Constitution that the representatives of this body are popularly elected from the several States, and that is so important, and I want to talk for just a moment about the size of our districts. Mine is right around 700,000 people. We have some that I think are as low as 640,000, 650,000. They are going to vary just a little bit. But that is the size of them. We do appreciate so much the guidance that is given by the Delegates from the territories. They are a valuable participation and a valuable addition and a wonderful and treasured resource of this body. We need their opinion and their input. But the Constitution does not allow for their having a vote. I think in Guam we have about 155,000 people, and in American Samoa there are about 57,000 people. So we look at one man, one vote and the equal representation, and then we have to say, my goodness, that is just really a far smaller number. That is the size of many of our towns or our counties that we represent when you have a district like mine. So I think that it is important for us to realize that. And it is important for us also to realize that these are Delegates that will be able to vote to raise your taxes, but they are not paying those Federal income taxes, and that is of tremendous concern to our constituents. Mr. Speaker, we have dubbed this time and again the ``hold on to your wallet Congress'' because it seems as if they are looking for ways to increase the cost of government and increase the size of that bureaucracy. And our concern is that this is another of those ways that would make it easier to raise your taxes. And I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It does indeed. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Having this process that gets more and more convoluted every single day is of such concern to our constituents who just want to be able to go to the doctor, have a relationship with the doctor and know a little bit about what to expect. As I said earlier, not knowing what to expect has been one of the interesting points that we have dealt with in this first 100 hours. I think that we all have been a little bit concerned about a bill that was brought forward on Friday. I know my constituents asked about it as they heard about it over the weekend. We talked about it on the floor some this morning, and this is allowing the Delegates voting rights. I have had constituents say, well now, wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution? They remember when this debate took place at different times through history back in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s when there were those that wanted to give voting rights to our territories. They are very, very concerned about this, and rightfully so. This morning on the floor earlier I quoted a comment that was made by the Democrat Speaker of the House in 1970, Tom Foley, who said: ``It is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in the full House.'' That was taken from a New York Times editorial. Now, this is something that we have to realize, we hold our Constitution and the orderly process and the rule of law that is laid forth in that Constitution, we hold that to be meaningful. We recognize the necessity, Mr. Speaker, to respect the Constitution of this great land. We respect that it is built on one man, one vote and equal representation under the law. So when we hear about giving the residents of our territories a vote, it is of concern to us and it does raise several succinct points that we have discussed on the floor today. It is a point worthy of discussion because it appears that since this has not gone through regular order and through the committee process, we haven't held hearings, this is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab in order to try to move the new majority's agenda. It is of tremendous concern. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for some comments on the issue.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for bringing that forward. The unintended consequences are many times what is so difficult to deal with. In theory to bureaucrats sitting in buildings, that sounded like a great deal: let's have everybody sign the forms. In practice what happened for physicians, it was additional paperwork, additional staff, and removing the patient from the process, making it longer before they get a definitive diagnosis and know how to begin a protocol and treatment that will restore their health, things that impede a quality of life that our constituents desire. So those unintended consequences many times get in the way. We are just very hopeful that we will continue the focus and that the Democrats will join us in wanting a private sector, free-market solution to health care and not a government-run bureaucracy.