John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I thank the chairman for yielding. And I know if anybody has been keeping up with this weekend, I know that they realize and understand that this is not an ordinary time. I believe personally we are here because in this decade we have witnessed financial mismanagement and regulatory neglect which leads us to this morning. Unfortunately, when the Secretary of the Treasury came over and we looked at the proposal, or the bare bones of the proposal, it appeared to some of us that it was all about private gain and public risk. And that was unacceptable for the taxpayers to take the risk to help those referred to as Wall Street. So I have been asked to talk about this recoupment clause, section 134 of the bill, that was finally accepted in negotiations. It says the following: ``Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program''--this bill. ``In any case there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt.'' What this means is we have taken away the private gain-public risk aspects of this act and made sure that the people who are eligible to participate in it will pay back to the Treasury any shortfall that may occur at the end of the program. With this section 134, it is my opinion that this is no longer about Wall Street. This is about the IRAs, the 401(k)s, the pension plans that all American citizens have and that all State governments have at stake in their pension programs. This is no longer, then, about bailing out anyone. It is about trying to put together a plan that will do less harm than we would do otherwise by our inaction to every American citizen's financial security, IRA, 401(k) pension programs. If we have, as Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, the President and others has said, a colossal or a catastrophic situation happen because of our inaction, it's not going to be Wall Street; it's going to be the 401(k)s, the IRAs and the pension plans that all of us share.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend, Mrs. Shirlene Mercer, a long-time community leader, teacher and role model. While I know she will continue to play an important role in our community, Shirlene is retiring after serving the 8th Congressional district for 20 years. Shirlene has always worked to serve the community above herself. She was a teacher for 24 years in Hardeman County, TN, before joining our staff in 1989 as Director of District Services, a position through which she has helped countless Tennesseans. Shirlene has also helped many West Tennesseans through her tireless dedication to fighting crime in our area by initiating regular anti- crime marches for residents of Madison County, Tennessee, to make clear their intention to keep our neighborhoods safe for our families. I have been honored to be part of these marches over the years, as have many other local, state and national leaders, including Vice President Al Gore. Shirlene's work gained national attention and helped highlight the problems of crime in our area and in many communities like it across our state and country. Both Vice President Gore and I have been fortunate to receive Shirlene's guidance over the years, as have many other leaders, including Governor Phil Bredesen, Governor Ned McWherter, Senator Jim Sasser, Congressman Harold Ford, Sr., Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., and many members of the Tennessee General Assembly. Her counsel on issues of importance to Tennesseans has always been helpful to those who seek to better serve their communities. Shirlene is a graduate of Merry High School and Lane College, both in Jackson, TN, and she did graduate work at the University of Memphis and Austin Peay State University. She is married to Luther, a Madison County Commissioner, and they have two grown children, Luther Mercer, Jr., and Tina Mercer. Both are following in their mother's footsteps and proving to be strong leaders in their communities. Madam Speaker, I wish you could see Shirlene's office walls in our Jackson, TN, district office. They are filled, floor to ceiling, with awards and commendations she has earned over the years for her service and leadership. Included in these many awards are multiple recognitions from the NAACP, the Tennessee Education Association's ``Humanitarian Award'' and the FBI's ``Director's Community Leadership Award,'' just to name a few of the very long list. I know that even as Shirlene begins her retirement from Congressional service, she will remain active in our community. I am sure she will continue to help West Tennesseans and will remain a leader in the Tennessee Democratic Party. Many of us will still seek her counsel and friendship. Madam Speaker, I hope that you and our colleagues will join Betty Ann and me in congratulating Shirlene on her retirement, expressing deep gratitude and admiration for her long career of public service and wishing her all the best as she works in new ways to help those in our community.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have a choice, another choice tonight. The incentives in these extenders are important to all Americans, and they are critical to job creation. We can do this one of two ways. We can offset the cost of these extenders without adding to this massive debt. That is one of the reasons why we are in the shape we are in right now. All of these offsets that we have proposed to pay our way on these extenders have interestingly enough been approved by the Senate in one form or another. The very people who we are asking to help us with the offsets don't agree with the bill. It is a simple choice. We can pass these tax incentives, fully paid for with noncontroversial offsets, approved by the business community and Senate Republicans, or we can pass them and do what we have been doing, and that is continue to borrow massive amounts from overseas that have put us, Americans, all of us, in a financially vulnerable position. One of the offsets is included in the Senate bill that was sent over here, and the other has been unanimously approved by the Senate in times gone by. So any suggestion that there is something that is controversial or objectionable by the Senate as a reason for inaction in a responsible manner by the House simply doesn't hold water. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope as we start a new day here, and we have been working all weekend on a very important package for our country, that we can at least, on something this important and as noncontroversial as the offsets are, do the responsible thing around here for once.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, we have been following the gentleman's economic plan for this country since 2001. I tell you where the spending is, we are spending today this year somewhere, depending on the interest rate, between $85-90 billion more on interest. This is where the spending is. Interest is the second fastest growing part of the Federal budget. We are borrowing money and hocking this country to anybody on Earth who will let us have it. That is why spending is going up, all right. It is going up $85-90 billion a year since 2001 when they started this deal. If you want to continue to do that, we will see how much spending can slow down because you have to pay interest.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join our colleagues today in paying tribute to my friend, Congressman Bud Cramer, who, as you know, will retire later this year after representing Alabama in this body for 18 years. During that time, he has been an important leader in Congress and an excellent public servant for the American people. Several years ago, Bud and I, along with a handful of our Democratic colleagues, formed a small group to fill what we saw as a void within the body at that time--a solution-oriented coalition of moderate members who could help forge a bipartisan bridge between our colleagues on either side of the partisan aisle. That group was named the Blue Dog Coalition, to which we both still belong. I appreciate Bud's leadership in working on bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing our country. A military veteran, grandfather and children's advocate, Bud has dedicated much of his life to serving his country and helping others. Madam Speaker, Bud Cramer's dedication and commitment have served our country well, and his presence in this chamber will be missed.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing me this 2 minutes. Those of us who support the Childers amendment are not here of our volition. We're here because the Supreme Court of the United States, in a clarification ruling regarding, in this case, the second amendment to the Constitution, said that it's the law of the land and certain things must be done. This Childers amendment does this and only this. It does not, for example, have any provisions that would limit the ability of the independent authorities of D.C., such as a public housing authority, from restricting firearms. It does not repeal the ammunition ban. It does not do anything in terms of strict liability for gun manufacturers, as the District law provides, provisions regarding exemptions. All it does is what we would do routinely around here if it were any other group of American citizens in any State or territory. We would say, look, the Supreme Court changed the law of the land that Congress is going to enact enabling legislation to allow for that decision to be instrumental and put into place. And you will do the same whether you live in California, New York, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, wherever. This is done routinely. I don't understand how people can argue that since its the District, it ought to somehow be different than any other American citizen. And so, Mr. Speaker, this Childers amendment is very narrowly drawn to only enforce the Supreme Court decision as it relates to that decision; nothing more, nothing less. And whatever the District wants to do outside the parameters of that is perfectly all right with me.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman. We're here tonight, not because we've asked for a vote but because the Supreme Court, in a recent decision, changed the law of the land or at least clarified what the law of the land is with respect to the second amendment. It could be about almost any subject. We routinely come here after the Supreme Court decides what the law of the land is on a justiciable issue, and we enact, implementing legislation whether its on people in Tennessee or in Mississippi or in Oregon or in Washington State or in the District of Columbia. That's done routinely over and over again. The subject happens to be the second amendment in this most recent Supreme Court decision. It could be about anything. Nobody disputes the fact that the District of Columbia has every right to make its own laws. What we do dispute is that the District of Columbia does not have the right, nor does any other American citizen, to ignore the law of the land. The law of the land, as enunciated in a recent Supreme Court decision, whether one agrees or disagrees, grants to individual citizens the right to bear arms legally. The District has failed to implement that decision, and therefore, we are here tonight. This Childers substitute does nothing more nor nothing less than implement the bare minimum that the Supreme Court said was the law of the land. Whether you like it or not, that is the law of the land when the Supreme Court decides a justiciable issue. This legislation, the Childers substitute, does not in any way limit the authority of the District or the ability of independent authorities in the District to restrict firearm possession. It does not repeal the D.C. law banning a person from the possession of ammunition. It does not amend the D.C. definition of ``restricted pistol bullets.'' It does not repeal the D.C. law providing for strict liability for handgun manufacturers. Quite frankly, many of us live in the District for most of the year now because of our job requirements. I don't want to impose on the District, but I do say this: The District, just like people all over the rest of America, has to implement legislation when the Supreme Court speaks. That's why we're here, not because we asked for this. I, quite frankly, enjoy living in the District and enjoy having the District make the laws that we live under here, but like no other citizen, the District is no different in that they cannot ignore the law of the land even if they disagree with it as cannot the citizens of my State or of any other State.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I rarely take out a Special Order. I rarely speak about matters that have something other to do than the governance of our country, and tonight is no exception. I want to talk a little while tonight about something that affects every American, something we, unfortunately, pay little attention to because it is not something that we recognize when we see it or realize what's happening as it's happening, and that has to do with our system of government and the way that the redistricting process as to how we elect Members of the United States House of Representatives has evolved through the years. Gerrymandering has always been a problem; named for the gentleman from Massachusetts some 200 years ago, when district lines were first conceived and drawn. But really, the modern-day gerrymandering that I am going to talk a bit a little while tonight began really in 1962 and, interestingly enough, it came to the Supreme Court from a case out of Tennessee, my home State. Let me give you a little summary, a history. During the first half of the 20th century, Tennessee, along with many other traditionally rural States, experienced growth in urban areas, along with a decline in the rural population. In the late 1950s, Tennessee continued to use election district boundaries set over 60 years before to elect members of its State legislature. These district boundaries no longer reflected the true distribution of the State's population. By retaining the outdated election district boundaries, rural citizens were allotted a greater proportional representation than their counterparts in urban areas. The continued use of the outdated district boundaries eased the reelection of incumbent legislators and diluted the voting power of ethnic minorities and others living in urban areas. For example, the number of Memphis voters electing one State representative was 10 times the number of voters electing a representative in some rural districts in our State. After serving in World War II, a gentleman named Charles Baker returned to his hometown of Millington, Tennessee, in my congressional district, our congressional district, which is a suburb of Memphis. Baker entered politics and, in 1954, was elected chairman of the Shelby County Quarterly Court, a fiscal and legislative body that ran the affairs of Shelby County, Tennessee, which included Memphis. Baker became frustrated with the lack of State revenues and attention paid to Memphis. Due to the use of outdated election district boundaries, Memphis was represented by half the number of State legislators it rightfully deserved, based upon its population. Baker brought a lawsuit against Joe Carr, Sr., who was then Tennessee's Secretary of State, requesting the State legislature redraw the election district boundaries to reflect the actual demographics of the State. In a 6-2 ruling in the case of Baker v. Carr, the United States Supreme Court held that Federal courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of a State's voting district. In a decision delivered by Baker v. Carr, the court focused on the issues of whether the court could involve itself in an apportionment dispute, and in addressing this issue, the court held that apportionment was a Federal claim arising under the 14th amendment and therefore subject to judicial scrutiny by the courts. Additionally, the voters initiating this case had claimed that their votes were being arbitrarily impaired or debased. The court's decision sidestepped the prior decision in Colegrove by distinguishing claims brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment from those claims brought under the guarantee clause of article 4 of the Constitution. The court returned the case to the district court for further actions pursuant to their instructions. I quote, ``We conclude that the complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable Constitution cause of action on which appellants are entitled a trial and decision. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the 14th amendment.'' By holding that voters could challenge the constitutionality of electoral apportionment in Federal court, Baker v. Carr opened the doors of the Federal courts to a long line of apportionment cases. One year later, Justice Douglas extended the Baker ruling by establishing the so-called ``one man, one vote'' principle in Gray v. Sanders and, in 1964, in the case of Wesberry v. Sanders, extended that principle, further holding that, ``as nearly as practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.'' Madam Speaker, the system that we have after 40-plus years of the court turning over electoral redistricting to the ``ins'' has resulted in a broken system, in the view of myself and Mr. Wamp, who couldn't be here tonight, from Chattanooga, and also on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition, which has endorsed the legislation I am speaking about. What we are concerned about is the rise of not only reapportionment based on party ideology and party lines, but it has given, with modern technology, the ability of the ``ins,'' be they Republican or Democrats, to select their voters rather than their voters selecting them. If one looks at the electoral map, one can only wonder how in the world could this come about, with lines going down highways and across bridges and every sort of conceivable spider web district, where the voters really have little input and almost no say in what districts they are in. We have, by in essence turning over to the ``ins,'' given rise to this completely understandable phenomenon. As a Democrat, it behooves me to give my next-door neighbor all my Republicans and it behooves my next-door neighbor Republican to give me all of his or her Democrats, which means that both of us have a more secure seat and the voters are often completely left out of the mix. There are many groups that are now looking at this and beginning to realize that the system is truly broken. And so let me just give you some statistics that may shock you about the lack of competitiveness in this Congress and in the Congresses to come if we don't fix it. Increasingly, State legislators, for wholly understandable reasons and for their own political purposes and ours, are redrawing congressional lines even outside of the traditional 10-year cycle. If I live on Elm Street in any town in America and the ``ins'' redrew the seat, I could be put into a district that is 80 percent one party or the other and therefore my vote has been effectively removed from me. I can't help the 80 percent. The 20 percent don't need me. And so my vote in a congressional election really doesn't matter any more. Competition in congressional races has declined dramatically over the last 40-plus years. In 1946, just over 85 percent of incumbents were reelected to the House of Representatives. In 2002 and 2004, close to 99 percent of incumbents were reelected. In 2004, only 22 contests in the entire country were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points. In 2002, 36 House contests were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points. Thirty-six. That is less than 10 percent of the House. At the other end of the spectrum, 172 winning candidates in 2004 either had no major party opposition or had a margin of victory by at least 40 percentage points. According to Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, today, a healthy, unindicted incumbent in the House of Representatives stands a 99 percent chance of being reelected. Something is wrong with a system where there is more turnover in the Soviet politburo than in this House. Even looking at the 2006 midterm elections, which many have called a watershed, less than 10 percent of the seats in the House changed hands. Unfortunately, we know this: The less competitive the election, the less likely voters are to get involved. The House of Representatives is a truly unique institution. It is the only political office that I know about where one cannot be appointed or one cannot accede to a seat in the case of a death or resignation. Every Member of the House of Representatives has to stand and be elected. That is why, when someone dies or resigns in the middle of a term, the seat stays vacant here until there is a special election. One can be President without being elected. We know President Ford was. One can be a Governor, one can be a United States Senator. But only here does everyone have to be elected. I believe political vulnerability is essential to the health of our House, and our current system does not do that. As I said, advanced map drawing techniques allow politicians to select their voters instead of the voter selecting their leaders. When Members come here from these districts that have been gerrymandered, they are good people, but they have little incentive really to work across party lines in order to reach solutions. As a matter of fact, they have a disincentive because if their district is skewed so heavily one way or the other, then the election is really in the party primaries, where barely more than a third of the people, in most instances, are the highly charged partisans, either Democrat or Republican. And so if one comes here wanting to work across the aisle, one has to, as we might say in Tennessee, watch one's back, because the highly charged partisans don't like that. When you have a situation like we have in America, where there is and must be a middle for all of us to come together and reach solutions, when that middle shrinks to the point where we cannot do that, then in a multi, everything-society like ours, we are going to create polarization, and gridlock will then ensue. That, in part, is what is happening. The other phenomenon is this drawing of congressional districts under a recent Supreme Court ruling any time one can get enough power in one State to do so. Now, if one wants to conform to the one person-one vote rule based on a census, and then is allowed to draw lines based on that census 8 years later, all you have to go is go to an 8-year old phone book and try to call somebody. That, to me, makes no sense. But what happens here is a debasing of the voter influence and really a usurpation of the power of the people by politicians, of which I am one, and that is why I am trying to change it. David Winston, who drew the House districts for the Republicans in this case after the 1990 United States census, said, ``As a map maker, I can have more of an impact on an election than a campaign or the candidate. When I as a map maker have more of an impact on an election than the voters, the system is out of whack.'' Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had this to say: ``Democrats get to rip off the public in the States where they control and protect their incumbents, and we get to rip off the public in the States we control and protect our incumbents. So the public gets ripped off in both circumstances. In the long-run, that is a downward spiral of isolation.'' That is former Speaker Gingrich. David Broder, a well-respected columnist, said this about it: ``At the founding of this Republic, House Members were given the shortest terms, half the length of the Presidents, one-third that of the Senators, to ensure that they would be sensitive to any shifts in public opinion. Now they have more job security than the Queen of England, and as little need to seek their subjects' assent.'' Some States, to their credit, have tried to reform their redistricting systems, and have failed. California and Ohio are two of the most recent examples. Thirteen States have some form of independent commission or process that has a part in the drawing of the congressional map, and nearly half the States ban mid-decade redistricting. However, much more, in my view, needs to be done, and it will take Federal action. The House of Representatives is a Federal office and article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives the Congress the ability to set parameters for election to the House. In fact, it is only fair that Members come from districts that are derived from using a uniform process. The Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters, the Council For Excellence in Government and other advisory groups have joined together with assistance from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to form Americans for Redistricting Reform, which will hopefully raise awareness of the problem, promote solutions, and serve as a clearinghouse of information. We have had a bill in, H.R. 543, that we have introduced that would mandate to the States that they must have in terms of the congressional seats, it doesn't matter, they can do anything with the State senate and State house seats that is constitutional, that they put in place an independent commission that will draw the congressional district lines once every 10 years after the census. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will include for the record Mr. Broader's article that was published in the Washington Post, and also an article by Gerald Hebert and David Vance on this subject. I am not going to take the whole hour, but I wish people, our citizens, would realize what is happening to us. The Congress is acting, in my view, irrationally. We have not a parliamentary system, but a representative system, and yet, time and time again, we see votes in committee here in the House and on the board behind me, all the Democrats voting one way, all the Republicans vote another. I am a Democrat from a southern rural district. It is not logical nor rational for me to vote every time with urban Members or urban Members to vote with me just because we are Democrats. It also makes no sense for all the Republicans to vote together in every way all the time. You see the Centrist Caucus, a centrist body here, continuing to shrink, and, as it does, the polarization, and as Speaker Gingrich said, the isolation here becomes more palatable and it makes it far more difficult for us to actually reach solutions to the myriad of problems that face our country. I don't know how to fix it, other than to start where it begins, and that is at the drawing of congressional districts process, because otherwise all of us here will be more sensitive to either the partisans on the left or the partisans on the right, rather than to the overall good of our country. In this bill, Congressman Wamp and myself are asking people to give up an enormous amount of power. There are not many places where you can go and with your friends in the legislature sit down and draw a district that you can win without a whole lot of pushback really from anybody, but in collusion with the other party. When the Supreme Court turned it over to the ``ins,'' they set up a system that after 40- something years results in exactly what we see. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attempt to bring some reason to the concept of congressional districts that have more of a community of interest than they do Democrat or Republican voters. I know I am speaking against myself, and I certainly don't mean for this to reflect on any Member here, because the Members are basically themselves victims of this system that has grown into being after 40-something years of congressional redistricting based on political considerations rather than community of interest and so forth. It makes no sense for someone on Elm Street at 301 to be in a different congressional district from someone on Elm Street that lives at 303. Most communities have legislative interests, not individuals, and that is what I am afraid we have become victimized by. We will be talking some more about this in the future. I think you will see more and more articles written about it, because there is, in the view of many, a problem, a serious problem, that cannot be fixed until we address the core of it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles referred to earlier. [From the Roll Call, July 29, 2008] Redistricting Must Be Fixed Before Census (By J. Gerald Hebert and David G. Vance) Partisan abuse of redistricting is one of Congress' dirtiest little Secrets. The outrage over partisan gerrymanders fades well before the next census rolls around, and this travesty of our democracy never gets addressed. Backroom deals by both parties have produced bulletproof districts from Florida to California, fueling voter apathy and undermining our democracy. Elections are determined before the voters ever have the chance to go to the polls. Tonight, Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and other Members will take to the House floor to draw attention to the abuses of the redistricting process. Last week, Tanner and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) introduced H.Res. 1365, advocating the use of nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw Congressional districts. This resolution, and an earlier bill to revamp the process, will not endear these Members to many of their colleagues sitting in completely safe districts, virtually assured of reelection after re-election. With redistricting abuses on the rise, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the problem. Our organization, the Campaign Legal Center, along with the League of Women Voters, the Council for Excellence in Government and a diverse group of advisory organizations, have founded a new organization called Americans for Redistricting Reform. With financial assistance from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the goal of Americans for Redistricting Reform will be to raise awareness of the problem, promote solutions and serve as a clearinghouse of information and networking. More information can be found on americansforredistrictingreform.org. Our organizations see the launch of this group as vitally important work, as our nation prepares for the upcoming 2010 Census and another round of redistricting, one that will surely be marked by gross partisan gerrymandering unless there is reform of the redistricting process. Redistricting abuses may have evolved into more of an exact science, but the practice is nearly as old as districts themselves. The term ``gerrymandering'' dates back to 1812, when a partisan redistricting in Massachusetts resulted in a district that one newspaper editor observed looked like a salamander and dubbedita ``Gerrymander'' after the state's governor, Elbridge Gerry. Since that time, gerrymanders have taken different forms. Parties have used racial gerrymandering to dilute minority voting strength, partisan gerrymandering to solidify one-party control, and bipartisan gerrymandering to protect Representatives from both parties. The post-2000 redistricting cycle saw unprecedented efforts to use redistricting for partisan purposes. Technological advances made it possible to calibrate districts using election data with even greater precision. The result was that the 2002 elections produced the fewest ousted incumbents ever--only four Members were voted out of office. Historically, post-redistricting elections have generally been more competitive because the drawing of new lines mitigates incumbents' advantage by introducing them to a new group of voters. The 2000 redistricting round had the opposite effect. As redistricting has become ever more clinical, moderates from both parties have been driven from Congress in droves. In 2002, one of us saw our Representative voted out of office after 16 years as a result of a redistricting in Maryland designed for just that purpose. Rep. Connie Morella was a moderate Republican, popular with colleagues from both parties, who would cross the aisle and her party's leadership. in order to pass common-sense legislation for the good of her constituents and the Nation. As moderates like Morella have disappeared from the halls of Congress, the partisan gridlock has sunk deeper roots into Capitol Hill to the detriment of our democracy. Even after the initial round of redistricting following the 2000 Census, partisans in some states used mid-decade redistricting, or re-redistricting, to further advance partisan goals. A handful of states attempted to redraw existing, valid district lines. Absent a court order invalidating a redistricting plan, there is unlikely any other purpose that motivates a mid-decade redistricting other than partisan gain. Make no mistake, when politicians engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering, it is the voters who suffer. In the case of Texas' mid-decade redistricting, in which one of us represented most of the Congressional delegation's Democrats, the Republican Party gained seats in the short term but the state lost critical seniority when the Democrats regained the majority in the House. Texas Democrats who lost their seats in the gerrymander led by then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) would likely have been holding vast power in Congress today, such as Martin Frost, who could be chairing the Rules Committee; Charlie Stenholm, Agriculture; Jim Turner, Homeland Security; and Max Sandlin, a Ways and Means Subcommittee. The junior Republicans from Texas who replaced those powerful incumbents have very little influence in the House. DeLay's scorched-earth policy on re- redistricting left citizens of the Lone Star State holding the bag. Partisan abuse of redistricting is a shameful blot on our democracy. Politicians have absolutely no business choosing their voters. In a true democracy, voters must choose their politicians. In the 110th Congress, two bills, H.R. 543 and H.R. 2248, have been introduced to overhaul the Nation's redistricting process, but both have beat referred to a subcommittee where they have yet to see the light of day. At the very least, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) owe it to the Nation to see that hearings are held on these bills. The system must be changed, and hearings are the first step. The 2010 Census is just around the corner with partisan gerrymanders close at its heels. If we don't move quickly, the train will have left the station yet again and Congress will feign dismay and continue to talk about the need to fix the system the next time around.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I could not improve on the eloquence of my friend, Jimmy Duncan from Knoxville, but I just wanted to join and thank you for bringing this resolution about the Lady Vols. It is a storied program. I went there some years ago now and played a little basketball myself, and I doubt, I told somebody today, I couldn't make the women's team now. But Pat Summitt is really a legend, and she and my Chief of Staff, Vikki Walling were teammates at UT-Martin several years ago. It is not only a sense of pride to those of us from Tennessee for the many accomplishments that the Lady Vols have made over the years, but the graduation rate of the players is something, I think, that is really indicative of the kind of quality program that Coach Summitt and her staff run. And so I want to thank you, again, for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1080, a resolution honoring the extraordinary service and sacrifice of the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army and their families. I am proud to represent in this chamber a portion of Fort Campbell, where the Screaming Eagles are based. This resolution is especially timely as soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division are currently deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. In April, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands the Screaming Eagles, took over as the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Under General Schloesser, the 101st Airborne Division took over command of Regional Command East, an area comprised of 14 provinces in eastern Afghanistan. At the same time, three Brigade Combat Teams from the 101st Airborne Division are serving in Iraq. Many of the soldiers have been deployed multiple times in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of those deployments under the command of General David Petraeus, now the Commander of U.S. Central Command. One need only look at the history of the Screaming Eagles to understand the legacy of the 101st Airborne Division. Originally activated during World War I, the Screaming Eagles would go on to serve in World War II, Vietnam, and Desert Storm, along with their most recent deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. During World War II, the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division would have the distinction of being the first Americans to land in France as part of the D-Day invasion. Nearly 60 years later, the Screaming Eagles became the first conventional unit to deploy in the Global War on Terror; participated in Operation Anaconda, a tough early battle in Afghanistan; and help lead the invasion into Iraq. Mr. Speaker, thank you for joining us today to honor the 101st Airborne Division, the men and women who have earned their place in history. They and their families will be in our thoughts and prayers as they continue to serve with distinction.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Today, the Court rightly struck down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have co-sponsored legislation to end this ban, which contradicts the Second Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution. In issuing its decree, the Court protected the right of a sportsman to have a shotgun in his home and affirmed the right of a homeowner to keep a handgun to protect his family and property from intruders. Our Founding Fathers fought and died for the individual liberties we all enjoy--among them, the right of the citizens of this country to possess firearms. We are not given the latitude to pick which of those liberties we choose to follow or enforce, be it the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. Like those fundamental freedoms, we cannot dismiss or dilute the right to keep and bear arms. As an avid hunter and strong gun rights advocate, I applaud the Court for its decision. I look forward to continuing our work in Congress to protect the integrity of the Second Amendment.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge my friend Jimmy Scurlock, who is retiring from 25 years of public service to the town of Dover, Tennessee, which I am proud to represent in this chamber. Jimmy has served as City Administrator in Dover since 1983 and also currently serves on the board of Local Government Data Processing. He was elected to two terms on the Tennessee Municipal League Board of Directors and served as President of the Tennessee City Management Association in 2001 and 2002. He was honored statewide last year when he was elected city manager of the year by the Tennessee City Management Association. Over the years, Jimmy has been instrumental in enacting the infrastructure improvements that we know are so important for our families' quality of life and to support economic growth. Jimmy has worked closely with others to upgrade Dover's water and sewage facilities and revitalize the downtown business district. I am proud of the progress made in Stewart County over the years, and I know our families there will continue to see the benefits of Jimmy's hard work. Before Jimmy became City Administrator, he was associated with his mother Mary Ann in the family's florist business. Many of us who have known the family for years know that Jimmy inherited his flair for public service from his father, the late J.T. Scurlock, who represented a portion of northern middle Tennessee in the Tenessee General Assembly with distinction for a number of years. Betty Ann and I have had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with Jimmy and his wife Nan as Jimmy and our friend Don Cherry have been among my closest advisers in northern middle Tennessee. We have frequently turned to Jimmy and Don for leadership and guidance in working with the people of Stewart County. Madam Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me in thanking Jimmy Scurlock for his long service to our community and State and wish him and his family all the best as he begins his retirement.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I think I speak for a lot of us when we say that we welcome an intellectually honest debate on the issues that we are charged with confronting on behalf of the American people. And a discussion about the pros and cons of the provisions of the bill, I think, is in order. This is the place to do that. When one talks about, though, ancillary matters, like whether or not this violates PAYGO, that's why I come down here today. Let me tell you something. Neither party is always right and neither party is always wrong. But we don't need to embarrass ourselves by trying to belittle those of us who are trying to pay the bills. The fact is, during the first six years of this decade, the people who are criticizing the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Caucus for a PAYGO rule, sat here and helped this President borrow more money from foreign sources than all 42 before him combined. You don't have to believe that. That's not an argument. You can go to the U.S. Treasury Web site and look at it and see for yourself. So if we want to talk about the relative merits of the legislation, we welcome that, and we want to talk about that. And we won't always vote alike. We won't always vote with the Democratic Caucus, some of us that are Democrats, because neither party's always right or always wrong. But to come here and criticize us for somehow saying we're violating PAYGO; first of all, there's an unemployment tax that employers pay for this very purpose, and it will fill up the coffers again in time. But don't come here with that, because I think that is not only demeaning and misleading, but embarrassing to some people.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Dr. Paul E. Gallis, specialist in European Affairs with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Gallis is retiring on July 3, 2008, after serving the Nation for approximately 28 years in various positions at CRS, in the Senate, and in the State Department. In particular, Dr. Gallis served the Congress for 24 years as an expert in and objective observer of European security affairs. He has been the institutional memory of Congress on vital transatlantic political and security issues spanning multiple Congresses, several U.S. administrations, and key events in foreign policy. He has been an especially valued resource to Members and committees in Congress on all matters relating to the NATO alliance and relations with our European allies. Dr. Gallis started working at CRS in June 1984 as an analyst in West European affairs. He came to CRS after working for 3 years in the office of Senator Joseph Biden as a policy advisor and speech writer. Before that, he served as a special assistant to Ambassador Rozanne Ridgway at the Department of State. Dr. Gallis received an M.A. and Ph.D. in European history at Brown University, and a B.A. in history and French from Davidson College. He studied at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris, France. Dr. Gallis quickly emerged as a leading CRS expert on European security affairs. His early work focused on vital and often controversial cold war-era security issues such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, and allied responses; the conventional arms balance in Europe; and policy issues surrounding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force, INF, Treaty. With the end of the cold war, Dr. Gallis's work incorporated significant changes in the transatlantic relationship, turning to burdensharing issues surrounding the first Persian Gulf war, as well as international diplomacy leading to Germany's unification. Throughout his career at CRS, Dr. Gallis served as an authority on NATO political affairs and the allied relationship. He produced numerous timely reports on NATO's missions and institutional processes, including alliance partnership programs and enlargement. He led or coordinated important studies on NATO's emerging operational challenges in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Over the telephone and in person, Dr. Gallis frequently shared his expertise on these difficult issues with tact and judgment. His work informed thousands of Members and staff in congressional offices over the years as they grappled with the complex foreign policy and security issues of the day in hearings, legislative initiatives, and ongoing consultations with U.S. and foreign officials. In all of his work, Dr. Gallis upheld an unswerving commitment to the core CRS mission of supporting an informed national legislature with nonpartisan research and analysis. In addition to the above, Dr. Gallis spent several years at CRS handling managerial duties as head of the Europe, Middle East, and Africa section of the Foreign Affairs Division. In this capacity he supervised the work of many CRS analysts and instilled in them his high standard of work and professionalism. He represented the Library of Congress at the National War College in 1991-1992. I got to know Dr. Gallis personally in the context of his many years of intensive work with Congressional delegations to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. For the past several years, Dr. Gallis has been asked to serve as lead policy staff for delegations to the regular meetings of the NPA. In this capacity he has taken on yeoman's work in coordinating preparatory research analysis for delegation members, directing staff support for the NPA working sessions, and providing essential on-site expertise to Members. Paul has been an invaluable resource to me and the other Members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. His knowledge of the issues facing the United States in regards to our relationship with our European allies is immeasurable and he is a truly valued resource to us in our discussions at these meetings. It goes without saying that he will be sorely missed by all the participants in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings both here and abroad. On behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I want to express my deep appreciation to Paul Gallis for his long service to the Congress and especially for his direct assistance to the United States Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I will regret his absence in future NPA meetings but wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, during the recent district work period I led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) meetings in Berlin, from May 23-27. The co-chair of my delegation was the Hon. John Shimkus. Participating in the delegation were Representatives Marion Berry, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Jo Ann Emerson, Carolyn McCarthy, Ralph Regula, Dennis Moore, David Scott, and Mike Ross, and staff worked to make this a successful trip in the examination of a number of key NATO issues. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly brings together members of parliaments of the NATO allies, as well as observer participants from NATO partner states such as Russia and Ukraine, for discussions of current issues of interest to the alliance. Members attend committee meetings where reports are read and debated. The meetings afford an opportunity to sound parliamentarians from allied states on public opinion, defense and foreign policy, and trends in thinking on issues of mutual interest. The meetings also provide the opportunity to come to know members of parliaments on a long-term basis, an invaluable asset in developing insights into policy development in allied governments. After the Assembly meetings in Berlin, the delegation traveled on to Turkey and Afghanistan, where we explored issues that I will address in a moment. Recurrent themes on key NATO issues were evident in the Berlin committee meetings. Above all, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan was a constant topic of discussion. It is clear that ISAF needs more combat personnel, and that caveats--restrictions that allies place on the use of their forces--are adversely affecting efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Energy security, Russia's foreign policy objectives, defense capabilities, and Iran were also important areas of discussion. I am chairman of the NPA's Committee on Economics and Security. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that our friend and colleague, Ralph Regula, continued his long and distinguished service on that committee during the Berlin meetings. His contributions over many years have been invaluable. Representative Boozman and a Lithuanian colleague presented a well- received report in the Economics Committee on India's economy. India plays an important role in south Asia, and U.S.-Indian relations have strengthened over the past decade. India's proximity to Afghanistan and its often tense relations with Pakistan play a role in the stabilization of that volatile area. The Indian economy has opened up in recent years, and there is clear evidence of a growing middle class in the world's largest democracy. There was also a report on the Afghan economy, which must grow and diversify more rapidly if Afghanistan is to stabilize. The report emphasized the negative effects of Afghanistan's extensive poppy culture and poor governance on ISAF's stabilization efforts. Our friend and former colleague, Doug Bereuter, who was once president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, gave an interesting presentation on the efforts of the Asia Foundation, which he now heads, to assist schools and women in Afghanistan and other parts of Asia. His report, a version of which he also presented in the Political Committee, was enlightening and extremely well-received. The Political Committee is normally the most contentious of the Assembly's committees, and that was once again true. As I mentioned, Russia sends observers to the Assembly who may participate in debates, but who may not vote. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a former Russian general and candidate for the Russian presidency, is now a member of parliament, and he made his presence frequently felt. He repeatedly denounced NATO and its efforts to stabilize the Balkans and Afghanistan as ``terrorist'' incursions in Russia's supposedly legitimate sphere of influence. The Russian delegates have chosen during the past several years to play a disruptive role in Assembly proceedings. Representative Ross delivered a well-received report in the Political Committee on ``NATO and Iran,'' which looked forward prospectively to ways that the alliance might work with the EU and the U.N. to induce Tehran to terminate its nuclear enrichment program that is in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. His ideas ranged from political pressure to greater economic sanctions to carrots in the form of limited military confidence-building measures in return for a cessation of Iran's illegitimate nuclear activities. I should mention that Representative Chandler is a vice-chairman of the Political Committee, and he played an active role in a number of sessions. The Committee on Defense and Security also engaged in some interesting debates. ISAF's prospects in Afghanistan were sharply debated. The representatives of several allies, such as Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands that have combat forces in Afghanistan, urged other allies to contribute more troops and to lift their caveats. The debate was sharp at times. ISAF now has 52,000 troops, of which approximately 22,000 are from the United States. The Russians continued their erratic behavior in the Defense Committee, denouncing the allies' stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Rep. Shimkus is the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Defense and Security Cooperation, and he made several valuable interventions on such issues as the need for allies to spend more on defense, and on NATO's efforts to stabilize the Caucasus. Two of our colleagues play key roles in the Assembly's Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security. Representative Moore is vice- chairperson of the Committee on Civil Dimension, and Representative Emerson is vice-chairperson of the Subcommittee on Democratic Governance. Each made important contributions to the debates in the Civil Dimension Committee. An interesting discussion took place in response to a report on NATO and energy security. Representative Scott made a valuable contribution in detailing ways that NATO could play a constructive role in building energy security and thereby enhancing global security. The Committee on Science and Technology also heard a report on energy security. The German rapporteur contended that Russia is a reliable supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, a controversial point of view that some believe is contradicted by Moscow's occasional cut-offs of energy to Ukraine, Georgia, and Lithuania. Increasingly, our European allies are dependent on Russian energy resources, a development that could open the door to Russian pressure and influence in NATO in the event of a crisis. Representative Scott chided the Russians for not having ratified the Energy Charter Treaty, which obligates signatories to follow market practices and disavow the use of energy as a political tool. Representative Shimkus raised the point that diversification of supply and types of fuels is key to enhancing energy security. This was a forceful debate on an issue that is likely to engage NATO's interest in the decades to come. The last day of the Assembly's meetings was spent in a plenary session. There were a number of interesting speakers, including the German foreign minister and the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. De Hoop Scheffer urged the parliamentarians to go back to their publics and make the case for the importance of developing reliable, deployable combat forces, and for making a meaningful contribution to ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan. A German general also spoke. The Russian Zhirinovsky again made his presence felt when he claimed, to the amazement and amusement of the delegates, that Russia had generously brought down the Berlin wall and made democracy possible in East Germany. He contended that NATO would fail in Afghanistan, just as Russia had. The German general--General Ramm--calmly replied that Russia failed in Afghanistan because it had sought a military solution, and that NATO would succeed because it is seeking a political solution. Our delegation had an interesting private meeting with Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, during which we had a highly informative discussion of such issues as Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran's relations with its neighbors. The delegation also met with the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, who gave us her valuable perspective on the issues that she considers to be most important on the NATO agenda. We also visited the new U.S. embassy, near the line of the old Berlin wall, and met with our ambassador, William Timken. During a dinner the final night of our meetings, German Chancellor Angela Merkel sat at my table, and we had a lively discussion about a range of issues of mutual interest. After the meetings in Berlin, we flew to Turkey for meetings with a range of senior Turkish officials. Turkey remains a key ally, perhaps even more important than it was during the Cold War. Turkey's strategic location--on the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, facing the Mediterranean, at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and on the route of critical energy supplies--is vital to NATO security. In addition, Turkey is a Muslim country and a democracy. An important issue confronting Turkey is its application to join the European Union, a step that some EU governments strongly oppose. Today, there is a vigorous discussion in Turkey about the role of Islam in society. An Islamic Party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, is in a protracted but restrained contest for power with other parties and the Turkish military. On May 28 the delegation met with specialists in Istanbul who represent a range of views in Turkey's academic and journalistic world on the country's future, and on the debate over the role of Islam and secularism in Turkish society. Our meetings in Istanbul prepared us for our visit the next day to Ankara, where we held a succession of meetings with senior government officials. We met with prime minister Erdogan, with whom we had a direct but constructive discussion over U.S.-Turkish relations and on Turkey's future. We then met with our former NATO Parliamentary Assembly colleague, Abdullah Gul, now the president of Turkey and also a member of the AKP. We had a very cordial discussion on a range of issues. It is clear that U.S.-Turkish relations have improved since November 2007, when the United States began to assist Turkey in its effort to subdue the Kurdish terrorist movement known as the PKK, which is seeking to carve away Turkish territory and unite it with part of northern Iraq, where Kurds also live. Finally, we had a meeting with the defense minister Vecdi Gonul, a civilian who is an important link for the AKP to the Turkish military. We are hoping that our Turkish friends in the political parties and the military will resolve their differences peacefully, and that Turkish democracy will be strengthened. While in Ankara, the delegation went to the tomb of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. I laid a wreath and signed a memorial book in honor of the man who established the secular Turkish state. It was a solemn occasion on a brilliantly bright, sunny day. After our meetings in Ankara, that night the delegation proceeded to Adana, where the Turkish military base Incirlik is located. U.S. forces, with Turkish permission, fly supply missions to Iraq and Afghanistan from Incirlik. Adana and the base are located near the Syrian border. The following morning we met with the governor of Adana, who gave us a briefing on PKK activity and on political developments in the Adana region. He was a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the EU, which he believes would strengthen Turkish democracy. At Incirlik, we also had the opportunity to meet with some of our troops who are from our constituencies. These are the young men and women that make the United States safe and secure, whether serving here or in distant places. We should keep them in our thoughts as we appreciate the stability and security that we enjoy here in the United States. By chance, we crossed paths at Incirlik with Gen. David Petraeus, who was at the base for a brief stay. He offered to meet with the delegation, and there was an interesting exchange of views on a range of strategic issues. On May 31 we left Incirlik at an early hour for the flight to Kabul, where we spent the entire day. The stabilization of Afghanistan is NATO's principal mission. Many believe that NATO's credibility is on the line in Afghanistan because the allies have pledged to commit the resources to stabilize the country to prevent the reappearance of a failed state, a failed state that caused the tragedy of 9/11. There are clearly differences in the alliance over how to accomplish this objective. Some governments prefer to employ economic reconstruction assistance and avoid sending their troops into combat; these tend to be the governments that have the most restrictive caveats on their forces. We met with the most senior U.S. officials in Kabul to discuss Afghanistan's path to stabilization. Our meetings were highly substantive, and we all gained valuable information on ISAF's effort and on U.S. perspectives and initiatives. We also met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and had an extensive discussion of Afghanistan's problems and prospects. In Afghanistan, there can be no reconstruction without security. The Taliban is not a strong force, but the Afghan state lacks strong, enduring institutions. There must be security therefore for the rebuilding effort to succeed. ISAF may need more forces in the coming year in order to secure territory cleared of the Taliban. A positive development is that approximately 25% of the combat missions are now led by the Afghan National Army (ANA), with strong backing from the U.S. and some other NATO militaries. During our meetings in Kabul, U.S. officials were upbeat on the progress of the ANA, but the task of securing Afghanistan is far from finished. The poppy crop continues to thrive in the south, some warlords maintain a sway over territory that has never been under the control of an Afghan government, and there are enduring tribal rivalries and distrust of Kabul. Closely associated with the issue of engagement of the Taliban in combat is the need to establish a viable economy and justice system. The Soviet and Taliban eras decimated the educated elite. The number of persons trained as lawyers and judges is minimal. At the base of the justice system is the police. The EU has struggled to develop a program to train the police, so the U.S. military has stepped in. Gen. Cone is developing more professional police cohorts one region at a time, and backing them with the U.S. military until they establish their authority. This will be a long-term effort, and it is going to require patience on the part of NATO publics. Members and staff also met with U.S. participants in ISAF's Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the leading edge of bringing reconstruction to Afghanistan through such efforts as road building, school and hospital construction, and the development of local markets. A basic economy has begun to appear around some of the PRTs, but there remains much to accomplish. There are three key needs for the PRTs. The first is the placement of agricultural specialists in each of the 26 ISAF PRTs. The United States only recently placed one agricultural specialist at each of its 13 PRTs; the need is great for agricultural specialists at other NATO PRTs, and in the local agricultural schools. Afghanistan is and will remain for the foreseeable future an agrarian economy, now dependent largely on poppies. This poppy culture must diminish over time, perhaps to be replaced by orchard crops and wheat. This effort will take time. A second need for the PRTs is the hiring of local Afghans who can assist our own officials in understanding local practices and political authority, and who can serve as guides as we plan efforts to rebuild the country. A third need for the PRTs is the availability of transport. Today, our civilians in the PRTs must rely heavily on the military to move them around the region where they live. But because security comes first, the civilian specialists must often wait lengthy periods of time to obtain the transport and accompanying security to accomplish their tasks. Our trip to Afghanistan was highly informative and there remains much to digest about what we learned. This was a difficult, but valuable trip that provided insights into one of the United States' most difficult foreign policy problems. As always we were extremely well-served by our accompanying military personnel. The 932nd Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve now at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., provided exceptional professionalism in assisting us throughout our trip and ensuring our safety in moving throughout Europe and to Afghanistan. All worked long hours to ensure that our trip went smoothly. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club, founded 100 years ago as an official organization of the spouses of those of us serving in this House and in the Senate. I am very familiar with their great work, because my wife Betty Ann is an active member and presently serves on the Congressional Club's board. The Congressional Club is host to one of the most important nonpartisan events that happens in Washington--the annual First Lady's Luncheon. It also hosts monthly lectures, children's parties, tours for charitable organizations and senior citizen luncheons. The members of the Congressional Club realize the incredible opportunities and responsibilities they have toward national service. During WorId War I and World War II, the Congressional Club curtailed many of its social events so that members of the Club could roll bandages for the Red Cross, help provide for servicemembers' families and assist troops in transit to their service. At the encouragement of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the Congressional Club sold war bonds, using the proceeds to purchase two evacuation airplanes, one named The Congressional Club and one named The U.S. Congress, to airlift wounded troops from the battlefield. The important role spouses play in the work we do is evident in one legend surrounding the establishment of the Congressional Club. According to the story, one wife knew her husband, a member of this body, planned to vote against the incorporation of the Congressional Club, so she came into the Capitol and distracted him outside the House Chamber while the House voted on and approved the resolution that allowed for the formal recognition of the organization. Mr. Speaker, no one is quite sure whether that story is true, but it does help stress an important point with which few can argue: Congressional spouses play an instrumental part in the work we do. I am honored to join with you in honoring their work on this 100th anniversary of the Congressional Club.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, when these people say they're going to provide the resources for the war and for the veterans but they're not going to pay for it, what they're really saying is China is going to provide the resources to our veterans; China is going to finance this war because that's what has been going on. They have borrowed more money from foreign sources since George W. Bush took office than all 42 Presidents of the United States before him put together, and they still want to keep borrowing. And talk about working families, we are asking people who make over $1 million a year to increase their taxes $500 for these veterans to go to college so the veterans will not be subject to future deficits and future matters that may be beyond our control where the program has to be cut. This is dedicated funding, and it comes from those in this country who have the most to give to the people who gave the most with no arms and no legs. I have seen them and you have seen them at Walter Reed and Bethesda.

Mr. TANNER. And we're going to provide resources? No, we're not going to provide any resources for these veterans unless you vote for this bill. What you're doing is we're going to ask China and Japan to give the resources to our veterans. I think that's a moral outrage. If we can send more, we can damned sure help them get through college when they get home with one arm and one leg.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important resolution. The movement to establish a modern homeland for the Jewish people launched in 1896 with the publication of Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State. Out of the atrocities and horrors of the Second World War, the long sought dream of re-establishing that homeland was finally realized. In 1948, Israel claimed its hard-fought independence. Since Israel's beginnings, the United States has held a special bond with this important ally. As the only liberal democracy in the region, Israel knows all too well what it means to fight against violent agents of intolerance and religious extremism for the sake of personal freedom and fair government. From the birth of their modern state, the Israeli people have struggled to keep and maintain their homeland. I have had the great privilege of traveling to Israel. It is only in visiting this great country, that one can appreciate the beauty, history and danger that dominate the lives of its everyday citizens. Nowhere in the world is there such a confluence of religion and faith. However, peaceful worship often gives way to violent conflict, and despite the holiness of the land, terrorism has become all too common in this region. We have stood with Israel in its fight against terrorism, and we will continue to do so. For six decades, our shared commitments to democracy and freedom, as well as our shared cultural heritage, have kept the link between our two nations close, despite existing in very different parts of the world. With passage of this resolution, we honor that bond and look forward to our continued friendship.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of my friend Mary Kate Ridgeway, who recently began an exciting new opportunity as director of the Henry County office of the University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Service. Her new position will allow Mary Kate to continue more than 30 years of service to family farmers in Henry County and across Tennessee. Mary Kate is originally from Obion County. Her husband Don is deputy director of the Northwest Tennessee Economic Development Council. Don represented the 75th district in the Tennessee House of Representatives, where he served with distinction as the Democratic Caucus Chairman and Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Their son, John Penn, who several years ago worked in our Washington office, and his wife Melissa have two children, Walker and Jackson. With bachelor's and master's degrees in family and consumer science education from the University of Tennessee at Martin, Mary Kate is also active in other important organizations in our community, including as secretary of Helping Hand Incorporated and co-chair of the Lifeline blood board. Madam Speaker, I appreciate you and our colleagues joining me as we thank Mary Kate Ridgeway for her long service to the agricultural community in west Tennessee and congratulate her on her new position as county director for the University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension program.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joe H. Hill, one of my oldest and dearest friends, a man whose 35 years of service to the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee has had a lasting impact on our area that will be felt for generations to come. Joe is retiring from Congressional service as the longest-serving district staff member in Tennessee history and has begun a new opportunity to continue his public service as a member of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. Joe is originally from Henry County, Tennessee, and attended Bethel College in McKenzie, Tennessee. After that, he served four years as Project Director for the Northwest Tennessee Development District and, in 1973, came to work on the district staff of my predecessor, the late Congressman Ed Jones, Joe worked as a field representative and then district director for Congressman Jones until his retirement in 1989. I was fortunate both to have the honor of succeeding Congressman Jones in this chamber and to have Joe Hill remain on the 8th District staff as District Director. Over the 35 years Joe has served the 8th District, he worked very closely with an outstanding district staff that has helped thousands of Tennesseans who reach out for assistance with Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits. He has played an important role in the economic development of our area, working directly with every community in our district to upgrade the public infrastructure that rural towns like ours need to improve quality of life and create jobs. Joe has also been very active with local and state politics, having worked with practically every Democratic candidate in our area over the past 35 years. I have appreciated his guidance over the years and know that countless other elected leaders have also depended on his keen political sense in working with the public in West and Middle Tennessee. Among the candidates Joe advised are Vice President Al Gore and Governors Phil Bredesen and Ned McWherter. Joe and I have never worked as employer and employee but have instead maintained a working relationship more closely resembling a partnership and friendship. Betty Ann and I enjoy the time we get to spend with Joe and his wife Susan and their children, Adam and his wife Niketa, Judith and Travis. Fortunately, Joe is not going too far, and I know our families will have many more opportunities to spend time together in the future. Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, there is one main reason we come to serve in this body: to help the people we represent. It is with the assistance of such exceptional staff members as Joe Hill that we are able to achieve those goals. There are thousands of West and Middle Tennesseans whose lives have been touched by Joe's dedication to improving our area. I ask you and our colleagues to join me as I thank Joe for three-and- a-half decades of service to the 8th District, express my gratitude for his long friendship and congratulate him as he enters a new phase of his public service.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Members of this body have been forced to make such a difficult decision with regard to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As you know, the Bush Administration sent this proposed agreement directly to Congress without the level of dialogue many of us would liked to have seen to ensure we can reach agreement on this matter. I fear that the poor and unprecedented decision by President Bush to place this matter before the House of Representatives without the consent of leadership will result in collateral damage to the Trade Promotion Authority protocol that is instrumental in our work to promote commerce with other countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to voting ``present,'' with the hope that continued dialogue between Congress and the White House will lead to a positive resolution of this entire matter.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, we have seen, as Mr. Boyd pointed out, an unprecedented amount of borrowing take place since 2001. No political leadership in this country has borrowed as much money as quickly as we have seen over the last 80 months or so. That's just part of the story. Let me tell you the other part of the story. This administration has borrowed more money from foreign sources than all 42 administrations before it put together. And apparently, some here on the floor want to keep doing what we've been doing. This budget resolution is like an aircraft carrier. It takes seven miles to turn an aircraft carrier. This starts the turn back toward some degree of fiscal sanity. Let me tell you what the consequences of what we have witnessed are with this foreign borrowing. Today, because of these practices, we are borrowing. Remember, now, we are in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are borrowing from foreign sources $505 million a day, $21 million an hour, which means we've borrowed probably close to $80 million since we started this debate, $351,000 a minute, $5,852 a second, for a total a year of $182 billion a year that everybody around the world is letting us have so that we can maintain, as some would suggest, our standard of living. All of you know that when you degrade your financial base to the extent that we have and that we are continuing to do unless we begin to change courses, as this budget does, this country is going to wind up in the trash bin of history. No country can continue to do this. You would be interested to know that we owe China almost half a billion dollars. We owe Mexico $35 billion. We owe Taiwan $38 billion. Maybe Taiwan will give us a loan so we can defend them against China if that ever occurs. We owe Switzerland $39 billion, Japan over a half a trillion, the UK, Brazil, Caribbean Banking. We owe Luxembourg $70 billion, and it's going up every day to the tune of $500 million a year. This budget starts to turn back toward some degree of fiscal sanity. Everybody in this country knows we can't continue to do what these people want to continue to do without bankrupting ourselves and our children.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I recently led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Brussels and Paris, and to additional meetings in Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM), and Albania from February 16-24. The co-chair of my delegation was the Honorable Jo Ann Emerson. In addition, Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Ellen Tauscher, Dennis Moore, Jeff Miller, Mike Ross, and Ben Chandler, and staff, worked to make this a highly successful trip in which we examined current NATO issues, above all the coming decision at the NATO summit in Bucharest on possible enlargement of the alliance. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) consists of members of parliament from the 26 NATO states, as well as members of parliament from associated states such as Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia. During NPA meetings delegates discuss and debate a range of issues of current importance to the alliance. At the February meetings, three issues dominated the discussions: enlargement of the alliance, Afghanistan, and developments in Kosovo. Delegates have the opportunity to listen to presentations by specialists from NATO and on NATO affairs, and to engage in discussion of the issues raised. An additional element of the meetings is the opportunity to meet and come to know members of parliaments who play important foreign-policy roles in their own countries. Some of these acquaintances can last the duration of a career, and are invaluable for gaining insight into the developments of allied states. Enlargement is one of the key issues before the alliance today. NATO will hold a summit in Bucharest April 2-4. Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia are candidate states, and each must receive unanimous support from all 26 allied governments in order for it to receive an invitation to join. From that point, each member state will follow its own constitutional processes to amend NATO's founding Washington Treaty to admit new states and to make a commitment to defend additional territory. There must again be unanimous support in this process for a candidate if it is to be admitted to membership. The alliance is still at an early stage, therefore, in considering the applications for membership of these three countries. Congress will hold hearings on the qualifications of the three states, and the United States and other allies will expect them to continue to work to meet NATO requirements under their Membership Action Plans (MAPs). Our delegation also held discussions over NATO's effort to stabilize Afghanistan. It is clear, as Secretary of Defense Gates himself reportedly noted on February 8, that U.S. involvement in Iraq has damaged the effort to persuade allies to send forces to Afghanistan. European public criticism of the Iraq conflict has made more difficult our allies' task of persuading parliaments to contribute more troops to Afghanistan. The United States now contributes approximately 15,000 troops to NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and will soon send 3,200 additional Marines to compensate for shortfalls in allied forces in the fight against a resurgent Taliban. This is a highly important mission in the effort to stem the growth of fanaticism and barbarism that remains a threat to civilized peoples everywhere. Each of us in the delegation made an effort to persuade our counterparts from the NATO parliaments to support ISAF and to contribute the forces necessary to stabilize Afghanistan. Kosovo declared independence on February 17. Our delegation arrived for meetings in Brussels the day before, and reaction in southeastern Europe to the decision to place Kosovo under the EU's ``supervised independence'' was a principal topic of discussion. The United States and most allies quickly followed with recognition of Kosovo's new status and urged its continued development as a democratic, multi- ethnic state. NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR), of whom approximately 1,500 are U.S. soldiers, continues to provide security and is an important factor for stabilization in the current tension between Kosovo Albanians and the Serb minority in the north of the country. With the assistance of our embassies, the delegation closely followed developments in Kosovo throughout the trip. While in Brussels, we met first with Ambassador Nuland, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO. She provided a briefing and responded to our questions on a wide range of issues. There followed two days of meetings of the NPA's Economics and Security, Defense and Security, and Political Committees. The meetings raised such issues as NATO's political agenda, the effectiveness of the alliance's public diplomacy efforts, and a possible new Strategic Concept, which would lay out NATO's mission and goals for the coming several years. We also held a private meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Afghanistan and public support for ISAF were important topics of discussion, as was Kosovo. De Hoop Scheffer offered to come to Washington to meet with Members of Congress in the near future, and this is an idea worthy of consideration. There was also a ``brainstorming'' session at NATO headquarters, attended by Representatives Ross, Moore, and Miller. Representative Ross made a forceful presentation outlining the importance of the ISAF mission, and of allies making a fair share of the contributions to NATO forces in Afghanistan. The rest of the delegation attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's governing body, comprised of representatives from the 26 member states. A range of issues--Russia, energy security, Kosovo, and Afghanistan among them--was discussed. We ended the day at NATO headquarters with a meeting with U.S. General Karl Eikenberry, who is the deputy head of NATO's Military Committee; he was also formerly commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. He briefed the delegation on the effort to defeat the Taliban, and on the complexities of the political situation in Pakistan that is affecting Afghanistan's stability. The delegation held meetings at the European Commission the following day. As chairman of the NPA's Economics and Security Committee, I presided over some interesting meetings on trade and the international economy. A highlight of the day was an exceptional presentation by the EU's Director General for trade, David O'Sullivan, who gave a lively presentation and concise overview of the principal points of controversy in the Doha round of trade talks, and in broader trade issues. The delegation then traveled to Paris for meetings at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). After a brief session with our ambassador to the OECD and his staff, I chaired sessions at the OECD on a number of issues. The global economy, Russia's economic practices and potential, and the value of education in economic development were key subjects of discussion. That evening we met with members of the French-American Foundation, together with our ambassador to France and a number of members of the French parliament who are in the French-American caucus. The following day the delegation traveled to Zagreb, Croatia, for the beginning of meetings with candidate state governments for membership in the alliance. Serbian reactions to Kosovo's independence and recognition by many governments had set the region on edge. The U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was attacked on February 21, as were the Slovenian and Croatian embassies there. U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Robert Bradtke accompanied us during much of our stay in Croatia and kept us up to date on developments in Belgrade and on the safety of U.S. personnel at our embassy there. He also briefed us on Croatia's efforts to qualify for NATO membership. While in Zagreb, we met with Prime Minister Sanader, President Mesic, and other senior officials. We were interested in discovering the progress that Croatia has made in military modernization and in other aspects of the program outlined for the country in the MAP. That evening Ambassador Bradtke arranged for us to meet with members of the Croatian parliament, including opposition figures and key members of the foreign policy and defense committees, as well as independent voices in Croatia. This meeting allowed us to hear a wide range of views beyond those in the government, and added to our ability to evaluate Croatia's progress in the MAP. There is a consensus that significant progress has been made over the past several years. A key issue was the relatively low level of public support--somewhat over 50%--in the population for NATO membership, a figure that appears to be climbing. There must also continue to be progress made in the fight against corruption. The following day we flew first to the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), then to Albania. In Macedonia, our ambassador gave us a briefing that touched on several issues of relevance. The delegation then proceeded to meetings with Macedonian President Crvenkovski, Prime Minister Gruevski, and other senior officials, including General Stojanovski, the chief of defense forces. The internal political situation in the country remains complicated and unsettled, and issues range well beyond ethnic divisions in the country. Macedonian troops serve in NATO operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia-Hercegovina, and we met several soldiers who had returned from assignments there. A key issue in NATO is the formal name of the country, and there are continuing discussions with Greece to attempt to reach a compromise under U.N.- sponsored talks. We are hopeful that Skopje and Athens can reach a settlement of this issue, and that Macedonia's candidacy for NATO can be judged solely on its qualifications under the MAP. In Albania we met with President Topi and with Prime Minister Berisha. We also met with members of parliament from both the governing parties and the opposition. We were accompanied throughout our meetings by U.S. Ambassador Withers, who provided an overview of developments in Albania. There are conflicting views on the depth of the problem caused by organized crime and corruption in Albania, and this was one issue raised in our discussions with government officials. While laws have been passed to fight crime and corruption, it may be useful for Congress in the coming months to examine the degree to which such legislation has been implemented. It should be said that Albania, although a poor country, by all accounts has made progress in downsizing and modernizing its military. The Serbian reaction to Kosovo's independence time and again surfaced during our meetings. In the coming months, we are likely to see a range of ideas raised for and against the possible membership of the ``Adriatic 3'' in the alliance. These are small countries with correspondingly small militaries; they must concentrate on niche capabilities to make a contribution to allied security, and each is making progress along this road. Given the continuing tensions in the region in part brought on by Serbia's reaction to Kosovo's independence, proponents of the three governments' candidacies are likely to argue that their developing democracies and contributions to multinational, cooperative efforts to bring stability are factors in their favor. These are issues that my delegation and other Members of Congress will be considering in the coming months. As always, members of the United States military contributed greatly to the success of this trip. The logistics of such a trip, compressed into a tight time frame, are complicated and require lengthy and detailed preparation. Our crew was from the 932nd Air Wing at Scott AFB, Illinois. This is an Air Force Reserve unit, and they did an outstanding job. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with one of the proposals being used to fund this legislation. I agree that improving coverage of mental health services is a laudable goal, and long over due, I might add. However, the proposal to help fund this increased coverage through increasing the Medicaid drug rebate is troubling to me. Drug companies already provide deep discounts to Federal and State governments for the prescription drugs covered by the Medicaid program. This legislation calls for a 33 percent increase in that rebate. I hope that a substantial increase in the rebate will not have a chilling effect on research and development for the next generation of treatments for those very patients with mental health conditions we are trying to help today. As everyone knows, I am a strong supporter of pay go provisions. So I want to commend our leadership for their efforts to continue to address these funding issues. The other funding provision being used for the improved coverage in this bill is designed to ensure that any potential conflict of interest created by physician ownership interests in specialty hospitals is limited. I think this provision goes a long way toward creating a more equitable situation for all hospitals. I plan to support final passage of this legislation. However, I hope that we can work together as this process goes forward to negotiate a conference agreement that offers a more balanced approach.