John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Mrs. Imogene Harris, an important community leader in Tennessee, a tireless political activist and my dear friend. Imogene died Saturday in an automobile accident. Imogene had been active in the Gibson County Democratic Party and the Tennessee Democratic Party for nearly 50 years, during which she was an important part of hundreds of local, state and national campaigns. I was fortunate to have Imogene working in my congressional office. She also worked closely with my predecessor, the late Congressman Ed Jones, former Governor Ned McWherter and Vice President Al Gore, and served as a delegate to four Democratic National Conventions. She was just as involved locally. A board member at the Carl Perkins Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse and former chair of the Milan Housing Authority, Imogene was also to be sworn in next week as a Gibson County Commissioner. The driving force behind her work was an attempt to help those around her and make our community stronger. Imogene was known in Tennessee for her take-charge attitude. She knew her opinions, shared them often and acted on them enthusiastically. Imogene and her late husband, Tom ``Skinny'' Harris, have two daughters, Jan Anderson of Milan and Pam McAlpin of Trezevant, and four grandchildren, Jake and Clay Anderson, and Jason and Adam McAlpin. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that you and most of our colleagues in the House of Representatives never got to meet my friend, Imogene Harris. The way she lived her life, the passion with which she acted on her beliefs, and the dedication with which she worked to improve our world, make her the perfect example of effective leadership. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a gentleman who has become an important leader in west Tennessee, a journalist who has helped bring together a community, and a good friend of mine, Richard Schneider. After 14 years as executive editor of the Jackson Sun, Dick is moving to Florida to fill that same position at the Pensacola News Journal. Since Dick came to Jackson in 1992, the Sun has moved from an afternoon paper to a morning paper, launched its Web site, broadened its coverage and publications, expanded its circulation and changed the way west Tennesseans get their news and information. When our region was hit by tornadoes--first in 1999, again in May 2003 and yet again in April of this year--the Sun's news staff, under Dick's leadership, provided excellent and in-depth coverage of the storms, the fatalities they caused, the lives they touched, the communities they devastated and the rebuilding that still continues today. West Tennesseans will always appreciate the information they received from the Jackson Sun during those trying times. The paper has also provided thorough coverage on other issues facing our area, including crime, health care, mortality, religion, veterans care, and race relations. Dick and the Jackson Sun have been recognized nationally by Gannett, the Associated Press and other organizations for the innovative ways the newspaper has increased its community outreach. I have also enjoyed getting to know Dick on a personal level over the years. Jackson will miss Dick and his wife Lea, as well as their three children, Troy, Ashley, and Nicole. They have been important to our community over the years, and we wish them all the best. Mr. Speaker, please join our colleagues and me in thanking Richard Schneider for his service to west Tennessee and congratulating him on his new opportunity.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a local hero who has dedicated his life to making sure our community stays safe. After 26 years as Humphreys County Sheriff, Ronnie Toungette is retiring. Toungette was born in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee, grew up in West Nashville and later moved to Waverly, where he eventually became a sheriff's deputy. In 1980, he was appointed county sheriff, and the people of Humphreys County re-elected him to that position again and again. Sheriff Toungette has been instrumental in cleaning up the numerous methamphetamine labs that have sprouted up as Humphreys County and other communities across the country have fought to control the spread of the dangerous drug. Humphreys County has been a leader in combating meth, and Ronnie's efforts on that front should not go unnoticed. Toungette and his wife, Darlene, have five grown children, Ronnie, Jr., Stephanie, Shelly, Marcella and Amanda; and eight grandchildren, Matthew, Zachary, Scott, Trey, Tyler, Kirston, Kayla and Kylie. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sheriff Ronnie Toungette on his retirement and thank him for his 26 years of service as the sheriff of Humphreys County. His tireless work has helped make our community a safe and secure place to live.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cardin and I appreciate this time. I wanted to come and speak on this because I voted against this agreement on the Ways and Means Committee when it was reported out a couple, 3 weeks ago. I did so out of sheer frustration and exasperation with the lack of democratic process in the committee as it relates to these agreements. Those of us who philosophically want to support agreement, engagement, with the rest of the world have had a very, very difficult time in the committee. And to call the committee, the way it has been run recently in some of these, the democratic process is really an abomination of that word. But beyond that, regardless of one's personal feelings, regardless of how one views the way these bills have come to the floor from that committee, one has to determine for one's self what is in the best interests of the United States of America. I have determined because history, if history teaches anything, it teaches one that engagement is better than nonengagement, and economic partners eventually become political and military partners. So the geopolitical aspects of these trade agreements, while they are not that big in scheme of things with respect to trade itself, are very huge, and some of these other speakers have alluded to that, in terms of our role in the world and fostering all the things and values we hold dear. I cannot see how turning down this agreement today on the floor is going to further our ability to influence things for the better in Oman or, for that matter, in that part of the world or, for that matter, in our own country. And so for those reasons, even though I have made my feelings known about the way some of these are handled procedurally, I am going to support this agreement today. I think it is in the best interest of this country to do so, for a whole host of reasons, many of which you will hear. I unfortunately talk so slow I do not have time to go through all of the reasons why I think that it is better on balance than it is worse on balance, and why; therefore, as one weighs what one should do for one's country in this regard, one has to make the decision yes or no. I have made that decision, and I intend to support it, and I would urge other Members to take a look at it.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very distinguished volunteer from Tennessee, who was awarded this year's national Humanitarian of the Year award. I want to congratulate and thank Hester Hill, who has given so much time and effort for a very valuable public service program called Angel Flight. Angel Flight South Central began in 1991, assisting medical patients and their family members with air transportation they could not otherwise get. It specializes in offering free non-emergency travel for those in need, and the shipment of blood and organs for medical procedures. The travel is provided by volunteers like Mrs. Hill and pilots who offer their time and aircraft at no cost. Last year alone, Angel Flight South Central flew more than 3,000 medical missions at no charge to its carriers. In the weeks following Hurricane Katrina, the rescue group flew hundreds of missions, reuniting people with their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, Hester Hill has given so much of her time and skill to help others when they need it most. I hope you and our colleagues will join me in honoring Hester Hill for the passionate and dedicated service she has provided to others and congratulate her on this prestigious award she has earned.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Well, thank you very much. I am delighted to join Mr. Davis, and you, Ms. Bean, and Mr. Ross and Mr. Boyd. I became aware of the fact that there is no oversight in this town of what we are already removing from people's pockets involuntarily in terms of taxation, and appropriating it to any administration without any oversight about where it is going. To give you some instances, this is hard to believe, and we have had to get these from newspaper reports and IG reports and so forth because there have been no oversight hearings to amount to anything around here in so long, but just listen to some of these examples of government waste: An internal Pentagon audit found that Halliburton had overcharged the American taxpayer by over $1 billion. This included $45 for cases of Coke, $100 a bag for laundry service, and several months preparing at least 10,000 daily meals at a military base in Iraq that the troops did not eat. They also paid a Kuwaiti company $1.30 a gallon of gasoline, while other contractors were doing work for 18 cents a gallon. This goes on. The Multinational Security Transition Command purchased seven armored Mercedes-Benz automobiles at $945,000 a car, over $6.6 million, that ended up being old models and did not even have the required level of armored protection. Furthermore, they couldn't locate one of them after delivery was made. FEMA paid $236 million for three cruise ships to house evacuees and relief workers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This comes out to over $1,200 a week per passenger at full capacity, almost double the price of a weeklong cruise. The ships did not have any fuel costs or entertainment costs because they were at the dock. Also, the ships have never been at capacity, but FEMA's contract pays them for capacity anyway. They are also paying contractors in the gulf coast an average of $2,480 for less than 2 hours of work to cover each damaged roof with a blue tarp, which is 10 times what the temporary fix would normally cost. We had to get these reports from newspaper accounts and others because there is no oversight here. So what we have done is, we have put together a bill, H. Res. 841, which the Blue Dogs have endorsed, that says basically three things: When the Inspector General report identifies waste, fraud, and abuse, or when they identify a ``high-risk agency,'' which is government talk for one that doesn't work, the program is not working like Congress intended it to, or when the CPAs, or the auditor, says on the front page of the audit that we don't know if what you are about to read is true or not because the books are in such bad shape we can't audit them, in those cases, this bill that the Blue Dog Coalition has endorsed says basically that Congress must hold a hearing. It is our, the Blue Dogs' position that at least the American taxpayer ought to expect from this Congress or any other Congress to keep up with the money we take away from people involuntary in the form of taxes. This Congress is not doing that, and it is a failure; it is a total abdication really of the constitutional responsibility that this branch of government has to the executive branch. So I hope people will get interested in H. Res. 841, because it speaks directly, Ms. Bean, to what you were talking about.

Mr. TANNER. If you will yield on just that point, here is what the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security, which is where FEMA is now, said in regard to their financial statements. ``Unfortunately, the Department made little or no progress to improve its overall financial reporting during FY 2005. The auditor was unable to provide an opinion on the Department's balance sheet.'' What they are saying is, we don't know what these people are doing with this money and they can't tell us. Congress is not asking, what did you do with the money, but if they asked, they couldn't tell them. That is what this bill goes to, and I am glad you have that horrendous picture there about all these trailers. They can't tell you and the auditor can't tell you what happened to the money.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very distinguished military leader who is retiring after 34 years of service to this country. I rise today to congratulate Colonel Larry D. Ruggley on his retirement, thank him for his dedication to our country and acknowledge the important leadership role he has played in the United States Army. A little more than 3 years ago, Colonel Ruggley assumed command of the United States Army Garrison at Fort Campbell, a portion of which I am proud to represent in the Congress. Colonel Ruggley and I have worked closely together on numerous occasions during his service at Fort Campbell, and I am very appreciative of his understanding of the mission of the Army, its role in protecting our country and the needs of each man and woman who wears the uniform of the United States Army. Colonel Ruggley's contributions have been immensely valuable. Colonel Ruggley's long and impressive career began in 1971 when he was an enlisted soldier in the Army Security Agency. He graduated as the Distinguished Military Graduate from Ohio University and was commissioned in 1978 as an Infantry Officer, then served his first assignment at Berlin Brigade, Germany. He went on to complete numerous other leadership assignments: 2nd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne); 7th Infantry Division (Light); 1st Special Warfare Training Group and D Company, 1st Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Special Operations Command Europe, Bosnia, and 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne). His unit participated in the African Crisis Response Initiative in Malawi and Uganda and other missions in Africa. After command, he became the Deputy Director of Training and Doctrine and then Chief of Staff of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School until 2000. After completing the Army War College, Colonel Ruggley was assigned to the Army Special Operations Command as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel from 2001-2003, after which he became Garrison Commander at Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division. During his 3-year tenure he oversaw superb support during a tumultuous time for the 101st Airborne Division as they redeployed from war, transformed and redeployed to Iraq last year. Colonel Ruggley's many awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal w/ 4OLC, Joint Service Commendation Medal w/1OLC, Army Commendation Medal w/1OLC, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal 3/OLC, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Army Superior Unit Award, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Occupation Medal, National Defense Service Medal 1/ OLC, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and NATO Medal. He also has been awarded the Ranger Tab and Special Forces Tab, is a Master Parachutist, HALO Parachutist, and holds the Expert Infantryman Badge. He completed a Masters Degree in Administration from Central Michigan University and received a Masters Degree in Military Studies while attending the War College. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Ruggley will now retire from his service in the United States Army, and Colonel Frederick W. Swope will assume the responsibility of Garrison Commander. I hope you and our colleagues will join me in welcoming Colonel Swope to his new post and recognizing the accomplished and distinguished service of Colonel Larry Ruggley, an outstanding military hero, a proven American patriot and my friend. We thank him for all he has done for his country and wish him, his wife Marie and their four children, all the best as Colonel Ruggley enters this new phase of his life.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Republican majority has no interest in securing our borders before the November election. After months of debate in Congress, and several speeches by the President, including one in prime time, it now appears the Republican majority would rather talk about the issue than actually solve the problem. President Bush has spent a lot of time recently talking about the need for a comprehensive immigration bill. If he really feels strongly about the issue, he should call congressional leaders from both the House and the Senate to the White House and hammer out a compromise. Otherwise, it seems House Republicans are willing to stall until the fall, which we all know would make it impossible to pass a bill before the November election. Mr. Speaker, it is time the majority take border security seriously. Since September 11, the Bush administration and Republican Congress have severely underfunded border security, breaking their promises to fund new Border Patrol agents, additional detention beds, and additional immigration investigators. Because of these funding failures, our borders are not secure. It is time that House Republicans stop their stalling and actually come to the negotiating table.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Ross, and I am delighted to be here and delighted that this hour is being devoted basically to common sense. You know, when I was growing up in Tennessee, my parents basically taught me three things about financial responsibility: one was live within your means; two was to pay your debts; and three was to invest in the future, whether it was for your retirement or your kids' college or whatever. But those were three pretty good financial guidelines, I thought. Live within your means, pay your debts, pay who you owe, and save enough to invest in the future. Unfortunately, this government of ours, all of us, we are not doing any of those things. We are not living within our means, not paying our debts, and we are certainly not investing in the future. I have been so frustrated because, for the last 3 years, anyway, along with Congressman Ross from Arkansas, some of us have been talking about the consequences of what is going on here. Unless one can figure out how to repeal the laws of arithmetic, folks, I am telling you, this country is getting in deeper and deeper financial trouble. To give you some idea, in the summer of 2002, on the same tax base we have in the summer of 2006, there is now $60 billion less of the money that Congress takes away from the American taxpayer involuntarily in the form of taxation and appropriates to any administration. There is $60 billion a year less because we have borrowed, just since the summer of 2002, this Congress and this political leadership in Washington have borrowed, in your name and mine, over $1.5 trillion. And what is worse is that 75 percent of those borrowings have come from foreign sources. I wish I was making this up. It is no fun to talk about. And as Khruschchev said, the former dictator in the old U.S.S.R., he said, an American politician will promise to build a bridge where there is no river. And part of our problem is the political leadership here in Washington is not leveling with the American people about the consequences of what we are doing in terms of hitting the Nation's credit card for not only that $1.5-plus trillion but all of the surplus money that is going into the Social Security trust fund. So we are borrowing that too. We just don't have to write interest checks to the Social Security trust funds every year. Anyway, I was thinking about this, as a father and grandfather now, what kind of country are we going to leave our children? There are two things that come from reading of history. One is, there is no nation that is strong and free that has no infrastructure. Our infrastructure in this country is in bad shape. Everybody knows that. Whether it is water, sewer, dykes, levees, and you can go down the list, we have serious infrastructure problems. In my home State of Tennessee, most of the county courthouses were built during the Depression, during the WPA days. I am sure that is the same way in Arkansas and probably in Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, all over. The courthouses were built back in those days, a lot of courthouse, I betcha. But that is not the real crux of the matter. The real crux of the matter is we have to, and only the government can, invest in infrastructure. Because, after all, that is where private enterprise can go to create the jobs, to create prosperity, so that people have water, sewers, bridges, highways, airports, whatever it may. That is how private enterprise grows, around infrastructure investment by the government. We are not able to do that because we have, just in the last 60 months, transferred out of the tax base, not raising taxes, not lowering taxes, we have transferred out of the tax base over $60 billion a year every year that goes not for veterans, not for education, not for infrastructure, but for interest. Seventy-five percent of that $60 billion that we are writing every year in checks for interest is going overseas, not even staying in this country. The consequences of that are twofold. One is, we cannot invest in infrastructure to keep our country in as good of shape as it needs to be for private enterprise to prosper and create jobs in a good economy. The second thing we are doing is we are depriving ourselves and the government of the ability to invest in human capital. What is human capital? Basically, it is the ability of the citizens of this country to compete in an increasingly globalized world. Now, the government loses its ability because of this transfer of the tax base to interest, loses its ability to make the necessary investments in public education. Public education is not important in a dictatorship. Public education is not important in a Communist country. But public education is critically important in a democracy, because we are called on. As President Jimmy Carter said, the highest office in this land of ours is not the office we hold, it is that of citizen. Because the citizen holds the card, the voting card, if you will, to determine what happens. They hire guys like us every couple of years or so, but the citizen is the highest office that one can hold in our country. If we deprive the citizens because we do not have the ability to invest in public education, then we are on a downward spiral, I would say. So you have two human capital factors. You have public education, because we are called on as citizens, the highest office in our land, to not only make a decision affecting us and our immediate families but also make a decision affecting our States and our country. In order to do that, we have to be educated; and in order to maximize that participation and that ability to understand what is going on, the masses of free people in a republic like ours have to be educated so they can read, write, think and rationalize their decisions. Public education is part of this investment in human capital. The second thing is health care. Our country is no longer able to make the necessary investment in health care. If one reads history, as I do, one will readily understand and discern that no nation, since the dawn of civilization, has ever been strong and free with an unhealthy, uneducated population. It is simply not possible. So the consequences of what you have been talking about on the national debt are very real to the citizens of this country. They may not realize or think so in terms of the national debt, $8.3 trillion, but don't try to make it off of me. I am trying to make a house payment, car payment, and all the other things that I have to do with my kids and everything else. So that is a big number, but that is not a number people really relate to. What people relate to, I believe, if we adequately articulate it, is the consequences to them, every day to us, of what is going on in this town, which leads me to this House Bill 841. It is hard to imagine this, and when I tell civic clubs that I speak to in Tennessee from time to time, they look at me aghast. They can't believe it. In the year, fiscal year 2005, the Government Accountability Office reports that 19 of 24 Federal agencies cannot produce an acceptable audit. What that means is, if you go and ask them what did you do with the money that Congress involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers of this country in the form of taxation and appropriated to any administration, what did you do with it, 19 of 24 Federal agencies can't tell you. Now I am in business in Tennessee. Well, my brothers and I are in a family business. Can you imagine going to your comptroller or your treasurer or whoever you look to handle your money in your business and saying, here is an expenditure of $5,000, $10,000. What is that for? The answer would be, you know, I can't tell you. I don't know. No private enterprise in America would tolerate that. Because if they did, they wouldn't be in business. They would be broke. Yet that is what the American people are tolerating in this one-party government town where Congress not only takes money away from people in the form of taxation and then doesn't even ask the administration they appropriate to what they did with it. If they asked them, they couldn't tell them. If there is one thing that the American citizen, highest officeholder in this land ought to expect from this Congress and any other Congress, in my view, is, what did you do with the money? If you can't tell us, any administration, if you can't tell us what you did, well, you don't get it next year. So House bill 841 that we have introduced, the Blue Dogs have introduced is basically under three circumstances, when the inspector generals in every department, and every department has one that identifies waste, fraud, abuse, so forth, right now, the inspector general reports are just laying around gathering dust, because Congress is not going to ask, what did you do with the money? There is no oversight here. Everybody knows that. All you have to do is read the paper about the money that is flowing out of here through a fire hose. Congress isn't asking the administration, where is it going? All we hear is, well, there is a no-bid contract here, a no-bid contract there. I am going to bring a list of things that we have identified, $10 million to rehab an old Army base to house six people, no-bid contract. It cost $10 million to some contractor to rehab a house that holds six people. That is what is going on under these no-bid contracts, and this Congress has totally, in my judgement, completely abdicated its constitutional responsibility to say what is going on over here. I am going to read something in a minute that is going to even more shock people. One, any inspector general, I don't care whether it is a Democratic administration, Republican administration, Democratic Congress, Republican Congress, we have got one economy. We have got $1. We don't have a Democratic or Republican dollar bill. We have got a dollar bill that is an American dollar bill. So we don't care. The Blue Dogs don't care whether it is a Democratic administration, Republican. This is what ought to be done on behalf of the American taxpayers who are Americans, first. They may be Democrat or Republicans. They are Americans. We are all Americans first. What this bill would do is say when there is an adverse finding by the inspector general in any, any agency, Congress must hold a hearing within 60 days of that adverse finding so that at least we can bring it to light and the general public will know that, one, they can't find the money we appropriated to them. Or, two, the inspector general has what they call a high-risk program. That is government talk for it means it probably is not working like we intended it to and like the people want it to. But they can't find the money for the high-risk program. Or three, the auditor issues a disclaimer. Here is what I want to read about the department. Four, that, basically, when they tried to audit these departments, the auditors said, look, we don't know whether this is true or not. On the front page of the audit, they say everything you are about to read here about what these people are doing with taxpayer money, we don't know. We can't vouch for it. We make no, absolutely no assertion that any of this, what you are about to see, is true, because we can't find out from the people that Congress appropriated the money to. I wish I was making this up, but I am not. This is what the Office of the Inspector General says about the Department of Energy, for example. This is one. Audit work performed by the auditor identified significant deficiencies in financial management and reporting controls related to the Department's FY05 consolidated financial statements. Specifically, the Department was unable to correct previously described weaknesses and could not provide a number of supporting documents required for audit. Not only can it not produce an audit, they can't even provide a document so the auditors can produce an audit. Listen to what they say about the Department of Homeland Security. Quote, unfortunately, the Department made little or no progress to improve its overall financial reporting during fiscal year 2005. The auditors were unable to provide an opinion on the Department's balance sheet. Now we sit here in Congress and pass all these laws, Sarbanes-Oxley and all of this, about what private companies ought to do in terms of audit. Here is the Homeland Security. You were just talking about 12,000 or 10,000 or 9,000 trailers at Hope Airport in Hope, Arkansas. They say, we are unable to provide an opinion. They can't even tell you. We don't even have an opinion because the books are so screwed up. This is quotes. So House Bill 841, the Blue Dog bill, just says, when an IG report comes back like this, Congress must take action. What you have here, unfortunately, and this, again, is not partisan. I am a taxpayer. All of us pay taxes. We ought to be able to tell the American people what we did with the money we extract from them involuntarily in the form of taxes. Here is an IG report. There hasn't been oversight on this, because Congress is not going to ask. You have a compliant Congress, a friendly administration. Nobody wants to embarrass anybody else. So we have stuff like this that we tolerate in this town because we are all playing the political game. I tell you, I don't know why we can't get some of our friends on the other side to join with me. What are they going to tell their constituents? We don't want to know where the money you sent us goes to? What are they going to say? What could possibly be wrong with this Blue Dog bill for simple accountability? We took money from taxpayers. We gave it to the administration. What did you do with it? You can't tell us. You are not getting it. That is what the Blue Dog position is. I think that is where it is. I mean, I don't want to give them any more money when I don't know what happened to it.

Mr. TANNER. High risk means it doesn't work.

Mr. TANNER. Let me tell you about another bill that our Blue Dog friend, Dennis Cardoza, has. And we passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act about holding the CEOs of all of these major corporations accountable. Dennis has a bill that says, basically, if a Department of the Federal Government cannot produce an adequate or passable or acceptable audit within 2 years, then that Cabinet Secretary must go back to the Senate for reconfirmation as to why you can't tell us what is going on in your Department with the money that is being appropriated to your Department. This is what would happen in private enterprise. And people tell me all the time, and I am sure they tell you, we would like the government to operate a little bit more like a business. Well, both of these bills, particularly 841, that is all we are asking is for this Congress to pass a bill that will require basically Congress to do its job and ask them what happened to the money, because Congress is the agency, is the separate but equal branch of government that levies taxes. The President doesn't tax people. The Supreme Court doesn't tax people. The Congress does. And it is the Congress's responsibility to see where it is going. And this Congress has completely, totally failed to ask or even inquire about what is happening to the money that we are appropriating. And, really, the American people shouldn't put up with that. The more we can talk about it, I think, the more people will realize that there has got to be some changes made around here on accountability. And, again, this is not partisan. I don't care what administration is over there at the White House. Any of them ought to be able to tell us what did you do with the money, so we can either determine that it needs to be cut or added to. When people get up and say we have got baseline funding, I say, you don't understand something. I want to cut some of this stuff that is not working. The IG reports identify government talk for high-risk programs. That means they don't work. But do you think this Congress has asked? Well, you just said it. They added four more since they cut them. And it keeps right on rolling along, money flowing out of here through a fire hose. It keeps rolling right on along. There is one other thing I would like to mention tonight if I could. We have a bill that the Blue Dogs have endorsed that sets up an independent commission in every State to redistrict for Congress. The Supreme Court, yesterday in the Texas case, left the door open for mid- decade redistricting, which means that any State that gets all the levels of power, the Governor's office and the House and State Senate, can redistrict anytime they want to. I think that is one of the biggest threats to our process, to our Republic that I have ever heard of because I think where we are going here is a tit for tat. The Republicans did it to the Democrats in Texas, so the Democrats are going to do it to the Republicans in Illinois. Democrats did it to us in Illinois, so we are going to do it to them in Ohio, wherever, all over the country. And you are going to see nothing but political turmoil where the ``ins,'' whoever the ``ins'' are, Democrats or Republicans, they are both ``ins,'' are playing this political game, and the people of this country are left in the dust. They are pawns on a chess board to be played with by the ``ins,'' whoever the ``ins'' are, Democrat or Republican. I think that this is one of the most misguided opinions I have ever read. The other thing about that is this: there was a case that came from Tennessee in 1962, Baker v. Carr, and that was a case that said in the case of the State House, State Senate and U.S. House, everybody had to represent approximately the same number of people. Now, how in the world any State legislature could reapportion Congress in 2008 based on 2000 census data and say we are complying with Baker v. Carr, in that everybody represents an equal amount of people, is beyond me. And I will tell you what you do. If you don't believe me, go pick up an 8-year-old phone book and see how many people you can call in that 8-year-old phone book or how many businesses you can call that are still there. There is no way that any legislature can comply with one person, one vote 8 years after the data was compiled. Yet that is what the Supreme Court left open. You talk about activist judges. I just think that what they are doing is setting this country up for nothing but a political food fight while the country's needs go unattended. And this is the ``ins.'' And what we have seen over the last 40-something years, since the Baker v. Carr decision is the ``ins'' have manipulated the system for themselves. It suits all the Republicans to make Republican districts more Republican. It suits the Democrats to make the Democratic districts more Democratic. So what you have here is the wings coming here to Congress and being unable ideologically to figure out how to get along. And this is why I think we have one of the problems here, and that is the middle is disappearing where everything gets done in a free society where nobody can order anybody else to do anything. So I wanted to mention that because we have that bill, the Blue Dog endorsed bill, that would set up independent commissions. And one of the criteria is they can't take into account where the incumbent lives. And we are asking people to give up a lot of power. I understand that. But I hope the American people realize that they are the victims of this with the ``ins,'' Democrats and Republicans, who are in, manipulating the system for each other's benefit. And what do we have? We have a food fight here on the floor of the House every day. And it is not a parliamentary system. It is a representative system and one, I think, as Ben Franklin said after they got through with all the Constitution, everything, said, what have we wrought? And Ben Franklin said, a Republic, if you can keep it. We are in, I think, grave danger with what we have done to gerrymander the country. And it is the ``ins,'' Democrats and Republican, who are in that are doing it. And we are trying to change that, and the Blue Dog bill will do that. And I hope we can get some action. It will have to come from outside of this building, unfortunately. Thank you.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Well, I thank you, you fellas. The 30-something Group is rendering great service to our country. It is about the only way I know to turn the clock back and be youthful again is to associate with the 30-something hour. I want to speak for all of us who admire your work here and thank you very much for what you do to try to alert the American public and your generation to what I believe will be disastrous consequences for our country and our citizens if we continue on the course that we have embarked on for the last 60 months or so. I wish I was making up what I am about to say, because when I tell people about the financial mismanagement and irresponsibility here in Washington that has gone on for the last few years and is continuing, people have a hard time comprehending that. When I tell them that the GAO, the General Accounting Office, reports that 19 of 24 Federal agencies can't produce an acceptable audit, in other words they can't tell you what happened to the money that the Congress involuntarily removed from the taxpayers' pockets and appropriated to the administration, 19 of 24 Federal agencies can't tell you what happened to it. They can't produce an audit. People are amazed. It is a function of the Congress to oversee the monies appropriated to any administration, and this Congress has abdicated that constitutional responsibility to the American people. I mean, no private enterprise in this country would tolerate what all of us are tolerating in our public lives. Can you imagine a private company, a CEO, or just anyone going to the treasurer or to the comptroller and saying, here is an expenditure of $10,000, do you know what it is for? What happened to it? And the answer is, well, I don't know, I can't find it, I couldn't tell you. Nobody in private enterprise in this country would put up with that, yet that is exactly what has been going on here in this one-party political town. You have a compliant Congress, a friendly administration, and so not only is Congress not asking the administration what happened to the money, if they ask them, they can't tell them. So what we have done is introduced House Resolution 841; that basically says what all of us believe ought to happen in our own private businesses and what happens here in our public business that affects everybody. It simply says this: When an Inspector General report comes back from any of these agencies and says either, number one, we can't find the money that has been appropriated; or, number two, this program, in government talk, is a high-risk program, and what that means really is that this program is not working like Congress intended for it to when it passed it to begin with, when those two things occur, House Resolution 841 provides that by law Congress must hold a hearing. Right now these Inspector General reports are just gathering dust. There are no hearings on what has happened to the money. So we are putting into law, hopefully, if we get enough votes to pass it, we are just telling Congress you ought to do your job. You ought to oversee this spending that is going on. I mean, I can't imagine anyone who would argue that it is not a good idea that we audit the books every now and then and see where the money is going that is being removed involuntarily from taxpayers. Who would be against finding out where the money went? I just can't imagine.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, people say all the time why can't government run more like a business? As I said earlier, no business would tolerate what we are tolerating here with this abdication of Congress' responsibility to keep up with the money. The very least the American people should expect from Congress is for Congress to oversee the money they remove from people involuntarily through taxes. The very least we ought to be able to do is tell them what happened to it. The other part that this resolution addresses is, one, when they can't tell us what happened to the money; two, when the program is identified as high risk, that means it is not working; and three, when the auditors disclaim the audit report. I want to read what the auditors said when they tried to audit the Department of Defense. ``We are unable to give an opinion on the fiscal year 2005 DOD financial statements because of limitations on the scope of our work. Thus, the financial statements may be unreliable. Therefore, we are unable to express and we do not express an opinion on these financial statements.'' That is on the first page of the audit. What they are saying is we don't know whether what you are about to read is true or not. Listen to this from the Department of Energy. ``Audit work performed by the contract auditor identified significant deficiencies in financial management and reporting controls related to the Department's fiscal year 2005 consolidated financial statements. Specifically, the Department was unable to correct previously described weaknesses and could not provide a number of supporting documents required for audit.'' What they are saying is here is this report, but read it at your own risk, we don't know whether it is true or not. Homeland Security. ``Unfortunately, the Department made little or no progress to improve its overall financial reporting during fiscal year 2005. The auditor was unable to provide an opinion on the Department's balance sheet.'' If that were in private business, the CEO of those businesses would be going to jail under the SEC rules if their stock traded on the exchange. This is not rocket science. The least the American people ought to expect from this Congress or any other Congress is to be able to account for the money that we take away from the citizens in the form of taxes. These people are not doing their job. This is replete. I have gone through some of these reports, it is unbelievable. There is not a hearing from Congress. There is nobody being subpoenaed up here saying, what happened to the $10 million that is here that the auditor said they can't find? Nobody is asking those questions. Congress is not asking it. If they asked it, they couldn't tell them. That is wrong. It is wrong to the taxpayers. It is wrong for this Congress to allow this to continue to go on. I hope we can get H. Res. 841. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), another Blue Dog, has H.R. 5315, and he says basically in that bill that when a Cabinet Secretary's department cannot produce an audit after 2 years, they have to go back before the Senate and be reconfirmed. In other words, you are in charge of this department; what happened to the money that was removed from the taxpayers' pockets and we gave it to you to spend? Where is it? I can't tell you. The second time he comes up here and says, ``I can't tell you what happened to the money,'' he has to be reconfirmed because he is obviously incompetent because he can't do his job, or her job. This is just basic good government. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with running the government's business like we would run our own. That is what people send us here to do, and that is what is not being done, and that is why it is so wrong.

Mr. TANNER. If the United States of America were a business, it would be classified as a failing business enterprise, and I hate to say this about my country. We are now in a structural deficit situation. In the business world where I come from, you can handle a cyclical deficit. That is if you have a bad year, if you had a bad year and so forth. Under this scenario of this regime running the Congress and running our country and running the White House, we have a structural deficit. It never balances. Anybody in business knows that is unsustainable. That will not go on forever. Unless they figure out how to repeal the laws of arithmetic, we are in a structural deficit situation that cannot continue. What does one do when one takes over a failing business? The first thing one does is find out where is the money coming from and where is it going. The first thing I want to do, we know we can pretty well figure out where the money is coming from from Treasury because they can tell you who is paying taxes. We can't tell where it is going. That is why we need this bill. We need accountability, and we need this bill. When we appropriate money to anybody, any administration, if they can't tell us what they did with it, they ought not to get it next year. That is what you would do in your private business; that is what we ought to do as Members of Congress with the public business.

Mr. TANNER. If you add Hong Kong, that is over $300 billion that China controls of our paper.

Mr. TANNER. Well, I am going to have to go, but I want to thank you all again for letting an old guy like me pretend I am 30-something again. It is a real thrill to do that, because your generation, I have two children in their 30s, and I have two grandchildren, one on the way. And when I see this country in an unsustainable financial downward spiral, I feel great remorse from my generation's standpoint, because we are not doing what our forebears did. To allow a situation to go on where there is no accountability, where Congress is not asking any administration, this has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with good business principles in the public sector, which I think all citizens of this country not only expect but deserve, and that is, this Congress ought to, at a minimum, be able to tell the American people what happened to the money. And they are not even asking this administration. And if they did, they couldn't tell them. That is just plain wrong. And these bills, I hope some of our Republican colleagues will sign on. It seems to me like they would want to audit the books as much as we do. I mean, I just hope that this is the first step of accountability into the public sector so that when we get an audit from any Department, the auditors can identify what happened to the money, whether or not the program is working, and so we don't get these disclaimers that say, everything you are about to read in this audit we have no idea of. We don't know whether it is true or not. Go ahead, be my guest and read it, but we can't vouch for any of it because we don't know, and they can't tell us. That is just, it is not only grossly irresponsible for this Congress to let that go on, it is really a generational mugging. And you 30-something guys, I appreciate you and your group, because you all will ultimately bear the terrible consequences of continuing down this road of no accountability in the Federal Government. And so I thank you again for allowing me to be here.

Mr. TANNER. You can look around. I could hit a driver and a 3-wood most of these places. They could start right here in this town just trying to find out what did you do with the money we gave you.

Mr. TANNER. And a pitching wedge to boot. Thank you all.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, because of weather-related travel delays, I was unable to cast votes yesterday evening on rollcall votes 289, 290 and 291. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 5540, H.R. 5504 and H. Res. 826.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, our country was founded and bases itself on civilian control of the military. And when I wore the uniform of our country, I, like all other military people in uniform, followed orders. I obeyed my commanders and I tried to do whatever the mission was that was set before us. That is what you do in the military of the United States under civilian control. But I am not in uniform any more. I am a civilian now, and part of that civilian authority. And it is our patriotic duty as part of that civilian authority to ask questions, to constantly reexamine the strategy, to constantly reexamine the policy of this country, to do everything we can to, one, accomplish our mission; and, secondly, and more importantly, protect the men and women who are actually doing the fighting for us now. That is why this debate, I would have hoped, would have been more broad; that we would have had more opportunity, because this debate in this country has to take place in this building on this floor here and in the Senate Chamber. It is the patriotic obligation and duty of civilian authority to do that, and I am proud to be here tonight. Now, I have supported resolutions like this in the past, but I want to ask Mr. Coble a question, sir. There was a news report this morning that the new Iraqi government is negotiating with some of the elements there in Iraq that are insurgents who have been murdering Americans, and this was what one of the Iraqi government officials said this morning, according to these news reports, and I quote: ``There is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that these attacks on Americans are legitimate acts of resistance in defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned, definitely, I believe.'' Now, unless that can be cleared up, I am not prepared to vote for a resolution which says in part that the United States and its coalition partners will continue to support Iraq. If this government in Iraq is going to grant amnesty to people who kill Americans because they feel it is their patriotic duty and they are defending their homeland, then we have got to reassess where we are with these people. Do you know whether or not this has been cleared up?

Mr. TANNER. Well, I don't want to catch you off guard, but we need to clear this up before we vote on this resolution. I do not think the American people will support a government that grants amnesty to people who kill American soldiers.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, the Army has been talking about adjusting the length of deployment in some manner, and there has been ongoing discussions about that with the Army Chief of Staff and others, and this amendment merely asks the Secretary of the Army to give to the Congress a report on the relative pros and cons, what they are finding out and what they intend to do within I believe it is 90 days of the date this amendment passes. Mr. Chairman, I would urge acceptance of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.