Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the birthday of a dear friend and a distinguished member of the Nashville community, Mrs. Jeanette Cantrell Rudy. Mrs. Rudy is a generous philanthropist, an accomplished sportswoman and a true friend to many in Tennessee and across the nation. She celebrates her 78th birthday on October 27th, 2005.

When you look at everything Jeanette has accomplished in a mere 78 years, it is clear she is a woman of fierce commitment, incomparable energy and true generosity. As someone fortunate to have worked with Jeannette on various community initiatives, I can tell you there is no one you would rather have on your team when you launch a new project.

Born October 27th, 1927 in Sheffield, Alabama, Jeanette enrolled in the Saint Thomas Hospital School of Nursing in Nashville following high school graduation. She received her nursing degree in 1948. That occasion changed her life--along with the fact that she also met her future husband, Mr. Daniel Clees Rudy, about this time.

Daniel Clees Rudy, cofounder of the Rudy's Farm Sausage Company, and Jeanette married on February 20th, 1949. The Rudys made their home in the Pennington Bend area on the Cumberland River until Mr. Rudy's death in 1984.

Jeanette served her community as a public health nurse for seven years. But that was just the beginning to her commitment to better health care for all of Nashville. In memory of her late husband, Jeanette helped to establish and fund the Dan Rudy Cancer Center at Saint Thomas Hospital in 1985. Also in 1985, Jeanette and her sisters, founded the Felix A. and Edna L. Cantrell Endowment Fund in honor of their parents. This special endowment has helped a host of nurses reach their educational goals and advance in the nursing field. A long-time supporter of the nursing program at Cumberland University in Lebanon, Tennessee, Jeanette was recognized for her efforts with an honorary doctorate of humanities from Cumberland University in 1990.

In addition to her commitment to public service, Jeanette is a passionate hobbyist. She has assembled the finest privately held collection of State and Federal duck stamps, including the very first stamp issued in 1934. Jeanette served as a judge of the Federal duck stamp competition in Washington, D.C. in 1992. In 1996, the Smithsonian Institution established, in her honor, the Jeanette Cantrell Rudy Duck Stamp Gallery at the National Postal Museum.

Jeanette's energy and zest for life do not stop there. An avid sportswoman, she held the title of Ladies State Trapshooting Champion for nine years, was named to the women's all-American trap team twice, and has been an ardent hunter and angler since 1949 over much of North America. Jeanette has also spent endless hours helping many organizations and educational institutions in Middle Tennessee. She served on the boards of Cumberland University, the Saint Thomas Hospital Auxiliary, the Saint Thomas Foundation and the Nashville Zoo, and she is a major supporter of the Nashville Police and Fire Department and the National Police Memorial in Washington, DC.

She is the recipient of the 1992 Seton Medal for her service to patients of Saint Thomas Hospital. She authored a book, ``A Bend in the Cumberland,'' which traces the history of the Pennington Bend area, where, for many years, her husband and his brother operated the Rudy's Farm Sausage Company. And, now, as a Commissioner of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency since 2001, Jeannette is dedicated to raising funds for projects that will help preserve, conserve and enhance Tennessee's population of fish and wildlife.

Jeanette's devotion to public service and her long-standing advocacy for nursing are truly remarkable. I thank this spirited American for her unwavering compassion and desire to make life more positive for others in her community.

Today, I join my distinguished colleagues--Representatives Bart Gordon and John Tanner--and all Tennesseans in congratulating and extending our warmest and best wishes to Jeanette Cantrell Rudy for a happy 78th birthday. Jeannette, may you have many more rewarding and life-enriching experiences ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I come here today to praise the men and women of the 118th Air Wing who fly out of Nashville, Tennessee. They have been mistreated by this BRAC process. I do not blame the BRAC Commission. I think the fault lies originally with the Pentagon recommendation because they simply did not take into account one of the best flying units in America. They are proven, they are ready, they have performed valiantly every time the Nation has called them to service. They have volunteered for extra duty. They fly C-130s. We have, and we soon will miss, those eight C-130 airplanes.

The bottom line for the Pentagon decision, did it really have anything to do with military judgment for value or cost savings? No. What did it have to do with? A political calculation on the part of the Pentagon that because Tennessee had a great air unit in Memphis with C- 5s and a great air unit in Knoxville with KC-135s, that therefore, Nashville had to lose one of the best Air Guard units in the country.

Now, they did not close down our base entirely; they did not have the temerity to do that, but they took all our aircraft. They took the ``air'' out of the Air National Guard in Nashville, Tennessee.

Now, Members might say, well, I am just protecting a local interest. Look at the facts. First they came at us with wrong data because the Air Guard unit there does not own the runways; we only lease them from a fine commercial airport. We got no credit for that. So we addressed that problem.

Then they did not take into account the fact that we had some of the newest and best facilities in all of our military, the number one best hangar in America, brand new, barely opened, and it will probably never see an airplane. It won the top Air Force award for best hangar in the country, so why did American taxpayers pay $55 million for that hangar never to see it used?

Guess what, almost every other facility on that base is less than 2 years old, and we are taking away all of the aircraft. How does that make sense? It only makes sense if you look at the politics. Tennessee had three bases; they wanted to cut us down to two and distribute it more evenly around the country. So they can take our airplanes, are they going to train the new air crews at these other bases? Are they going to build them brand new and wonderful facilities and hangars? Will that save the American taxpayer money when we already had one of the top units in the country in Nashville performing perfectly?

If you ask Secretary Rumsfeld, he knows about the men and women from Nashville who have flown him wherever he needed to go, in the Middle East or other places in the world.

So I am in an ironic situation. I believe in the BRAC process. I do think Congress needs a restraint. We cannot just all protect our local bases, but the Pentagon's recommendation has to be based on sound military judgment, and at least in this one small case, it was not. Unfortunately, the BRAC commissioners did not have the temerity to override in this case, at least, the Pentagon recommendation.

If Members talk to top folks in the Pentagon, they will tell you that from the expected savings from the BRAC round, they are virtually gone, because the BRAC Commission did interfere in a lot of other bases, and some services, so 70 to 80 percent of the expected savings are not there. I think history will chalk this up as a failed BRAC round, not because of Nashville but because of larger issues.

So I hope and pray that when the next BRAC round comes around, we will do a better job starting with the Pentagon and through the BRAC Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.J. Res. 65, which would reject the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee I initially supported the BRAC process. It is very important that the composition of our bases and infrastructure support the operational needs of the 21st century--a century that is emerging to be as dangerous and challenging as the 20th century. We must adapt to new threats and challenges. But our decisions concerning future base structure must be based on what best supports the national security of the United States. The BRAC decisions regarding the Air National Guard do not meet this test.

Consequently, I disagree with the Department of Defense's recommendations concerning the Air National Guard. Our citizen soldiers of the Air National Guard are a critical part of our defense structure. They have done heroic work since 9-11. We simply would not have been able to sustain the current pace of our operations without the Air National Guard.

The Air Force BRAC recommendations failed to fully consider the unique capabilities and civilian-military partnerships of many of our Air Guard facilities and the legitimate recruiting, training and retention concerns of the state adjutants. Moreover, the BRAC analysis did not address the potential impact of realignments on State homeland security missions. These ill considered recommendations generated almost unanimous opposition from State Adjutants. Despite the efforts of the commission, this entire process has done great harm to the vital relationships between the Air National Guard and the Air Force. This harms our national security.

Let me briefly discuss these flaws using the 118th Air Wing (AW) stationed in Nashville as an example. The decision regarding the realignment of the 118th AW, one of the premier C130H flying units in the United States, illustrates the nature of the flawed recommendations that grew out of a closed process.

First, the loss of aircraft from the Air National Guard and the movement of aircraft to fewer sites will have negative impact of the retention of our most experienced air crews and maintenance personnel. Unlike active duty airmen and pilots, Air National Guard personnel do not just pack up and relocate with their aircraft. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the 118th AW's highly experienced pilots and maintenance personnel will move with the C130H aircraft to new base locations.

Next, consider the airmen and airwomen left behind in enclaves. The realignment of the 118th and many similar units across the country essentially takes the ``air'' out of Air National Guard. Attracting and retaining highly motivated young men and women for a placeholder organization with no real mission will be difficult, if not impossible.

Third, rebuilding the deep operational experience and cohesion of units like the 118th AW, forged through multiple deployments and demanding combat missions that have continued through the rescue and recovery efforts associated with Hurricane Katrina will require many, many years. The direct and indirect personnel costs of realigning units like the 118th AW do not appear to have been considered in the BRAC process. It takes time and money to recruit, train and develop experienced pilots and co-pilots and highly skilled maintenance and support personnel. Indeed, duplicating the skill, experience and dedication of the 118th AW may be impossible.

Fourth, it appears that the Air Force failed to fully consider the military value of the Air National Guard facilities under consideration. For example, in Nashville, we have spent over $55 million over the last five years on military construction to include a new state of the art hangar/maintenance complex that won an Air Force design award. Yet it appears much of this new construction was not considered in the evaluation of the 118th AW's ``Military Value.'' Consequently, these excellent facilities will remain in limbo--neither closed nor fully operational. Where is the efficiency, cost savings or operational advantage in this arrangement?

Finally, the overall BRAC savings are minimal. According to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, the Department of Defense claimed that their recommendations would save $47.8 billion over twenty years. The Commission concluded that once one time up-front costs of $21 billion are subtracted and personnel costs are accurately calculated the total savings to the American taxpayer will only be $15 billion. This figure is likely high because costs for the retraining of pilots, air crews and mechanics are not factored into the up-front costs. This is extraordinary.

Consequently, I have concluded that the marginal fiscal benefits of these recommendations do not out-weigh the costs to our Air National Guard flying formations and our national security. I will vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 80th anniversary of the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, TN. As one of the most renowned traditions in American music and broadcasting, the Grand Ole Opry continues to entertain and delight music lovers around the globe every week. Broadcast live from the Opry stage every Friday and Saturday night, the Grand Ole Opry is the Nation's longest-running radio show and the beloved home of our Nation's most celebrated music.

The show's original host, George D. Hay, introduced the first performance in 1925: 77-year-old Uncle Jimmy Thompson, who could ``fiddle the taters off the vine,'' played ``Tennessee Waggoner.'' Since then its audience has grown from a group of local Nashville listeners to the millions of music fans who tune in through satellite radio, television, and the internet.

The Ryman Auditorium's original well-worn oak wood Opry stage has moved with the show's changing venues through the years and has hosted some of America's most legendary country musicians--Patsy Cline, Roy Acuff, the Carter Family, Willie Nelson, Loretta Lynn, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, and Bill Monroe. For many generations of Americans, Minnie Pearl's cheerful shout of ``How-dee! I'm just so proud to be here!'' will forever signify the start of another memorable and captivating Grand Ole Opry show.

My own personal connection to the Grand Ole Opry began when I met the legendary Opry duo Earl Scruggs and Lester Flatt during my father's 1950s political campaigns throughout Tennessee. Like so many others, I tuned in every week to listen to the gifted musicianship of the performers. And in a visit I shared with Earl Scruggs not too long ago, he told me that growing up in Shelby, North Carolina, he would walk across the hollow to a neighbor's house just to listen to the show every week because his family didn't have a radio. Both accomplished musicians and fans alike continue to hold the Grand Ole Opry in the highest esteem among America's musical traditions.

While the Opry has always stayed true to the musical roots upon which it was founded, it continues to evolve with the latest country sounds. The Grand Ole Opry's elite membership now includes accomplished artists like Martina McBride, Garth Brooks, Alan Jackson, Vince Gill, Brad Paisley, Patty Loveless, and Dierks Bentley who continue to entertain fans on the same oak wood stage every week.

In its 80 years, the Grand Ole Opry has come to mean something more than a weekly country show. In addition to extending Nashville and America's musical traditions throughout the country and world, it is a way to connect with and pay tribute to America's musical influences and heritage. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of this beloved American musical institution and to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Grand Ole Opry.

Mr. Speaker, any day now, the United States of America will have borrowed over $8 trillion. That is not an occasion to celebrate. That is an occasion to be very worried about the future of our country. $8 trillion is a fantastic sum of money. To see how long it is, all those numbers stretched out, just look outside the office of any Blue Dog Member of this Congress and you will see a chart like this, because it will show you that as of today, the debt is $7.989 trillion. That means we are only $11 billion away from passing the $8 trillion threshold.

How quickly are we approaching that threshold? We are borrowing almost $1 billion a day. That means within the next week or two, we will pass the $8 trillion threshold. Of course, much of the money we are borrowing, we are borrowing from foreigners, and increasingly from the Chinese. So all Americans need to be on alert, because this is something that has never happened before in all of American history. We have had ups and downs, we have had the Depression, we have had the Civil War, but we have never been borrowing money at this rate.

Let me put it in historical perspective. It took the first 204 years of our Nation's history to accumulate $1 trillion in debt. And now we are doing that every 2 or 3 years. Our Nation's top accountant, David Walker, of the GAO has said that arguably the year 2004 was the worst year in America's entire fiscal history. Why would our top accountant say something like that? First of all, because he believes it is true, and it is also because this Congress promised $13 trillion worth of new spending in one year, none of which is paid for. Imagine promising $13 trillion and not even beginning to pay for it.

Later this week under a newly resolved Republican majority, they are planning on increasing the amount of reconciliation that we will undertake by some $15 billion. That sounds mighty good on the surface, but that is about 2 weeks' worth of this borrowing. I do not think 2 weeks' worth is going

to be good enough for our kids and grandkids who want to know that we are leaving our Nation stronger than the way we found it. Instead what this Congress is doing and this administration is leaving us weaker than we used to be. There should be more leadership in this body, but with 435 people all contending to represent their districts back home, it is hard to characterize Congress as much more than an organized appetite. That is why our wise Founding Fathers gave us what they thought would be presidential leadership. That is why they gave the President the veto, for example, so that he could take a congressional bill and veto it.

Right now under President George W. Bush, we have the first President since James Garfield in 1881 never to have vetoed a single bill. 1881 was a long time ago. Poor President Garfield was only in office for 6 months. President Bush has been in office for 5 years, without a single veto. So you really have to go back even further than President Garfield to find a President who has accepted every bill that Congress sent him as if it were perfect. For that, to find a President who served two full terms, you have to go back to President John Quincy Adams. You can see his portrait right outside this Chamber. That is not a record to be proud of. Because this Congress needs to be tamed, it needs to be disciplined and the veto is the constitutional power the President has to do that.

But that is not the only power the President has. He also has the power of rescission. Every President since Richard Nixon has had that power. Every President since Richard Nixon has used that power except for President George W. Bush. He has never used the power. Let me give you an example. President Clinton used it 163 times. President Bush, Sr. used it, I think, 400 times. President Reagan used it 600 times, saving billions and billions of dollars of unnecessary spending as they use it. President Bush has never used that power.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the perfomling rights organization SESAC for 75 years of service to the creative forces in music. We in Music City U.S.A. are grateful to SESAC for its continuing work on behalf of the songwriters and publishers who make music happen.

SESAC, which is based in my district in Nashville, has been a valuable force in protecting the rights of songwriters and publishers by defending copyrights against infringement and ensuring that artists receive the royalties they are due. Over the years, the many distinguished artists that have relied on SESAC to protect their artistic creations have included such singer-songwriter legends as Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan and Neil Diamond, Tennessee artists Arlos Smith, Sam and Annie Tate, and Jo Nichols, jazz luminaries Cassandra Wilson and Steve Coleman, R&B/Hip-Hop songwriters Bryan-Michael Cox, Swizz Beatz, and Teddy Riley. SESAC's musical library also includes such classics as Sweet Caroline, I'll Fly Away, and Forever Young, and renowned musicians such as Garth Brooks, U2, LeAnn Rimes, and Luciano Pavarotti, perform songs written by SESAC artists all over the world.

In addition to its representation of songwriters and publishers, SESAC should also be commended for its work to foster public awareness on the importance of copyright protection and the damage done by piracy. As part of the Music United Coalition, SESAC took an active role in the debate surrounding the legality of file-sharing, which was the subject of a recent Supreme Court case. This year, SESAC also sponsored the first Recording Arts Day in Washington, which gave lawmakers an opportunity to leam about the many complex and controversial issues surrounding the music business.

On behalf of my constituents in the Fifth District of Tennessee, I commend SESAC for its years of service and advocacy on behalf of the Nation's songwriters and music publishers, and wish the organization a happy 75th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize and pay tribute to this year's Angels in Adoption awardees from the Fifth District of Tennessee--James and Virginia Lawrence. This honor is given by the Congressional Coalition in Adoption to extraordinary individuals, like the Lawrences, who have made a tremendous difference in the lives of foster children.

In 1992, after raising four biological children, James and Virginia Lawrence welcomed into their home their first foster child. Little did they know that this decision would be the first step in what would become a life-long commitment to helping needy children. Over the last twelve years, the Lawrences have tirelessly devoted their lives to caring for, loving, and supporting more than 200 children who have come into their home through Tennessee's foster care system.

The Lawrences stand out as foster parents for two reasons: their absolute devotion to the children who come into their home, and their tireless work to reunite children with their birth parents. According to Mrs. Lawrence, many of the birth parents ``needed parenting themselves. We taught many of them how to be parents, by providing counsel, offering advice and by our example.'' Whenever it became clear that returning to a birth parent was not a good option for one of their foster children, the Lawrences knew what to do--they simply adopted the child. Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have extended their loving family by adopting Alisa, now 24, Peggy, 21 and Shelby, 18.

Mr. Lawrence said that, before retiring from the city's police force, he was greatly affected by the many children taken from their families. That experience moved him and his wife to open their home to children in need of a healthy, secure home environment. He added that, ``helping children has been a blessing for him and his wife as well.'' Virginia Lawrence said that, ``having the kids around keeps your heart beating another day.'' She continues to teach the four foster children currently in their home the independent living skills they'll need to build a promising and rewarding life.

The Lawrence's big hearts, patience and devotion is evidenced by the countless number of children they have reached out to over the years; and in their willingness to continue opening their doors to young people in need of a warm, secure and loving home.

On behalf of the Fifth District of Tennessee, I congratulate and thank the Lawrences for setting a wonderful example of what it means to make a difference in the community and in the lives of our most vulnerable children. I hope we'll all reflect on the Lawrence's model ``of ordinary people, doing extraordinary things'' as we reach out to help those affected by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Rules Committee has made a terrible mistake here, and not the usual Rules Committee sort of mistake, because they have actually allowed to come to the floor a substitute that is so clearly superior to the AHP bill it is amazing.

Now, let my friends on the other side understand, I am not against AHPs. I am an original cosponsor of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson's) legislation. AHPs would be an improvement over current market conditions, which are appalling. But this plan put forward by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is better than AHPs, and let me describe some of the ways.

First, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) mentioned choice earlier. Under the AHP approach, the average small business might be able to offer their employees one or two insurance plans, and that employee of the small business would have no idea whether their doctor was going to be a apart of one of those plans. But under the Federal employee approach, such as the one that we enjoy in this House of Representatives, they could have 10 or 20 or more plans to choose from, and the likelihood that their physician, their caregiver, would be part of one or more of those plans increases substantially.

So when you are talking about unleashing the free market to work for the individual, the Federal Employee Health Benefits-type plan, and this would not infringe on Federal employees' benefits, but it would set up a parallel organization that small businesses could benefit from, the opportunities for the small businesses of America are magnificent under this approach.

Another key aspect of this is the substitute approach is more likely to work. AHPs are largely a thought experiment. They have never really worked anywhere. But the Federal Employee Health Benefit System has worked well for decades, 30 or 40 years of a magnificent track record of experience. It has got bipartisan support. Men and women of goodwill on both sides of the aisle know that this sort of approach works; it lowers the sales load, it increases the risk pool to the maximum size which you need for lower group rates.

It really is the fairest and best way to approach this nagging small business problem that we have had. It is also going to be more affordable, because while it lowers the sales load and increases the size of the risk pool, it is fairer to all industries.

There are probably going to be a lot of insurance companies that want to offer insurance to software companies, because those employees tend to be young and healthy. How many are going to be eager to insure older Rust Belt industries?

The tax credit approach that my friend has mentioned has had to be adjusted for purposes of this substitute, but we need to acknowledge, as my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) mentioned, health care is already seriously subsidized in this country. All we are trying to do is make that subsidy fairer.

I think also the substitute approach would make the system higher quality. First of all, under AHPs, there would be minimal solvency requirements. By completely overturning all State regulation, as AHPs would do, that is a truly radical approach, and while my friends on the other side may be radicals in this regard, I think they are going further than they realize. These insurance plans need to be thoroughly solvent. You need to have adequate capital requirements so that you know the insurance is going to be there when you need it.

I think you would have better benefits under this plan, too, because you would have more proven traditional insurance policies that I think more folks who work for small businesses are accustomed to.

Let me admit, Mr. Speaker, in closing, our approach is less famous. Why? Because we do not have every PAC and trade association in Washington, D.C. favoring this because they stand to personally benefit from promoting AHPs to their members. They are desperate for non-dues revenue for those associations.

For any tourist who comes to Washington, if you do not think these PACs and trade associations are rich enough, come visit again. You will see skyscrapers full of these folks all over town, and they would love to make money as insurance salesmen to all the small businesses in America. That is not doing justice for our folks back home.

As I say, AHPs are an improvement, but they are not as good as the Kind-Andrews approach. Please vote for Kind-Andrews.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for a series of rollcall votes occurring the morning of July 22, 2005. During that time I was attending a memorial service for my friend, Avon Williams III, held at the Pentagon. I was also unable to be present for a series of rollcall votes held on the evening of July 25, 2005. During that time I incurred an unavoidable transportation delay.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 415, the Velazquez amendment to H.R. 3070, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 416, passage of H.R. 3070, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 417, passage of H.J. Res. 59, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 418, passage of H. Con. Res. 181, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate U.S. Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, a recent recipient of the Silver Star Medal--the Army's third highest award for valor in combat.

On June 16 in Iraq, 23-year-old Sgt. Hester became the first female soldier to be awarded the prestigious Silver Star Medal in more than 60 years. At the awards ceremony at Camp Liberty, Sgt. Hester was recognized ``for exceptionally valorous achievement'' during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Sgt. Hester serves in the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit from Kentucky, and was working in my hometown of Nashville when she was called to duty. Sgt. Hester comes from a family dedicated to serving our country and fighting for freedom on foreign soil. Her grandfather won a Bronze Star in World War II. Her uncle served valiantly in Vietnam. When asked about her service in Iraq and her Silver Star, Sgt. Hester told one newspaper that she was simply ``doing my job like any other soldier here.''

On March 20th, while her unit was being ambushed by enemy fire and under counter attack, Sgt. Hester helped to thwart an insurgent assault against a convoy of 26 supply vehicles that were ambushed by about 50 insurgents, southeast of Baghdad. According to an Army account, ``[Sgt.] Hester led her team through the `kill zone' and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds.'' Sgt. Hester killed at least three insurgents according to her award citation.

We honor Sgt. Hester now because the ``job'' she chose to do on March 20th was one so many Americans before her have also selflessly chosen: she put the lives of her fellow soldiers before her own. Her bravery distinguished her that day, just as her love of country and passion for freedom led her to join the National Guard in April of 2001.

Sgt. Hester has said she is looking forward to the day when her service in Iraq will be complete. She is looking forward to spend time with family and friends and her hopes for a new career. Sgt. Hester wants to continue to protect the lives of others when she comes home. She plans to pursue a career in law enforcement, a goal she has had since she was a child.

On behalf of the 5th District of Tennessee and the members of the House of Representatives, I thank Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester for her commitment to service--service to her country, her community and her fellow soldiers on the field of battle. I am honored to salute her today for her courage and her achievements. My thoughts and gratitude go out to her, her family and all of our men and women in combat who work to protect this Nation and bring peace to the world. And I look forward to the day when I can join with her friends and family in welcoming her back home.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for a series of rollcall votes occurring on the evening of June 29, 2005 and during the day on June 30, 2005. During this

time, I was on official business attending a regional hearing held by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the 118th Air Wing of the Tennessee Air National Guard.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 341, the King amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 342, the Herseth amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 343, the Hooley amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 344, the Souder amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 345, the Davis (FL) amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 346, the Lee amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 347, the Sanders amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 348, the Rangel amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 349, the Souder amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 350, the Garrett amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 351, the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 3058, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding. I want to take a little bit different tack, because I think our audience has heard a blizzard of numbers and sometimes it is hard to take in all that data at one time.

This chart shows right here a few dates on our calendar. One date is the year 2004, last year. Most Americans got through that year all right, and they do not realize the fiscal gravity of our situation. Do not take my word for it. Our Nation's top accountant said that the year 2004 was ``arguably the worst year in our fiscal history.''

That says a lot. That is a big statement. That includes the Great Depression, that includes all the world wars, the Civil War. How on earth could 2004 have been ``arguably the worse year in our fiscal history?'' Because in that one year, Congress promised $13 trillion worth of future spending that is completely unpaid for. Never in American history has Congress been that irresponsible, and that is why our Nation's top accountant made that declaration about 2004.

We will look at some future years. The debt that we are running up that our colleagues have explained so well is going to cost us so much in interest, that by about the last year of the Bush administration, we will be spending more money on interest payments to our Nation's creditors than we will be on regular domestic government in America. In a sense, it will be a better deal to be a creditor of this country than to be a citizen of this country, because the creditors will be getting more money than we will be, if we look at regular, nondefense, discretionary spending.

Let us look at another key date in our future. This was in the Wall Street Journal. At the rate that foreigners are lending us money, buying our debt, by February 9, 2012, the Chinese will have bought the last bond from a U.S. citizen, and then they will own all of our foreign debt. Their pace of buying our debt, of loaning us money, of getting us dependent on their credit is so ravenous that just a few short years from now, they will own all the foreign debt, if current trends continue.

Look at another key date. By the year 2017, that will be the first honest picture of the deficit in American history, because today the true size of the deficit is being disguised by the Social Security surplus. Last year, people like to say the deficit was $412 billion. Well, the true deficit was $567 billion, because $155 billion of Social Security surplus was used to disguise the true size of the deficit. We owe that money to Social Security recipients. That is one of the most solemn obligations our country has ever made, and yet people never mention the true size of the deficit. Well, by 2017 there will not be a surplus anymore, and then the true deficit will be revealed.

Look at the year 2035. A reputable group, Standard & Poor's, they rate all of the debt in corporate America, all the debt in the world. They are predicting that the U.S. Treasury bond by that year will achieve junk bond status. If that is not a dire warning, I do not know what is, because the U.S. Treasury obligation is the soundest obligation on this Earth. We have always paid our debts as a Nation. That is the gold standard of bonds. But here is Standard & Poor's, the most reputable private sector debt-rating organization, saying that if current trends continue, our bonds will be junk bond status.

Look at the final date on here. I think it is 2040. That is when, again, our Nation's top accountant says that it will take all revenues collected by the Federal Government to do one thing; every penny collected from Federal income tax, Federal corporate tax, all the other taxes to do one thing. What? Service the debt, pay our creditors. Interest alone. There will not be one red cent left for any national defense, for any Social Security, for any Medicare, for any anything. That is not my prediction; that is our Nation's top accountant.

That is the sort of fiscal hole that these numbers that my colleagues have revealed are leading us into. This is a problem. This is a true crisis. I have called this the ``road to ruin.'' That is what it is. We have to change course.

Let me show my colleagues this. A lot of folks say, well, 9/11 did all this. What people do not realize is the Cato Institute revealed in a recent study that President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are the biggest domestic spenders, nondefense spending, since Lyndon Baines Johnson. The title of the report is called ``The Grand Old Spending Party: How the Republicans Became the Party of Big Government,'' and this graph shows it. One might think that some previous Democratic Presidents were big spenders, but look at this: Carter and Clinton, they are down toward the bottom. Lyndon Johnson did try to give us a guns-and-butter budget, but only President George W. Bush has approached him in terms of growth of domestic spending. These are the true numbers; this is what the American people need to focus on. We have a dire deficit situation, and we need action.

So I appreciate the gentleman, my good friend from South Carolina, holding this Special Order. It is very important that all the business people of America, all the citizens of America, wake up and take notice of this situation, because they are not seeing it on regular television, they are not hearing the truth, they need to focus on reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ron Crowder for his extraordinary accomplishments as the founder of the Street Works HIV prevention and education center in Nashville, Tennessee. Ron was recently selected as one often people to receive the nation's most prestigious community health leadership honor--the Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program Award.

This recognition, which carries with it a $120,000 award, is given to those who have overcome significant challenge and demonstrated an exceptional and effective approach to addressing the many health care challenges facing communities across the country. After hearing Ron's remarkable story, I can think of no one more deserving of this distinguished award.

Ron Crowder, an African-American, grew up in a home with nine other children in a segregated, impoverished section of Nashville. After dropping out of high school at the age of 17, he served his country as a rifleman in the Vietnam War. The constant fear and stress of combat led to his 20-year drug addiction and contraction of HIV. Ron turned his life around in 1991 and has been drug free for 14 years. He graduated from Tennessee State University in May 1993 with a Bachelors Degree in Accounting. In 2000, he completed the Institute for HIV Prevention Leadership Program that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--Association of Schools of Public Health, and has since devoted his life to uplifting and educating others.

Ron's personal battle with drugs and HIV fueled his desire to start Street Works, which he founded in 1997 on a shoestring budget. Using his car as his headquarters, Ron walked the streets distributing HIV and AIDS prevention information to those in the community whom no one else had tried to reach: drug dealers, addicts, prostitutes, and inner- city youth exposed to drugs and sexual promiscuity.

Today, thanks to his tireless leadership and dedication, Street Works operates two all night drop-in centers and helps ore than 5,600 Tennesseans annually, with a focus on reaching minority populations. Street Works provides a variety of HIV and AIDS-related prevention and care services at locations where high-risk behavior is most likely to occur and at the hours when most other outreach services are closed.

On behalf of the 5th District of Tennessee, I congratulate Ron Crowder for overcoming adversity and committing his life's work to improving the conditions of others through HIV and AIDS education and prevention. Through Street Works, he has brought help to Tennessee's disenfranchised and is an inspiration to all who work to end this terrible disease.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. The gentleman was focusing on one of the gravest problems our Nation has ever faced, one of the gravest threats to our children's and our grandchildren's well-being, because those debt payments the gentleman is talking about, the interest payments, they are like a tax that

can never be repealed until our Nation one day, we hope and pray, will return to a surplus. We had a couple years of surplus under President Clinton, but, sadly, those days are gone. Now we have plunged deep back into debt.

As the gentleman points out, the debt now is $7.7 trillion. We all as Blue Dogs have signs like this outside of our office doors so that anybody who visits our offices here in Washington or back home, and for me that is Nashville, Tennessee, can see exactly the hole that we have dug for our Nation's future and how much it is per person, $26,000 per person. So I appreciate the gentleman's focus on this grave problem.

Blue Dogs have been great leaders on this issue. We will talk in a few moments about the 12 step plan that the Blue Dogs have put forward to try to rescue our Nation from this debt binge that we have been on. It is kind like the 12 step plan for Alcoholics Anonymous, 12 steps to get out of a problem that so many Americans are unwilling to face up to and recognize.

Before we do that, I would like to take a moment to give our friends in Congress and across the country some key dates so they can write these down and look at the deficit and the debt from a little bit different perspective.

Date number one is last year, 2004. Why is that significant? Because the auditor for the United States of America, David Walker of the GAO, said it was ``arguably the worst year in American fiscal history.'' That is pretty grave news. If you had a company and your auditor said you have been through one of the worst years in history, you would probably be facing bankruptcy. That is what the U.S. auditor said about last year. Most people do not know about that. That news should get out.

Take the year 2005, this year. What did we do about the deficit and the debt? Well, the Republican majority rammed a budget through this body, $2.6 trillion, in a record-setting 2 hours. That is from start to finish, from the first moment we could look at the document to final passage vote, never get to see it again, $2.6 trillion in 2 hours. If that is not financial mismanagement and irresponsibility, I do not know what is.

The next date is 2009. That is the date when we will be spending more money on interest on the national debt than we will on all regular domestic government in America. Due to the deficits and the debts that the Bush administration has accumulated, our debt burden will be so great by then, by the last year of the Bush administration, we will have to spend more money to our creditors than we will on our citizens. In a sense it will be a better deal then to be a creditor of this country than to be a citizen of this country. That is an outrage. That is the first time in American history that has ever happened.

Another key date is the year 2012. That is when the Chinese, if current rates continue, will own all of our debt. In fact, a firm in Connecticut has predicted by February 9, 2012, the Chinese will own all of our foreign debt. That is another outrage. The Chinese are not necessarily the friendliest holders of this debt. To be financially beholden to them is really a national security risk.

Another key date is 2017. That is the date we will have the first honest deficits in America, because that is the date the Social Security surplus will diminish down to zero. Then the true size of the deficit will be unveiled, because, as the gentleman knows, the deficit last year was not $412 billion, like most people think, which is still an all time U.S. record. The deficit was $569 billion, because the Social Security surplus was $155 billion last year, and it was used to hide the true size of the deficit.

Another key date is 2035. That is when Standard & Poor's, the bond rating agency, says that American debt will become junk bond debt because we will have so little financial credibility in the markets. That is not from a government official, that is from the official business rating agency.

Finally, probably the worst number of all, this is truly so hard to believe that I think it needs a chart to display it, the General Accounting Office says that by the year 2040 it will take all revenues collected by the Federal Government just to pay interest on the debt. In other words, by the year 2040, just 35 years from now, there will be no money left, not one red cent, for any of our national defense needs, for any Social Security, for any Medicare, for any anything. It will take all of that money just to pay interest on the debt. That is an outrage, and it is a particular outrage if our only creditor then is the Chinese government.

We are clearly on a road to ruin. We have to change our course. We need to change our course immediately. Sadly, this Congress is not doing that. They need to follow the Blue Dog 12 step plan.

I appreciate the gentleman's great leadership on this issue as one of our leading Blue Dog Members.

The gentleman is exactly correct. We are the greatest Nation on Earth, we are the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and that will probably end well before 2040 if we keep on the current path.

The gentleman is exactly correct. And it is terrible to deliver such tough news to the American people, but the GAO is telling us the truth, in a nonpartisan fashion, as the gentleman indicates. And this bad news is not 35 years off. As I indicated earlier, the GAO has already said that the year 2004, last year, was ``arguably the worst year in American fiscal history.'' They are saying that is only going to get worse still on the path that we are on, on the high deficit, high debt path we are on.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, what the gentleman from Tennessee is talking about is the debt. We are not even talking about the deficit yet, but debt. Again, our Nation is spending $13 billion a month, over $13 billion a month simply paying interest on the national debt. That is $444 million a day, that is $18 million an hour, that is $308,000 a minute, or $5,100 a second.

On top of that, we have the deficit, and the gentleman from Tennessee talked about this a little bit. It is hard now to think back that we had a balanced budget in this Nation from 1998 through 2001.

Just 5 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is focusing on the problem, and I think the American people are hungry for more facts, more real information about the situation we are in. I would like to encourage them to look on the Web site of an institution called the Cato Institute. It is here in Washington, D.C. It is not a Democratic group. If anything, they are mainly Republican, but they issued a report on May 3, 2005. It is by Stephen Slavinski, and it talks about how under this Republican-only government, because Republicans run the White House and the Senate and the House of Representatives, we have seen the biggest spending binge since Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1960s.

It is not just defense-related. If we look at nondefense spending programs, it is the biggest spending binge since Richard Nixon. Most Americans do not know this, and they do not know that we just went through arguably the worst year in American fiscal history. So I appreciate the gentleman sharing the message.

Several of our colleagues have arrived, and it is probably appropriate at this time to recognize them.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. There are several ways out of this terrible dilemma that we are in an as a Nation.

First, we have to acknowledge that we have Republican cosponsors for our proposal. Particularly the Republican Study Committees deserves great thanks for their lending a hand to our proposal. A number of us have cosponsored their proposals. The solution out of this has to be bipartisan.

Our 12-point plan includes the following elements: It includes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Remember, that was part of the Republican Contract with America, but somehow they have forgotten about it these last 10 years. We need to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The gentleman is correct. Our balanced budget amendment would completely protect Social Security so it would not in any way be endangered by this. It would also require a three-fifths majority of this House in order to raise the debt limit. So it would really do a lot to control the spending binge we are on.

Another key element of the plan is, pay as you go. In other words, this Congress could no longer buy on credit. We would take up the national credit card, cut it up, put it away.

Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, says this is probably the single most important policy reform we could undertake. Why does he say that? Because we had it for 12 years and it worked brilliantly. We had it in place from 1990 to 2002. And under Republican leadership they let it expire, so the pay-as-you-go principle no longer operates. We need to reinstate PAYGO.

The gentleman is exactly correct. And if you cut taxes, you have to make up the lost revenue, either through spending cuts or other taxes. And it is an important way to live within your means, by cutting up the credit cards so you are no longer borrowing more than you can afford. It is a key principle.

Another element of the Blue Dog spending plan is to put spending caps on spending, so that we live within our means; so that we live within our own budget; so that the budget does not become a joke, as it so often does within this House.

Another element of the Blue Dog reform plan is to require our Federal agencies to live within their means and get their fiscal houses in order, because so many Federal agencies are not auditable. They do not know how to account for the money that they are charged with, and it is very important that they live within their means just as any family or business has to do in this country.

Exactly.

They would be pretty much out of business if they were a public company in this country, and they are all large enough to be giant public companies. And the Federal Government simply cannot find $24 billion. They do not know where it went.

This is an outrage. And guess what the worst offending Federal agency happens to be? The U.S. Pentagon. And it is not because we are at war. Even during peacetime, the Pentagon has not been able to account for the money it is spending.

That has been true in the past. We hope that is not true today.

We have heard their excuses for too long. So this would freeze them until they learned how to behave and learned how to count the money they are entrusted with.

Another key element of the plan is that Congress has to tell taxpayers back home how much we are spending, because right now many bills go through this body with a voice vote, with no cost estimate. So we are proposing, just as a place to start, not that this is a perfect number, but any bill that spends more than $50 million we will have to have a recorded vote on so that the taxpayers back home will

know who voted for what; so there is finally some accountability in this body.

A recorded vote so that people back home can tell how we behave up here.

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from New York.

That was some 3 weeks ago we had the budget resolution. They rammed it through here in 2 hours.

The gentleman asks an interesting question. I am on the Committee on the Budget, and we were only allowed 2 hours from first glance of the document, and this is a complex document, any document would be that spends $2.6 trillion, and 2 hours later, final passage and you never see it again.

That is an outrage to ram through a budget like that. No responsible board of directors in America, no responsible businessman or woman would tolerate that situation, yet it has become commonplace in the U.S. House of Representatives under Republican leadership.

And lest this be viewed as partisan, check again the Cato Institute report. They say that government accountability has suffered terribly under our all-Republican government because there are no checks and balances any more. There is nobody calling them to task, and so we have got to restore fiscal sanity to this Nation.

Another key element of the Blue Dog spending plan is to set aside a real rainy day fund. We know that emergencies and tragedies are going to occur. Let us set aside a little money in advance so that not everything becomes an emergency here.

We spend tens, sometimes hundreds, of billions of dollars a year here because it is a so-called emergency. And some of them are. But in the most recently past emergency supplemental bill of $82 billion, a lot of that was for our troops in Iraq, and we are all for that; but a lot of it was for other stuff that powerful Congressmen and Senators snuck in the bill because they knew they could get away with it.

The gentleman is exactly correct. The other elements of the Blue Dog reform plan, point number seven, would be let us have real votes, recorded votes, on raising the debt ceiling for this country.

A lot of Americans think we vote on that here. Well, we used to, in the good old days. But now, under Republican leadership, if you voted for Speaker Hastert, you also voted to make debt ceiling votes disappear. They no longer happen anymore.

And to put it in perspective, it took the first 204 years of our Nation's history to run up the first $1 trillion in debt, and now we are doing it about every year or two. That is an outrage. And no one is recorded in their votes when we do that. Every year or two it is another trillion; we raise the debt ceiling. And that vote has simply disappeared.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct.

In the little time we have remaining, let me make sure we finish the remaining Blue Dog points here.

We have to admit that Congress likes to spend money on its own pet projects. It is called earmark spending. We do not ban that, but we require a written justification for every project, so that things like Senator Charles Grassley's $50 million indoor rain forest in Iowa would no longer happen without written justification. The Wall Street Journal reported ``it would be cheaper to fly everyone in Iowa to a real rain forest rather than build a fake one somewhere in Iowa.''

Another key element of the Blue Dog reform plan is to give us the 3 days that we have under House rules to read these bills so that we have a chance to know what is going on; so we have a chance to share with our constituents back home what is in these bills so we can get their ideas. That is the best way to represent them, instead of ramming things through here, like our budget 3 weeks ago in 2 hours, or other legislation they rammed through in 1 day under what they call the martial law rule. That is not a pejorative; that is what they call it, a martial law rule for running our democracy.

Another key element of the Blue Dog reform plan is let us get an honest cost estimate for every bill. I mentioned earlier let us have a recorded vote for the larger bills, but we need to know what each bill costs so we have some idea what we are spending.

Most Americans back home are probably shocked that after 200-plus years of this great democracy, we still do not know what bills cost.

Finally, we need to make sure that each piece of legislation fits within the budget, so we do not routinely bust the budget. Last year, I think four or five of the appropriations bills busted the budget.

Finally, Congress needs to make sure that we do a better job of keeping tabs on government programs. This Congress has failed miserably, and even the most partisan Republican would admit that. Most of the oversight subcommittees have been abolished. They

do not exist anymore. There is no one to hold hearings to make sure that the taxpayers' money is being well spent. Those are the key points in the 12-point Blue Dog reform plan.

We have bipartisan support for this. Many of the elements are shared with the Republican Study Committee Plan. Many of us have also supported their reform efforts. We need to work together to form a bipartisan majority, much as our Senate colleagues did to avert the nuclear showdown on judicial nominations, get the sensible center of this Congress to come together and do the right thing for the American taxpayer.

We are so close because if just 10 or 20 of the Republicans would break from their leadership, they could do as the CATO Institute report suggests, start reforming the budget process in this House. All it takes is 10 or 20 renegades on their side to stand up for the American taxpayer. We can get budget reform. It may be the Republican Study Committee that does it. It may be the Mainstream Republicans, or the Tuesday Group that does it, but I believe the Blue Dog Democrats will be there to make sure that sensible fiscal policy is restored to this Nation.

I appreciate the gentleman holding this special order.

Mr. Speaker, if Members are interested in finding a cure for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, cancer, and many other of the dread diseases that we face, please vote for this stem cell bill today and please vote for the cord blood bill today. They need to vote for both.

The narrow issue may seem whether we expand federally funded research into embryonic stem cell work, but I think a better way to view the issue is whether we allow the continual discarding of embryos from IVF clinics or whether we allow those to be used for productive and life- giving research. This is a very important moment for this House. I would urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing for the future of our kids and grandkids because this research needs to be conducted. It needs to be conducted with Federal support. It needs to be conducted here in America.

There was a break-through just last week in South Korea. Are we going to send our loved ones overseas in order to get this lifesaving research? We should do it here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Tom Green. The humorist Will Rogers once said that the secret of his success was that he never met a man he didn't like. The same can be said of Tom Green. He makes friends with everyone, everyday, everywhere. He is the ultimate people person, always asking--and, much more important, caring--about you, your family, your friends, and remembering the details perfectly for decades. I wish I had a fraction of his talent.

Tom is well known back home for his wonderful family, for his continuing and tireless efforts benefiting the Natchez Trace Parkway, as well as for his dedication and service to Nashvillians during his long business career and, more recently, as a key member of my district staff.

The Natchez Trace is the pioneer roadway that connected Nashville with the lower Mississippi River at Natchez. In modern times

the Trace fell into disuse and was nearly lost to history. In 1934, Congress ordered a survey of the old wagon road, and, in 1937, provided initial funding for construction of what would eventually become the 444-mile-long Natchez Trace Parkway running through rural Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee. Today, the Parkway is one of the most visited national parks and serves as a unique thoroughfare, allowing us to ride in comfort along an ancient trail through some of the most beautiful scenery in our country.

Tom has helped the Natchez Trace Parkway for decades, from the days of legendary Congressmen Jamie Whitten of Mississippi and Tom Bevill of Alabama. He worked hard to secure federal funding to complete and beautify the Parkway. Everyone associated with the Parkway knows that Tom is a great organizer, motivator, and promoter of the Trace. Just stop and eat a ham biscuit at the famous Loveless Cafe at the head of the Trace and you'll hear Tom's name mentioned frequently and with deep respect. Without Tom's efforts, the Natchez Trace Parkway would not be the link between the past and future of our region that it is today. Everyone in the Southeast United States is indebted to Tom for his vision. He helped save the Trace before it was too late.

His tireless work on the Natchez Trace Parkway is just one of his important contributions. Tom is a true servant of his community. Born to remarkable parents in Lewisburg, Tennessee, he served in WWII and came home to graduate from the University of Tennessee, manage the local co-op and open a small business. He was so popular he was elected Mayor of Lewisburg. Later moving to Nashville, he helped many Middle Tennessee businesses expand, thanks to his keen credit decisions while heading up industrial development projects for Third National Bank. Those years were the golden age of Third National under the leadership of the legendary Sam Fleming, but it was men like Tom Green that brought the loans to the bank. Money is a commodity; customer relationships are more precious than gold.

Tom went on to help all Nashvillians when he spent more than a decade as the associate general manager of the Nashville Electric Service, the local electric utility. Just one of the many people Tom helped was an African-American barber in a poor part of town. The barber would call Tom to tell him about an upstanding citizen who just couldn't pay their electric bill that month, but would pay when they found work. He asked Tom to keep their lights on and Tom did just that. As a former banker, Tom knew how to make character loans, whom to trust and whom not to. Despite being a monopoly, NES kept the goodwill of its hardworking customers and Tom made even more lifelong friends at a time when most white Nashvillians did not care much about goodwill in the black community. The barber is still in business in the same location and I have visited his barbershop with Tom. The barber's name is Vernon Winfrey, and he is the father of Oprah Winfrey. Tom bent over backwards to help him before he had any realistic hope of fame or fortune. That's the kind of guy Tom is.

Married for 53 years to Pat Green, the Greens are the parents of four outstanding grown men and grandparents of eleven children. Tom is an active member of the Nashville Downtown Rotary Club and Christ the King Catholic Church and finds time to volunteer at the Nashville's ``Room in the Inn'' program for the homeless and at St. Thomas Hospital. Pat is a renowned local teacher who is directly descended from Abraham Lincoln's first-grade school teacher. Needless to say, the Green family is well educated.

Tom's generous spirit and joyful approach to life immediately come to mind when anyone thinks of him. No matter how busy his day may be, Tom always has a smile, an encouraging word and a couple of minutes just to talk . . . sometimes more than a couple of minutes. He'll pick up the conversation just where you left it . . . the day before, a week or a month ago. He always knows the news and has lots of tips about everyone's background, interconnections, and exactly how to approach everyone. His mind is better than a computer database. There's never been anyone like him.

Of course, I am the lucky one. Tom Green has been a key part of my office staff for the past several years. No one could ask for a more positive, uplifting presence in the office, or a better person to represent you out in the community. Not only does he know everyone, he also has great ideas. For example, last year Tom Green persuaded Vernon Winfrey to make available Oprah Winfrey Scholarships to Nashville Tech Community College. Now all future generations will benefit from an old interracial friendship, formed on the basis of taking a business risk to keep the lights on for decent, hardworking people who were temporarily down on their luck.

I am truly fortunate and want to take this moment to thank Tom for bringing his integrity, his energy and his ever-present sense of humor to my Congressional team. He can outwork a dozen people half his age. I want to take this moment to publicly offer my thanks, and the thanks of everyone in the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee, for Tom Green's extraordinary service to our community, our state and our country.