Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment today to recognize Nashville Public Television President and CEO Steve Bass for his years of service to our community.

While Steve is leaving us to take on another challenge, his accomplishments in Nashville will be a wonderful legacy to his leadership and dedication.

Since coming to Nashville in 1998, Steve has worked to help establish our area's public television station as a model for the 21st century.

He has made it his mission to put the station on solid financial ground, and that work is paying off. Steve has set an example for the nation's public television stations.

He has expanded programming and highlighted Nashville's unique history and culture.

We are thankful for Steve's service and we wish him nothing but the best in his next endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 268, regarding oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. As we have been discussing here today, the foundational structure of the Internet is under attack. But this attack is not from cyber terrorists, or high school kids run amok. Rather this attack comes from people who would like to impose the heavy hand of government on a system that is the most powerful example of freedom we may have ever seen.

How powerful? Here are a few statistics: More than 1 billion users worldwide; more than half a trillion annual commercial transactions; more than a trillion dollars in private investment; the largest source of news reporting in the world; and the largest communications backbone in the world.

But this amazingly powerful engine of commerce and freedom is being attacked as not inclusive enough for the rest of the world.

These critics want to replace today's simple system with three new quasi-governmental bodies to oversee the Internet and related public policy issues. Ultimately, these bodies would rule on freedom of speech, privacy, e-commerce, spam, cyber-security, and cyber-crime. They would take the positions of China, Iran and Syria into account when establishing standards for free speech. They would listen to Cuba on questions of eCommerce. They would listen to Congo on questions of cyber-crime.

There are those who have characterized this debate as being the U.S. vs. the world. But in fact, this debate is about freedom from government vs. government intervention.

I think the U.S. has shown great restraint in supporting an ICANN whose functions are limited to just the most technical management functions.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in sending a message to the world that the Internet needs no U.N. ``Governance''. Freedom on the Internet needs a light touch, not a heavy hand. Support H. Con. Res. 268 and support internet freedom from big government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Congressman Davis, for his diligence and his attention to this matter. This addresses Williamson County, Tennessee, which he and I share the representation of. He and his staff have worked very closely with us to address this issue of looking at the Franklin battlefield.

By way of history, Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of November 30, 1864, General Hood's Army of Tennessee marched down Winstead Hill in Franklin, Tennessee, and charged the Union forces of General Schofield. Fighting continued until late in the evening as both sides sustained heavy casualties. The following morning revealed the terrible consequences of the fighting that took place and how the battle became the darkest day of the Civil War. With over 9,000 dead soldiers and six dead Confederate generals, the battle would be the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and would sound the death knell of the Confederacy. The battle is known as the Battle of Franklin.

Mr. Speaker, the Battle of Franklin was one of the last significant battles leading to the Union victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War and has tremendous significance not only to our community but to American history. Yet there is neither a national cemetery nor a national battlefield park commemorating the battle. This bill is a first step toward preserving and protecting sites that contributed to this important Civil War landscape and achieving a solution to save the area as a national heritage through partnerships with the local communities.

It does, as the gentlewoman from Colorado said, direct the Secretary of the Interior to study sites in Williamson County, Tennessee, where portions of the Battle of Franklin took place or were related to the battle. The battlefield will serve as a memorial of the American citizens who fought and died for what they believed was right. I urge my colleagues' consideration on this bill. Again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his support and assistance.

Mr. Speaker, today, this body is going to address and pass the Deficit Reduction Act. While we are doing this, the left is out in full force telling Americans that we are about to cut Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, shame on them.

Next year, under this bill, Medicaid will grow 7 percent. That is not a cut. We are taking the rate of growth from 7.3 to 7 percent.

If the left wants to lie about it, there is not a lot that we are going to be able to do to stop them, but the American people should know that they are not being told the truth.

So when the Democrats come down here today talking about how we are hurting the poor and hurting seniors and hurting children, they are being dishonest, because they know they cannot win this argument. The American people are ready to see Federal Government spending reduced.

Madam Speaker, in the midst of our effort to rein in Federal spending, you have Members of this body and special interest groups telling the American people that we are slashing Medicaid. They are saying that our Deficit Reduction Act will actually cut Medicaid.

Madam Speaker, our plan does not cut. Since when does slowing the growth, and tremendous growth at that, from 7.3 percent to 7 percent a year constitute a cut? The left needs to stop playing games. If they want us to keep spending and spending until there is nothing left, until we cannot spend any more, then they need to be honest about it and they need to say that. But don't call a 0.3 percent reduction in growth a cut. It is dishonest and our constituents deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there is an age-old drama that Americans have seen play out time and time again here in Washington, and I

know that some nights as they are watching TV and they click across C- SPAN and they watch individuals come to the floor, they might think this is a rerun or they might think same song, second verse because they have to think that they have heard this before.

I think probably their thoughts go something like this, that taxpayers are tired of seeing their hard-earned paychecks wasted by Big Government, and so the taxpayers say we are going to demand some spending reductions. The Republicans agree and the Republicans propose some spending reductions.

Well, the Democrats just cannot stand to see those spending reductions. So they start the name-calling, and they come down and they say that any reduction that we want to make in spending, anytime we are going to slow the growth of spending, well, you know what, it is draconian, it is mean-spirited, it is cruel, it is heartless, it is cold-blooded. We all hear all the descriptive adjectives. They start telling virtually every man, woman, and child in America that these reductions will do terrible, awful things and that the Republicans are just mean, nasty people.

Mr. Speaker, it is like clockwork. It really is like clockwork, and I think that I know why many times our colleagues across the aisle fight our efforts when it comes to fiscal responsibility, when it comes to reining in the size of the Federal Government, when it comes to reducing spending, when it comes to getting government off your back and out of your pocket. I think I know why the Democrats fight it time and time and time again.

This government, this big, Washington-focused bureaucracy that spends your money out of your pocket, that you go to work and you earn, this government, this bureaucracy, is a monument to them. They spent 40 years with an iron grip on this U.S. House of Representatives; and in that time, they constructed a vast monument to themselves called Federal Government bureaucracy.

It is expensive, it is old, and it is a mismanaged monument that forces you, the taxpayer, the average, hardworking American family, to spend 6 months every year paying for it. Tax freedom day, look at some of the dates we have had in years past, July 4, June 30, June 28. You are working half the time to pay for government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you something right now. This Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is working to change that. We want to change that. Democrats do not. It is that simple.

So, tonight, we are going to talk a little bit about the budget savings we are working to pass in this House in a bill that is called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a good, solid plan from the Republican leadership. It is a plan that will put this government on track to reform; and in the end, the goal is to yield a savings for the American taxpayer.

The bill that my colleagues are going to join me in discussing tonight is finding $53.9 billion in spending reductions over the next several years in a $2.4 trillion-a-year budget. Mr. Speaker, I want everybody at home to hear that: $53.9 billion, that is billion with a B, in savings, over several years of a yearly budget of $2.4 trillion, and that is trillion with a T.

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking a lot. In fact, we should be asking for a whole lot more. The constituents in my seventh district of Tennessee want to see us reduce Federal spending more. They want to see more of these programs that have outlived their usefulness put on the table, reviewed, put into sunset, deauthorized, scaled down, or taken away.

But I will tell you, I think that for many of the Democrats what we are proposing is too much. They cannot commit even to that. So tonight we are going to talk some about why we need to reform this government and why we need to make these spending reductions.

At this time, I would like to yield to one of my colleagues who has joined us. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is going to join us and talk for a few minutes about Medicaid. We are hearing so much about Medicaid. We have heard the left say that we are slashing it, that we are cutting it; and you know what, in spite of all this talk, Medicaid will grow. We are not talking about cuts. We are talking about reducing spending, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and he is exactly right. Medicaid needed reforms that would address some of the waste, fraud and abuse; reforms that would deal with the processes and procedures of the delivery of the program. Once we go through achieving these efficiencies, there will be individuals who truly need it, who will see a better delivery of service.

These are flexibilities that the governors, the nonpartisan National Governors Association, have asked us to make. They are things we have worked with them on, and we are pleased to bring forward the type of reforms that will yield the efficiencies that are needed.

Mr. Speaker, another colleague who is joining us this evening is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), another member of my delegation who is a member of the Appropriations Committee. He has brought wisdom and expertise to the appropriations process and being certain that we are wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

I yield to Mr. Wamp out of Chattanooga, who is going to talk with us for a few moments about the work they have done in the Appropriations Committee as we work toward a Deficit Reduction Act that is going to help put us on track to achieve some savings for the American people through the reform process.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his wise words and for joining us in this debate and reminding us we do hear a lot of rhetoric, as he mentioned. We have the Blue Dogs from the Democrat side, who have been coming to the floor demanding spending increases. Suddenly they are not so fiscally conservative.

Well, it is like the story I used to read to my children, the Three Little Bears. It is almost as if you have to have it just right. Just right. And they are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, because these are good, solid reductions and a good, solid plan for moving forward, a great first step.

As we have worked through this process, we have heard from the gentlewoman from Virginia several times in regard to military issues and veterans' issues. She has such a heart for this and works so diligently on these issues, so at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) to set the record straight about the appropriations and the funding for our veterans' programs.

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlewoman in a heartfelt thanks to our veterans, as she speaks about the fiscal stewardship and the common-sense reforms we need to put into these programs. It is so frustrating to veterans in my district when they get the runaround and cannot get a proper answer and go from one bureaucracy to another bureaucracy. To take three programs and roll it into one, as H.R. 4061 has done, that is common sense.

We hope to achieve efficiencies and save money on that program and the administration so it goes into programs and we get that money into programs that are so needed and so deserved by our veterans.

Again, God bless those veterans. And I say God bless the gentlewoman from Virginia who has worked so hard on these issues.

A leader on agricultural issues is the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). He is going to talk about the agriculture bill and then will return to the floor to talk about what has been done through the agriculture appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa truly is a great conservationist not only with the soil and the land in Iowa, and we love to say he gets his best information on the back of his tractor working his pastures, as we hear his good, conservative philosophies put to work in this House, as he talks about being a conservative and a conservationist in his spending, in his farming and in his love of the land and in his love of freedom. We are so pleased that he has reminded us and shown us how the Committee on Agriculture, again practicing fiscal stewardship, practicing what they preach, living it out to be certain that every single committee looks at their programs and says there is a better way for us to do this. There is a way to reduce this spending, and the American people are going to benefit.

We have heard many times over the past several months from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has come to the floor and has talked with us about having respect for families and the family budget, about how important it is that we realize that taxes and fees are the largest part of a family budget and how the Federal Government should be sensitive to that and work to reduce that burden.

I have asked Mr. Hensarling to join us tonight and talk with us for a few minutes about what happens if we do not pass the Deficit Reduction Act, where will we be if we do not pass this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments.

And he is so correct. If we do not take these steps to rein in spending, to reform government, to get on this plan that is going to reform this government and begin yielding a savings for the American people, we will see it go from taking 20 percent to 40 percent of our resources. Fiscal stewardship demands that we work to find a way to restrain the growth of government, to begin to roll it back. And it is not easy, as I said earlier. The Democrats spent 40 years building a monument to themselves, a great big bureaucracy; and it takes time to begin to break it apart.

As the gentleman from Texas was talking, I was looking over a chart that had the 12 largest post-war deficits that we have seen in this country. Of course, one of them was 1946, when we were hard at war and fighting and coming back from World War II. Mr. Speaker, these other years, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1984, 1992, 1991, 1976, 1982, 1993, 1990, Democrat control. It is time for us to put this Nation on a track to reform government, to reduce the bureaucracy, to be certain that money is going into programs to meet needs at the local level; that money is not being soaked up by the bureaucracy that sits in these buildings around Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is a leader in education on the Education and Workforce Committee, and she is going to talk with us for just a few moments and dispel a couple of myths pertaining to education funding and talk about what we are trying to do to be certain that young people have the opportunity to dream big dreams, dream big dreams and have great adventures and look forward with hope and opportunity to a future.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her comments.

She is exactly right. Reforming the process, reforming the way government does business, making it simple, being certain that we find another way to get government off people's back, out of their pocketbook, simplify the system so that the money gets to where it is needed, in this case, in education, getting that money into the student loan programs so that students are in the classrooms, so that they have access to those classrooms.

We have been joined by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), and she is new as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. She comes with a State legislative background from the State of Ohio where she has worked on so many of the health care programs, the reform programs that were needed, and working with Governors. At this time she is going to spend just a couple of moments and talk about some of the reforms that were needed by the Governors and are addressed in this bill.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is going to talk with us about the food stamp program and address some of the myths that we have been hearing about this program. This gentleman has done so much work in the agriculture programs, looking to be certain that we address the stewardship requirements that our constituents and citizens have for us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time tonight. I will remind everyone that facts are stubborn things. We know we do not balance the budget by raising taxes and balancing it on the backs of hard-working Americans. You get this deficit under control by cutting spending and promoting economic growth and creating a bright future for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for constantly reminding those of us in this body that our work is to protect the family budget and be certain that we rein in that Federal budget.

To a comment, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Texas just made, talking about government, and so many people feeling that many times there is nothing good that happens unless it comes from the Federal Government. I have constituents who remind me repeatedly that every time we have a new Federal Government program that is to cure some ill in our country, that there is a cost that comes with that. Yes, there is the cost that comes with putting that program in place, the operational cost, the funding cost. But there is also a second cost. That is, if the Federal Government steps in to fill a void, then neither the private nor not-for-profit sector is going to step in and fill that void.

Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest with you, over the past few days, as we have talked about the Deficit Reduction Act, and beginning to put this body on the right track to reducing, spending, restraining the growth of government and then beginning to right-size government, right-size and reform government, I said there is another one, and it is with every program, there is a difficulty with getting that program back under control, because every program has a bureaucracy and every bureaucracy has a constituency. That is another cost for each and every program. Of course, they are all good ideas, but is it the proper role of government.

To the gentleman from Texas, I appreciate the chart that he has about mandatory spending and talking about baseline spending in the chairman's mark. I would like to make a couple of comments on this. We have talked about the baseline calling for 6.4 percent growth over the next 5 years; and

with the work that this body has already done and is continuing to do, we will see that growth move from 6.4 percent to 6.3 percent growth.

One of the things in our district we have talked about is that baseline. Now, as the gentleman from Texas says, the family budget, that is something where we sit down every year with a clean sheet of paper, a No. 2 pencil, and we start at zero and we work out and say what can we afford to put on particular categories this year. Unfortunately, taxes and fees seem to be the biggest of those categories. But we start with a clean sheet of paper and a No. 2 pencil.

Unfortunately, government does not do that. They start from what they spent this past year regardless of the effectiveness of the program, regardless of whether the program is still needed, regardless of whether it should be wound down, regardless of whether it has outlived its usefulness. That is where they start, with what they got last year.

Based on what they got last year, then they ask for an increase in that funding. Now, let us say they got $100 last year, and this year they are going to ask for $125. We come back and say, well, you can't have $125, but we'll give you $110. Then they are saying, oh, no, you've cut us $15. You can't do that. You can't do that. That's a cut.

As the gentleman from Texas said and the gentleman from Indiana, just a few moments ago, in Washington-speak, when you restrain the growth, that is a cut. That is the way many of those from the left who support constantly growing the bureaucracy, constantly giving the power and the money to bureaucrats in buildings, that is how they refer to this process.

For our constituents, I think it is so important that we work together on this, addressing that baseline, being certain we are restraining the growth and that we work to pull it down past 6.4 and 6.3 and reduce it even further and then get into that baseline and actually begin to make some reductions in that baseline in programs that may have outlived their usefulness.

I commend the gentleman from Texas for the work that he has done on the budget. I commend him for continuing to bring this issue and reminding us that it is important that the Federal budget continue to protect and work to protect the family budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor Williamson County's own ``Singing Sheriff'', Ricky Headley. Since he took office in 2003, Headley has been instrumental in improving the lives of Williamson County residents--not only as Sheriff, but through his charitable works as well.

As Sheriff, Headley has instituted new procedures, increased community outreach, and raised morale in the Sheriff's Office. A few of Headley's accomplishments include:

A reduced Staff turnover rate at the Sheriff's Office.

The Amber Alert System has been installed to assist in locating missing children.

Privatized Jail Medical Program to save taxpayers' money and reduce liability.

Sheriff's Office Citizens Academy Classes offered for the first time.

Project Lifesaver implemented in April 2005 provides identification bracelets fitted with location transmitters for the mentally handicapped and Alzheimer's patients in order to allow their quick recovery should they wander from home.

A Child Is Missing (ACIM) implemented in January 2005. This nationwide program allows for 1000 calls a minute to be made in a specific area should a child be reported missing.

The result has been a decreasing crime rate in Williamson County even as the population increases.

And despite the incredible demands of his job, Headley continues to delight Tennesseans with his musical talent. Performing with his band, Pure Country, Headley has entertained at more than 100 benefits and fundraisers--helping to raise over 300,000 dollars for charity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in thanking Sheriff Headley for his contributions to Williamson County and sending our best wishes to his wife Melissa and children Ricky Jr. and Matt.

Madam Speaker, night after night we watch the left come to the floor and beat the drums of retreat on the war on terrorism. They want us out of Iraq, they want us out of the Middle East, and they want us to end our aggressive war on terrorism.

I have to admit in my heart I would like to see the troops home, but my intellect tells me we cannot afford to leave our children a world in which Middle Eastern terrorists have free reign.

I want our troops to know that they have a grateful Nation behind them, regardless of what they may hear from some in this body. I want our Tennessee National Guardsmen, our Fort Campbell families and, as we approach Veterans' Day, all of our Nation's patriotic veterans to know we appreciate their service and their commitment.

As of October 4, 2005, a total of 206,500 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped. That is progress, and the American people can be confident that progress is being made.

So do not believe the ranting of the left when they tell you all is lost, that hope is pointless and that we are losing. We are not.

I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for doing such a wonderful job in hosting this. I thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for the excellent job that he does in providing leadership for the House Committee on Armed Services. I think we also thank the family of Corporal Starr for their sacrifice, and we hope that they know we join them in their sorrow.

That is so very true, and I thank the gentlewoman for noting that, for setting the record straight.

As the gentlewoman was talking about some of her experiences, meeting a taxi driver who was from Iraq and how he stopped to say thank you, I was reading some things from my news clips.

Here is an article out of the Nashville Tennessean, today's paper, November 3, and an opinion column written by Jonathan Gurwitz who is a columnist for the San Antonio Express News. He is recounting a conversation and a visit with a Dr. Najmaldin Karim who is Kurdish and the headline is ``Why this war? Ask someone who is Kurdish.''

I was so touched by your examples that, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share a quote in this. I think it is so relevant to the discussion that we are having tonight. And I am quoting this Dr. Karim: ``The suggestion that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was a `stable' form of government is outrageous to Iraqis, not on the ideological fringe, especially the Kurds. The war in Iraq didn't begin in 2003. For the previous 35 years Kurds, Shiites and anyone else who threatened the oligarchy fought against the suppression of their very existence.''

Mr. Speaker, you know, this morning I spoke on the floor about what we are doing right to win the war on terror and the progress that we are making in the battle in Iraq. And it seemed that the minute I started talking there was some conversation across the aisle. And one of my colleagues from the left got upset, and then sure enough a Democrat Member follows me to the well during 1-minutes to speak against the positive changes that are going on in Iraq.

You see, I think that the left in this country has to undermine this war and undermine the resolve of the American people in order to try to win elections next November. They have got to make you and me and every single one of us forget the bigger picture in this war on terror. They want us focused on the casualties and on the setbacks. And, yes, we take one step forward, we take two steps back. It is going to be a long war, but we are making progress.

They do not want us to ask what sort of damage will result from withdrawing from Iraq. They do not want us to ask whether we would be better off with a free Iraq. They simply want to point out all the negatives and demand withdrawal in order to declare America's defeat, and then they believe they will win elections.

Unfortunately, the national media, one would believe for all intents and purposes, is the public relations wing of the left on this subject. Day after day the major newspapers editorialize in both their articles and on the op-ed pages against our efforts in Iraq. They give extensive coverage to casualties and claim they do it to honor those lost. But they do not cover the things these men and women did to change this world.

They do not cover the moments of pure courage, pure courage and strength that these men and women and their colleagues committed and performed to fix a great wrong in this world. They only cover their deaths, and that is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, because it was not in their deaths that they became heroes. It was in the day-to-day work on behalf of this country that they became heroes. They gave their lives for something they believed in. They were heroes long before the tragedy of their death. We remember those lost not because they died but because they lived and how they lived in putting others before themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I do not stop and wonder if these losses would be for naught; but when I am doubting and if I am unsure, I talk with some of those who have served in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and I talk to their families and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can win this because they know that we can win it. And, Mr. Speaker, they are living it; they are seeing it firsthand every single day.

When I visit Fort Campbell in my district or spend time with our National Guard and Reserves, I see the spirit of America and I see the commitment and the drive to succeed. They settle any doubts. They restore my confidence. They should be our inspiration in this battle. So tonight, despite watching Democrats come to the floor and beat the drums of retreat in the war on terror, I want to recognize those men and women in uniform who we see in the progress, in the change in that region of the world.

Let me just read a list of some of the accomplishments so that America, those watching and those listening and our constituents, will understand the great deeds of these men and women, our heroes who are in uniform.

As of October 24, 2005, a total of 206,500 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped with the assistance of the U.S. military. On election day in October, as our colleague from Texas previously mentioned, 78 percent of voters backed the charter Constitution, 78 percent of those that went to the polls voted for freedom, voted for democracy. And as our colleague from Texas mentioned, 63 percent of Iraqis, 15\1/2\ million voters, cast their ballot. They took their life in their hands to cast that ballots. The Iraqi Constitution guarantees the rights of all its citizens and enshrines the rule of law. A new parliament will be voted on in December and will form a 4-year term to government to take office by December 31, 2005.

Who would have thought that that was possible? Iraqis appear to be spending more money, signs that consumer confidence is improving. As the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) mentioned, things are turning green in Iraq. You see the fields that they have planted. My first visit there, I said Iraqi is a khaki-colored country. It was covered with dust.

Over 15,650 houses have recently been connected to the Baghdad water distribution system by USAID. In all, nearly 100 kilometers of mainline pipe have been installed in the Baghdad area.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. We know America is once again engaged in a great struggle that will in no uncertain terms decide what kind of world our children are going to inherit. I want our men and women in Iraq to know we believe in them. We believe in what they are doing, and we know that this is going to improve the national security for generations to come. It is going to help preserve freedom.

Our military's cause in Iraq is a noble one, despite what some in this body would have you believe.

In closing, I would like to give you a quote, a part from Ronald Reagan's speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. He said this to the World War II veterans who were gathered with him at Normandy:

``You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it is the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of our country were behind you.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join us in letting every man and woman in uniform and every family know this country is behind them. I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for

his words of wisdom and for the commitment that he brings to protecting the Federal budget, just as he does the family budget. I appreciate the diligence as he goes about this, whether it is Operation Offset or Washington Waste Watchers. He has certainly worked very, very hard on this.

I was talking about his good work in my district one day in one of the town halls and talked about how he felt like we should watch the Federal budget like the family budget and some of the information that he brought to us.

One of my constituents raised his hand; and he said, ``Mrs. Blackburn, I tell you, I really appreciate that. You know, sometimes I think the Federal Government does get out of hand. It does need to be reined in.'' He said, ``They need to take a lesson from some of us.'' He said, ``Sometimes, you know, I have too much month left over at the end of my money. And when that happens, we have to just sit down and work things a little bit differently.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that that is the kind of wisdom we need to put on the table here in Washington. Maybe we have too much year left over at the end of our money, which means it is time for us to prioritize and to focus and to do things a little bit differently.

We know that government does not have a revenue problem. Government has a spending problem. And we also know that the government is never going to get enough of the taxpayers' money. They are never, ever, ever going to get enough of the taxpayers' money. Never happen. Because there is always going to be one more program, one more activity, one more department, one more need, one more something that they feel like needs that money.

Now one of the things that we have done here is to talk about the Deficit Reduction Act, and that is a piece of legislation that is going to come before this body soon. The majority here in the House has worked diligently on the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of our colleagues across the aisle are fighting us tongue, tooth and toenail. Every time we turn around they are just fighting us every step of the way on this.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I think there is a reason for this. With over 40 years of Democrat control of this body, they have really built a monument to themselves; and that monument is a huge enormous bureaucracy. What it comes down to is that they would rather support bureaucrats in buildings and trust them to make decisions for the average American family and for taxpayers than to trust individuals and families to make those decisions. Their focus is putting the attention on preserving that bureaucracy and growing that bureaucracy.

As the gentleman from Texas has said, fiscal responsibility is what our work focuses on: How do we rein this government in? How do we slow the growth? How do we begin to work toward reducing spending, reducing the deficit and being certain that this Nation remains a free and productive Nation for our children and our grandchildren? That has brought us to working out the budget, the Deficit Reduction Act, that we are bringing forward this year.

My colleague from Texas mentioned a few things about waste, fraud and abuse; and we have put some attention on that this year here in the House. I want to highlight a couple of things. When we hear our colleagues from across the aisle say, well, there is nowhere to cut. We cannot find any savings. We cannot reduce these programs. My goodness, what would they do if we slowed their growth and did not let them have more money this year than they had last year?

Well, I just want to highlight a few things that when we talk about we have reduced the deficit by $50 billion, an additional, additional $50 billion this year, I want to highlight a few things where we have found waste, fraud and abuse. We have only done a drop in the bucket, and we have had to fight every step of the way to get this, but just listen to some of these things that we highlight that we know are there.

From 2003, the Federal Government cannot account for $24 and a half billion that it spent. We think that accountability is important. A White House review of just a sample of the Federal budget identified $90 billion spent on programs deemed ineffective, marginally adequate or operating under a flawed purpose or design, $90 billion. Well, already if we could get support for going after these dollars we would be well over $100 billion.

Housing and Urban Development, $3.3 billion in overpayments in 2001, which accounted for over 10 percent of the Department's total budget. Now many of us have supported across-the-board cuts, Mr. Speaker; and I was joined by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) in filing bills that would call for either a 1 or 2 or 5 percent across-the-board reduction in spending.

Most folks would look at their budget and say, you know, I can find 1, 2, or 5 percent by just getting in here and cleaning up some of my operations. Well, HUD had overpayments that accounted for over 10 percent of their budget. If they just cleaned up their books and cut out the overpayments, there would be 10 percent right there.

Duplication. The gentleman from Texas mentioned duplication of programs, and there is a lot of that here. We know that when you have a big Federal program you have a bureaucracy, you have bureaucrats in these great big shiny buildings all around Washington, D.C., and all around our country that run the programs. We have on the books 342 different economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled, 130 programs serving at-risk youth, 90 early childhood development programs, 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities.

Mr. Speaker, we are simply saying, let us put the money in the programs where it is going to do good in local communities. Let us get rid of the bureaucracy. Let us streamline some of this. Let us get rid of redundancies and duplications and be certain that the money is going for what it is intended: helping individuals in the communities.

Washington spends $60 billion on corporate welfare every year versus $43 billion on homeland security. Priorities. They are important. Farm subsidies go to several Members of Congress and celebrity hobby farmers such as David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippin, and former Enron CEO Ken Lay. Something to look at.

Medicare programs that pay eight times as much for the cost of drugs as other Federal agencies are paying for medical supplies. This needs to be dealt with.

Food stamp overpayments that are costing taxpayers $600 million annually, many of those payments going to individuals who are not in the country legally.

School lunch program abuse has been estimated by the GAO to be at $120 million annually.

Mr. Speaker, these are all examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that have been documented by the OMB, the CBO, and the GAO, agencies of the Federal Government. These are agencies that work with Congress to say go back and take a second look and look at how this money is being spent. Exercise your oversight. And that is what we are doing as we move forward on fiscal responsibility and accountability and as we bring forward the Deficit Reduction Act.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for allowing me to join him tonight. I thank him for his diligence and his leadership on this effort, the leadership that he gives to the Republican Study Committee and that he gives here to the entire body of the House.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield.

To the gentleman's point as he is talking about the budget and what we would do with making some adjustments within that budget, Medicaid is an issue that we addressed in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week and looked at some forms and some redesigning and revitalization of Medicaid, being certain that we preserve access to health care for Americans. In this process, we looked at the annual expected growth rate of Medicaid, which is 7.3 percent per year. And by looking at pharmaceuticals, making adjustments there, rooting out some waste and fraud and some abuse, closing some loopholes, addressing some inefficiencies, we were able to slow the growth from 7.3 percent to 7 percent growth per year.

But, in liberal lingo, the gentleman from Texas knows that that is described by our colleagues across the aisle as a cut, when all we have really done is to say, let us get the fiscal house in order and be certain that we are using the technologies and availing ourselves of the efficiencies available.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman to go back to one point on Medicaid. I think it is so important, and many of our constituents and many members of this House, I think, would be interested in it. I would love for him to talk one more time briefly about the health opportunity accounts, because this is something that will give individuals ownership over the decisions that they make and have to make in their health care choices.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think this is something that is so very important because what it says is every individual has the right to go in there and have that ability to make decisions, establish that relationship with that physician; and if they take responsibility and if they take ownership, then here is a great way that they can do it.

In addition, we are going to see the flexibility that many of the governors have said we need, flexibility in order to be certain that health care remains viable and accessible for all of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, on November 9, 2005, Ross Arnold will be honored for his role as a community leader. For more than six decades Mr. Arnold has contributed to our community as a civic and business leader, and we're all better for his work.

Mr. Arnold's distinguished career began with his service in the United States Navy. The youngest man who had ever earned the rank of Chief Petty Officer in the Navy, after his military career in 1946 he joined Nashville Tent and Awning and was the company's president by the time he retired in 1987. A longtime member of the Lions Club, Mr. Arnold served as a mentor to others by sharing his life experiences.

Mr. Arnold always gave back more than he took from his country and his community. Congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Arnold. I am certain his family; his wife of more than sixty years Dorothy, their children, Allison, Melissa and Wayland and their 10 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren are tremendously proud of this much deserved recognition and thanks from our community.

Mr. Speaker, the other day the President spoke out in support of across-the-board spending cuts as an option for reducing Federal spending. I want to applaud the President for joining us on this issue. On October 20, I wrote a letter of thanks to the President, thanking him for supporting across-the-board spending reductions.

In September, along with two of my colleagues, I introduced H.R. 3903, H.R. 3904, and H.R. 3906, 1, 2, and 5 percent across-the-board reduction bills for nondefense, non-Homeland Security discretionary spending. We have 18 members signed as co-sponsors, and I hope to continue building support for the reductions. Every Member in this body should be able to support at least a 1 percent reduction.

This House leadership has actively pushed to rein in spending, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these bills.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.

Hon. George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: Thank you for promising to work with

Congress to offset costs for Gulf Coast reconstruction with

spending cuts. I know that you and I are committed to act in

a fiscally responsible way in paying for the reconstruction

efforts.

In your speech on October 4th from the Rose Garden, you

stated that you want Congress to pay for as much of the

hurricane relief as possible by cutting spending and that you

will work with Congress to identify offsets to free up money

for the reconstruction efforts. You also called on Congress

to make real cuts in non-security spending.

Mr. President, I have introduced three bills that are

significant first steps towards meeting your goals. The bills

would enact across-the-board 1%, 2%, and 5% reductions in

non-defense and non-homeland security discretionary spending.

I believe that by working together on these proposals we can

show the American people that you and I are dedicated to

exercising spending restraint to prevent more federal debt

passing on to future generations.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look

forward to working with you during the coming months.

Sincerely,

Marsha Blackburn,

Member of Congress.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me and inviting me to participate this evening as we do talk about our rights and private property rights and what makes America great.

As we begin this discussion, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something that a couple of our previous speakers, our colleagues across the aisle, had brought up, because we talk so much about what makes America so unique and so wonderful, and private property is one of those.

I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and so many of our colleagues have joined me in working with some of the individuals in Iraq as they have fought to establish their freedom and to seek to have the opportunity to own private property. And I found it so interesting listening to some of my colleagues as they were talking about how Iraq was a quagmire and things were not going right. And I thought, my goodness, you think about the thoughtfulness that our Founding Fathers put into establishing this Constitution and the years and years and the hard work that went into this as they came together as a body, as they met, as they came about developing that Constitution, as they worked to list out a Bill of Rights and things that they thought would be so important. It did not happen overnight. It did not happen within a year, and it did not happen within 2 years.

I could not help but think we have just witnessed a big vote in Iraq, very successful. Over 65 percent of the people in that great nation came out and voted on a Constitution. We are watching a nation walk very consistently and very slowly. Some days they take a few steps forward. Some days they take a step or two back; but they have to keep plugging along, working toward the time when they will enjoy the freedoms and the fruit and the benefits of a free society. And one of those definitely is private property.

Many of my constituents, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) said, they know that that fifth amendment is important. They have worked hard to be able to stake out their little corner of the world. As some of them have said to me, We know something is wrong. It is not happening right in Washington when they see decisions like the Kelo decision. The people have a very fine-tuned sense of right and wrong, and they know it is wrong when the Supreme Court paves the way for the government to come in and seize private property in order to build malls and other commercial-venture structures. They know there is just not something right about that.

I rarely use the term un-American; but, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that strikes me and my constituents as contrary to our values, it is this Kelo decision and there is just something about it that strikes it being un-American. It was a stunning display of judicial activism as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has pointed out.

The Supreme Court stepped all over our property rights. And in Tennessee we watched this with a little bit of added interest because not only did we think in terms of those tangible property rights, but we think about those intellectual property rights that are so very important to our creative community, to our writers, to our television producers, to our film producers, looking at protecting both the tangible and the intellectual property rights. Our rights as Americans, our economy are based on very strong principles of private property ownership, private property protection, and the ability to work hard and to benefit by exercising those rights. It is such a fundamental right that it is hard to imagine our courts infringing upon it, but that is what they have done.

I certainly hope, and I know my colleagues that are gathered here tonight join me in having hope, that American property owners at home will know that they have an ally in this fight and they have an advocate in this discussion, and it is the majority here in this House of Representatives. It is this Republican majority. And I hope that the 69 percent of American homeowners who were watching this debate and watching our work on this legislation this week will know that we stand with them in maintaining that home ownership. We are just as concerned with this eminent domain issue as the American people are and we are going to work to strengthen the laws to protect private property, both real and intangible.

This week we are taking up the Private Property Rights Protection Act. We might not be able to overturn the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, that is not within our jurisdiction; but we can make sure that not one single penny of taxpayer money, not one single penny of Federal funds is used to support the forced taking of your private property by local and State governments. This bill will ensure that any State or locality abusing their eminent domain power by using economic development as a rationale for a taking will not be trusted with Federal economic development funds that could contribute to similarly abusive land grabs. And we are going to provide access to State and Federal courts for those who believe this bill has violated, has been

violated in the seizure of their property.

All of us want economic development for our community. We also want our citizens to be secure in the knowledge that their property is just that, that it is their property. We do not want them to fear that that fundamental right has been infringed upon and their property taken for development.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join with us in supporting this much-needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.