Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and Mr. Speaker, he just touched on something I think is so very important.

Every once in a while, we need a wake-up call, and I think that is indeed true. And today has been a very serious day. This week is a very serious week here on Capitol Hill. And as I entered the Capitol again this evening to participate in our Special Order hour, I was struck by this stillness of the surroundings, the serene feelings of the Capitol as you walk in and as you look at the paintings and at the statues, making my way over to the chamber, reminded of those who have loved this Nation and loved the freedoms that we all enjoy and that allow us to stand in this chamber and participate in debate and to bring forward ideas and talk about what is a good idea and what is a bad idea.

And indeed, as the gentleman from Georgia said, every once in a while we need a wake-up call and a reminder that freedom is an idea that definitely has served this Nation well. It, Mr. Speaker, is an idea that serves all of the nations of the world very well. It is something that people all over the globe seek to have.

We have had discussion on this floor tonight about Tibet and the desire there to live in freedom, to worship freely. Many of us have watched the Iraqi people move forward with elections freely and willingly. Some of us travel to other nations to participate as we watch people seek to go in large numbers to the ballot box in their nation to freely vote.

I was struck a little bit earlier today, and I think it was more or less a wake-up call for me, Mr. Speaker. I stood in the shadow of the Capitol on the Senate side with a group called Vets for Freedom. I have had the opportunity to spend some time with them as they have told their stories about the success, the success stories, if you will, of what is happening on the ground in Iraq. And today they were joined by Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and other Members of the Senate, several of us from the House, including one of our most distinguished Members and a former prisoner of war, Sam Johnson, the honorable gentlemen from the great State of Texas.

And it was amazing to stand there and look into the faces of these veterans who have been willing to put it all on the line for freedom, to put it all on the line to protect this great Nation. And then to give actions to, again, to the actions they've carried out, to the words and the stories they're telling, and again, to take an action of coming here and coming to the Capitol and meeting with the Members of this body and to stand and support General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as they reported to our Nation, to say we've been there, we've carried out the heavy lift, and indeed, freedom is worth the fight.

They've also made it very clear that America now has the opportunity to achieve our fundamental objectives in Iraq through the establishment of a peaceful, stable, secular, democratic State which will be a reliable ally in the struggle against both Sunni and Shiite terrorism. Establishing this ally would allow America to reorient our position in the Middle East away from a position that relies on anti-democratic States to a position based on a strong democratic partner whose citizens have explicitly rejected al Qaeda and terrorism in general and have chosen freedom.

Today, General Petraeus reported to the Senate on his progress. Tomorrow, the House will hear from the general.

What we've learned so far is that levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially. Al Qaeda Iraq, and other extremist elements, have been dealt serious and damaging blows. The capabilities of the Iraqi security forces have grown. Indeed, the involvement of local Iraqis and local security has been noteworthy. The forces are growing, and indeed, the Iraqis have carried out their own surge, Mr. Speaker.

Americans are well aware the additional U.S. forces that deployed to Iraq as part of the surge and our great Nation's part there. What is less understood well is that Iraqi forces surged, adding over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to their very own security forces in 2007.

There has been a shift in attitude among certain elements of the Iraqi population. The Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected al Qaeda's indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. They recognize that they cannot share in the new Iraq if they don't participate in the political arena. That, Mr. Speaker, is a major step forward.

Over time, these awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis, some former insurgents, to contribute to local security as sons of Iraq. There are 91,000 sons of Iraq Shia, as well as Sunni, under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect their own neighborhoods. Again, they are taking the lead.

Al Qaeda's leadership, who still see Iraq as the central front in a global strategy, send funding, instructions, and foreign fighters to Iraq. Iraq's ethno-sectarian conflict in many areas is taking place through debate rather than through violence. That is another turn that we have seen. Security incidents are at a level not seen since early 2005, and civilian deaths have decreased to a level not seen before the mosque bombings in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, these are all items that are being reported to us of successes, military successes, that are taking place; and indeed, the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned some of these, has touched on some of the trends that we are seeing; and I know he's going to spend a little bit of time this evening going back and looking at these steps that tell the story of what is happening on the ground.

And as we see this take place, we see a population that is, indeed, beginning to feel safe to leave their homes. And once you're safe to leave your home, then you can start to work to make certain that your neighborhood is safe and then you make certain that your province is safe. All of this leads to a safer and free Iraq.

We know that the Iraqi parliament is making some progress, and as the gentleman from Georgia detailed some of the stats tonight, these are going to be items that will be included as we look.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And he's exactly right. Security on the ground, a secure and stable environment. And that is what the counterinsurgency strategy has been about, and the results that it has yielded.

As we have just discussed, indeed, and as Americans know well, we had a surge from our troops. The Iraqis also carried out their surge, and what it has yielded is an environment where not only we saw the military progress, but also where political progress can take place. And there are some wonderful lessons learned here.

I think that one of those, when we are in Iraq visiting with our troops and working with some of the Iraqis and helping to mentor some of the women that we have mentored over there, one of the things they will tell you is, we are so glad that you have not left us. Thank you for not leaving us. We know people are frustrated. We know there are no guarantees. But we also know that it is important that we keep at it. It's not going to happen overnight. And thank you, thank you for not leaving. We fear what would happen if you left.

And they are, as the gentleman from Georgia was saying, Mr. Speaker, they are seeing progress. The Iraq parliament is seeing progress. And as the gentleman just listed some things, and let me touch on them again, a pension law for regime officials, that has happened. De- Ba'athification reform, that has been carried out. An amnesty law, provincial election laws. And as he said, the sharing, the national government now sharing oil revenues with the provinces, something that a year ago many people said, it will never happen. But, here we are, and yes, indeed, it all is beginning to take place.

I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

If the gentleman will yield.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And he has shown us some great charts, civilian deaths, the coalition data, the high profile attacks with the suicide car bombings, the car bombs, the suicide attacks, the weapons caches that are found and cleared. And when you look at the fact that we are finding many more weapons caches than we were and when you look at the fact that the attacks are down and the deaths are down, you have to ask, how did this happen? And the way it has happened is our men and women in uniform, and God bless them all, and I think about my constituents from Fort Campbell who are deployed right now, who are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the men and women in uniform who are taking the lead and who are gaining the trust of the Iraqi people and of the Iraqi forces and of the Sons of Iraq. And it is our men and women in uniform, as they gain this trust, and as the Iraqis know we're not going to quit, they are telling them, this is what I know, this is where you go to root out this evil person, this is where

you go to root out this weapons cache, this is where you go to get this information. Because they know that we are their partner in success and we are their partner in freedom.

And it really begs the question, and as I visited with some of the veterans that have come to spend some time with us today, this really begs the question, when you look at the data and when you have this discussion, can we afford to give up on a war where we are winning, that our military men and women tell us that they are seeing some successes every single day? Can you afford to give up? And how would history remember it if you did give up?

I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition and I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about a subject that is near and dear to the heart of every single taxpayer in this Nation. That subject is the Federal budget. It is something that as we debate issues here, we say it affects 10 percent or 20 percent or 50 percent of the population. Our Federal budget, it affects everyone, Mr. Speaker, and I think we should start this second session of budget school with a little bit of perspective.

I have got a copy of the Constitution of the United States, and there is also included in this a Declaration of Independence. Now this copy is small enough to fit into my pocket. I could put it in my jacket pocket and carry it with me all day long.

What is a little bit frightening, Mr. Speaker, is here is the phone book for the news media that covers Washington, D.C. We are one of the most covered places on the face of the Earth, and here is the phone book that covers that.

Well, I also have the Federal budget. As you can see, it is an enormous document. It is much larger. By the time you have the tables and the justifications and the analytical information and go through the appendix and find what you need, it is a huge document. It is much larger in size than the simple documents on which this great Nation was founded.

What we are going to do today is talk a little bit about this budget and talk about what our response should be on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time. I am coming to the floor as a

member of the Republican Study Committee. This group of conservatives within the Republican conference have developed this project called ``Budget School'' because we think that it is imperative that the American people know what is in this budget and know where to find this budget and are fully aware of how their money is being spent because we realize it is not the Federal Government's money that is being spent, Mr. Speaker, it is the money of the taxpayers of this great Nation.

This evening to open our session as we begin this period of time called special orders which comes at the end of our workday, and Congress has finished its regular business for the day, and it is 5 minutes of 5 in the afternoon here in Washington, and we are moving into the period of time called special orders. It is the period of time when we can come to the floor and talk a little bit more at length about the issues that are very important to us.

This evening we have several of our colleagues from the Republican Study Committee that will join me to talk about the budget and their concerns with the increase in spending, the concerns with the increase in taxation and their concerns about the long term fiscal health of this great Nation.

I would like to begin our conversation this evening by yielding to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to hear his comments on the budget.

If the gentleman will yield.

The budget that was presented is over a $3 trillion budget, and it calls for a $683 billion tax increase. And discretionary spending is increased in this budget by $280 billion. So, what I'm hearing the gentleman say, that's not enough. We've already, day two coming back from our Easter district work period, day two we have seen them move forward and increase $20 billion more.

And I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield.

There are a couple of things that I would point out. I'm sure people are sitting there going, I'm not believing this. I have worked all day long, I work all year, I haven't even finished paying my obligations for my property taxes, my state taxes, my Federal income taxes this year because you have to work until around the first of June to meet your obligations on taxes before you're working for money to take home.

So, what I'm hearing him say is, all that increasing, they want you to work further into the year to pay them. Somebody sitting at their desk right now, they're thinking, I can't believe this. If they want to pull down a copy of the budget, here are some Web sites and some resources we would encourage them to use. To get a copy of the President's budget, they can go to whitehouse.gov/omb. To get the Republican response, which our Republican Study Committee was involved in, budget.house.gov/republicans. And to get some of our budget school resources, they can go to house.gov/blackburn. They can also go to YouTube and Face Book and pull some of this information.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We're going to work through explaining that process this evening because the budget has come through the House and it is going to the Senate, it will come back to conference committee. And we set all of those different, the template, if you will, and then it will go through the appropriations process this year.

And I wanted to show this second poster. You were just mentioning about Medicare and Social Security and some of the different functions that are entitlements. And then we also have the areas that are seen as being discretionary. And you were mentioning discretionary spending. And those who want to follow the budget discussion with us can follow these different functions in the budget documents that we had mentioned earlier.

And I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

And I'm about to be a grandmother. And I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's comments about the historical data that is involved in that. And as we look at the budget, and how did this budget get to be so big? That is just so very important. And if you look at the budget, which is what I have right here on the podium in front of me, and you can see it, you can hardly hold it up it's so big, but it comes in sections. This much is just the overview. And I said, that pales in comparison when you look at the small size of our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence.

Here's the appendix. And you would get inside this and look for the program that you're talking about with the Department of Agriculture. Then you would come in here to the Analytical Perspectives. This volume is where you would go to look at the analysis that you were just speaking of. And then, here are the historical tables.

And Mr. Speaker, this is where our colleagues go to look at where a program was when it started, to trace back through why this program was put in place and go back and see if that program is still aimed toward meeting what it was put in place for, meeting that original mission, how has it changed? And as you're pointing out, so many programs get changed on a regular ongoing basis. You go into the analysis and look at if you think this is worthy, if those are certainly the type data and the type premises on which you want to be operating to fund that budget. You look at this appendix to see how much they decided that they ought to be putting into that budget.

So, the gentleman is quite right in explaining how these programs grow, and did they begin to move away from their original mission? That is why some of our colleagues that are joining us this evening have been busy working on fighting waste, fraud and abuse, fighting increased spending, fighting wasteful earmarks, and working for the past few years to raise this issue.

And I know the gentleman from Georgia has constituents, and we have the gentleman from Iowa, Ms. Bachmann, who is from Minnesota, Mr. Davis from Tennessee, who are joining us on the floor this evening to talk about this issue and to talk about where we are seeing the movement in this budget.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who has worked tirelessly. He was in my freshman class as we made waste, fraud and abuse our freshman class project, and as we have worked to reduce what the Federal Government spends and begin to try to tame this budget and to bring it back in so that it is a friendlier budget for the American taxpayer.

And I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

And he is exactly right. In 1993, the $240.6 billion tax increase that came

about in 1993 is something that people in this Nation stood up and said we are not going to stand for this.

And I appreciate also that the gentleman mentioned Wealth of Nations and made reference to that wonderful work.

I think another one that we could add to the reading list of those who are fiscal conservatives is Road to Serfdom, which is a book, and I would commend that, Mr. Speaker, to all of our colleagues, to go back and read that work by a wonderful economist, Friedrich Hayek. And it talks about how, when you tax more and government spends more, and you take more from your people in a Nation, that you're walking on that Road to Serfdom.

As the gentleman was saying, we look at the rate of taxations based on our GDP, where we are right now in 2007, and many of us feel like this is too high. We are under 20 percent.

This is the CBO long-term outlook for taxation. You can see by looking at the bars, the red one is net interest. Social Security is the purple area. Medicare and Medicaid is the orange area, and then you have all other spending, which is in green.

Look at this chart, and look at what happens from 2007 to 2015, where we move above that 20 percent. Look what happens by 2030, when meeting the cost of your entitlements and your interest are going to take all revenue coming in on our current percentage of taxation. And then 2040, look at what happens, when you're spending about 35 percent of your GDP on taxes.

I will yield.

And the gentleman is exactly right. And we would all like to see, and that is the reason that we are here. And my hope is that as we work with our colleagues on this budget issue, that we will see these charts level off and then head downward, because Federal spending is far too high. And then you're exactly right; when you add your political subdivisions and the State taxation and spending to that, you do see a different picture.

At this point, to talk a little bit more about what we see happening with this budget, I want to yield to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) who has joined us this year and has jumped right into the discussion of budget and taxation, and does a wonderful job representing our conservative perspective.

I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota. And as she said, we do have a response to this budget. You can go to budget.house.gov/republicans and pull that budget up, because it is a budget that is there to encourage growth, reduce taxes, and be certain that our constituents have the money left in their pockets.

At this time I yield to David Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee who joined us in this House this year. He was in the State Legislature in Tennessee. He knows firsthand how important a low rate of taxation, low and reasonable regulation is to having small businesses grow and develop jobs. And as we all know, there is no economic stimulus as good as a job. And I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and as he said, the loss to the economy is something we hear a lot about.

Look at this chart. You can see what happened with Federal revenues in 2001, 2002. Look at what happened when we reduced taxes in 2001 and then again in 2003, and look what happened, how we took off with a growth in Federal revenues. It just shows you what happened when you reduce taxes, when the government takes less and allows individuals to make those decisions, what to do with that money. When government doesn't take first right of refusal on so much of that paycheck and allows our constituents to make those choices, you can see there are four straight years of increases there.

To talk a little bit about the impact of the economic policy that's before us on his constituents from Ohio, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some absolutely wonderful freshmen to join us this year, and the gentleman from Ohio is one of them; and we are just so grateful to his constituents who have sent him here to join in on seeking fiscal responsibility for this great Nation of ours. We appreciate his leadership, as Mr. Davis and Ms. Bachmann, and the work that they have done.

And now someone who came to this Congress and has been a leader serving on the Budget Committee working toward fiscal responsibility.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I do thank him, Mr. Speaker, for his continued leadership. As I mentioned, we were freshman classmates in the 108th Congress and have worked each session of these past three sessions of Congress to bring to light the needed changes that are there for our government budget processes, the way we go about building this budget, and the way we handle the taxpayers' money.

Another of our 108th freshmen who worked making waste, fraud, and abuse our class project as we developed to the wasteful Washington spending and the Washington waste watchers and started shining some light on earmarks and the need to change that practice on wasteful spending, on increased taxation, on programs that may be have outlived their usefulness, and that is the chairman of our Republican Study Committee, Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

And as I mentioned, we are all Members of the Republican Study Committee, and I want to yield to our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his comments and remarks on the budget process and welcome him to this session of budget school.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for the leadership that he provides every day on these issues.

And at this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who has such a wonderful understanding of the budget.

And as I mentioned earlier, we have our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, a little tiny document. Then we've talked about the appendix of the budget, this big volume right here. And what you're going to find there with some of the line items, as our colleague from Georgia was talking about, is the ag program. That's where you find that information. Then there is analytical and historical data that we look at and what we actually find with our trust fund and with our debt.

And to provide some insight into this, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland for his insight into the budget and the budget structure.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think individuals can see how instructive and how exciting our next session will be because we're going to talk a little bit about this budget, and I thank the gentleman for his insight.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership that has come from the gentlewoman from New Mexico and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is an issue that does need to be addressed. I would remind our constituents who are watching that we are talking about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. That is what it stands for.

As the gentlewoman from New Mexico said, the changes in technology may mean that someone in the Horn of Africa who is calling in to a Middle Eastern country, their call ends up being routed through this country. What we are talking about is foreign intelligence and talking about getting information, gathering that intelligence that will keep Americans safe. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, our constituents are wanting to know, are we in danger? Are we in danger? Where is the next threat? Are you making certain that in our communities, in our homes, in our neighborhoods, in our schools, that we are going to be safe?

We were just discussing a bit about the trial bar and their part in this issue, if you will. In mid-March I noticed an editorial in Investors Business

Daily and it was titled ``FISA Fix For Lawyers.'' Not my words, Investors Business Daily from a mid-March issue, ``FISA Fix For Lawyers.''

Mr. Speaker, that kind of peaked my curiosity, so I read a bit about it. Basically what it goes on to say is that pretty much this bill could be considered an earmark for the trial bar.

Well, I did a little bit of investigating on that issue, once I read that article, Mr. Speaker, and it seems that $72,440,904 had been given to the Democrats by the trial bar this cycle so far. That was through mid-March. So we will see what else happens with that figure.

But it appears, as we have just discussed the lawsuits that are filed with the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, that that may have a little bit to do, Mr. Speaker, with why Investors Business Daily would write an article and look at FISA as a fix for lawyers. Certainly something we do not want to do is have the integrity and the security of every single community in this great land of ours compromised in any way, shape or form because of that.

Now, the gentleman from Texas mentioned that 45 days has passed since the Protect America Act expired, and that does cause some question from our constituents. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned, Attorneys General from 25 different States support the bipartisan Protect America Act, and independent intelligence reports support this.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is indeed a reason. It is because we all know that protecting this Nation and our Nation's interests should rise above partisan debate on this floor. Of course, the bill that was brought to this floor before we departed for our Easter recess was a bill that the leadership knew was not going to go anywhere, but they felt like they had to do something.

Mrs. Wilson mentioned that intelligence is dynamic. I think that is an important part of the debate that we have before us as we talk about FISA. It is indeed dynamic, because it doesn't stay the same. The individuals who are seeking to do us harm do not stay in the same places, nor are their camps nor are their cells stationary or stagnant. Because of that, we have to look at electronic surveillance as going about this a different way.

The gentleman from Texas mentioned the situation that occurred last year with three American soldiers that were kidnapped in Iraq and the wrangling that had to go on to get through the courts, as he said, to get ``lawyered up,'' to get in there and to get a warrant. By that time, 9 hours had passed, and by that time we had one individual who was dead and we still have two who are missing as of this point in time.

So, looking at 21st century technology, understanding how that technology works on a global basis, and understanding that if we are to stay ahead of the game on this, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative, it is imperative, that we realize that our enemies are using satellite phones. They are not using rotary phones. They are using text messages. They are not sending telegrams.

They are moving constantly; they are not in the same place. And it is imperative that we adjust our laws so that we have the ability to stay ahead of them, and ahead of their desire to do harm to us, our constituents, and our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is nothing short of an abdication of the liberal majority's responsibility to protect the American people. Yesterday's Investor's Business Daily editorial sums the bill up nicely, a ``FISA Fix for Lawyers.'' I could not say it better myself. After all, this bill is nothing short of an earmark for the trial bar, and it reveals the brazen partisan interest of this Democrat majority.

Rather than accept the bipartisan legislation adopted in the Senate and endorsed by our Nation's security experts, the liberal elite of this House instead brings forward a $72,440,904 thank you note to the trial bar. Why $72,440,904? That's the amount the trial attorneys have contributed to Democrat candidates in the 2008 election cycle.

But it might only be a down payment for the potential liability interest that they have if they get their way on their earmark bill. We have to say, at what cost? We have heard the story that I used in a Memphis story on February 28 of our three American soldiers who were kidnapped.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

And, Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased to come to the floor and participate in this debate. I think it's one of the most important debates that we have every single year.

And listening to all the comments that are taking place here this evening, Mr. Chairman, it is not lost on me. Budgets are supposed to be about priorities. Budgets should reflect the priorities of a nation, and they should lay out the funding for what we think is important, where we should spend the taxpayers' money.

And I think we have to stop there and pause just a moment because, Mr. Chairman, when I listen to some of our colleagues make comments, as my dear friend from New York just made, talking about all the good things that could be done with money, this is not our money. I do admit that the Federal Government has first right of refusal on the taxpayers' paycheck. I recognize they do that. I don't agree with that. But I think what we have to do is say having first right of refusal isn't right, but the taxpayer turns that money over willingly, and they have the right to know how we spend their money. They have the right to know what those priorities are going to be. So all the functions of the budget are supposed to lay those priorities out.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when I have talked with my constituents about this budget, the number one thing that they have said is this: With the way the taxes are going up, with the way the spending is going up in Washington, I am having too much month left over at the end of my money. And they think the priority reflected in this budget ought not to be the Federal Government's having first right of refusal on that paycheck. The first priority ought to be leaving that paycheck with the person that earned it. Well, what a novel idea. What a novel idea.

Well, let's just look at what we see in the Democrat leadership's budget. Well, the largest tax increase in American history. Here it is. And you can see previously we had $241 billion in 1993. That was President Clinton's tax increase. But now look at the number over there: $683 billion in tax increases over a 5-year period of time to pay for the spending that this House wants to participate in.

Well, we know this is going to be costly. So when you look at a chart of what it's going to cost every State, $2,611 is what it will cost the average Tennessean. In my district in Tennessee, that number is $2,668.

Well, taxes seem to be a priority, enough of a priority that this Democrat leadership wants to increase taxes on my constituents in the Seventh District of Tennessee $2,668. But, Mr. Chairman, they had the opportunity to extend sales tax deductibility, which those of us in Tennessee have enjoyed because we don't have a State income tax. And every Democrat on the Budget Committee voted against giving that tax relief to my constituents in Tennessee because they wanted higher taxes.

Well, the question is, what are they going to do with this tax money once they get it? And here is a chart that shows their discretionary increases. Well, we see $23 billion above the request in fiscal 2009. And, whoops, look at what's going to happen over there: $280 billion. And what does that discretionary spending buy the taxpayer? Well, Mr. Chairman, there are $280 billion worth of earmarks. We're going to have another $280 billion, not hundred, not thousand, not million, but billion with a ``b,'' $280 billion worth of earmarks that we are going to see over a 5-year period of time.

The American people have said enough is enough. They want that discretionary spending to come down. They want the earmark spending to come down.

Well, let's take a look at one more thing, and that is entitlements. And we don't even have enough time, obviously, to address that. This House has chosen not to address it. This leadership has chosen not to address it. And look at this chart. By the time we get to 2030, it is going to take every tax dollar coming in to pay for the entitlements of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

We know there is a crisis coming with entitlements. We know that we are going to see earmarks increase. And my constituents are telling me they've had enough of it. They've got too much month left over at the end of that money, and they want to keep more of that money in their pocket.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Scotts Hill Lions Club as they celebrate their 60th anniversary.

The Scotts Hill Lions Club was chartered on March 30, 1948, due to the hard work and vision of Scott Hill's Mayor Erin Holland and Adamsville Lions' Club member Farris Stafford. As a chartered member, the Scotts Hill Lions Club became part of Lions Club International, which is the world's largest service club organization with more than 46,000 clubs in over 190 countries and approximately 1.4 million members.

Over the course of the last 60 years, the Scotts Hill Lions Club members have volunteered their time, energy, and resources to

supporting local charities, providing care for families in need, and have generously contributed towards relief efforts at home and in countries throughout the world. To say the least, the Scotts Hill Lions Club has undoubtedly lived out their club's motto, ``We serve.'' I commend the members of the Scotts Hill Lions Club and encourage others to follow their example of dedication and service. Their hard work will not only be felt locally but around the world for years to come.

Please join me in honoring the Scotts Hill Lions Club, President Dan Brigance, Secretary Pattie Stewart, and other officers and members in wishing them the best on this well-deserved anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia not only for his leadership on this issue of our Nation's security, but for his work on the Truth Squad as he always repeats the phrase, everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

That is so pertinent, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that we are having on our Nation's security. There is no issue that trumps the security issue. This is something that we know to be very important.

As I travel the country and as I travel my district, what I hear from people is, Why are you not taking this up? Why are you not taking the steps to make certain that we can find out who is trying to harm us?

You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense at all. As I talk with moms that are in my district so regularly, they will talk about how concerned they are with security, security in our communities, security in our places of work, security in our children's schools. They want to make certain that the security to live peacefully is there for us here in our homeland.

They want to be certain that those protections are there for our troops who are deployed; and at this very minute, I have troops from Fort Campbell, which is in my district in Tennessee, and troops who are National Guardsmen from Tennessee who are deployed making certain that American interests are safe and making certain that Americans in our great Nation are also safe to live their lives freely in pursuit of happiness every single day.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely revolting and unsettling that the leadership of this House continues to stand in the way of the Protect America Act. Our colleagues in the Senate have decided this is a very important issue. We all know what happens when you set aside work. You have to kind of pick it up off the table and move it over and say, we are going to come back to that, and we are going to get those items accomplished. But first and foremost, let's deal with the Nation's security.

So they put that on the desk. They made it the priority. They took it up and they said, it is not a partisan issue. We are going to find agreement on this because the security of this Nation trumps it all. The security trumps it all.

Now, if we wanted to go play the ostrich game or if we wanted to go play

Whack-a-Mole with the terrorists, we could do that. We could just rely on the 1978 FISA and pretend that we never had e-mail, that we never had cell phones, that we didn't have voice video and data just traveling on the waves through the air.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that would be nice and make us feel good and comfortable, but the point is, it is not true. It just isn't true. And as the gentleman from Georgia has so eloquently said, we know, we know that the terrorists are using these new technologies to communicate, and we know that there are terrorists in foreign countries who are communicating with other terrorists in foreign countries who are trying to do harm to our troops in the field. We have evidence of that, Mr. Speaker. To our citizens in this country, we have evidence of that and to our citizens and our allies around the globe.

Well, what is so difficult to understand about this, Mr. Speaker? It just seems like when the evidence is there, as the facts are there, as my colleague from Georgia says, why can there not be an admission that those are the facts, they are the givens, everybody, everybody in D.C. seems to agree with this except the leadership of this body. And I find it very disconcerting.

Mr. Speaker, there was a comment, you mentioned, Mike McConnell, who is the Director of National Intelligence, and I would go to a quote that he gave before to the Senate panel, and listen to this: that half, half, not a third, not a quarter, not a tenth, that half, 50 percent, of what we know comes from electronic surveillance. That means that all of these new forms of communication that are out there, this is what the terrorist cells are using. Half of what we know comes from electronic surveillance, and get this, and the outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had degraded those intercepts by two- thirds.

I just find it so egregious that we would hamstring and make it difficult for the intelligence community to carry out their jobs when they are seeking to serve this Nation, when they are seeking to work with the military and to make certain that we know who is seeking to do us harm.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Georgia is so right in what he is pointing out. What we're spending our time doing here are items that are not crucial, they're policy debates. They're policy debates about how you want to approach an issue. My goodness, the Government Reform Committee and my committee, Energy and Commerce, we have had hearings on steroids in pro sports. Now, we had plenty of time to parade people in and do these hearings, but we didn't have the time for FISA. We've had plenty of time to have committee hearings. Today, we were in Committee on Energy and Commerce on tobacco, and if we wanted the FDA, who already cannot keep the Nation's food supply

safe, they can't keep the Nation's drug supply safe, but we were spending time on that instead of putting time on FISA.

Now, as a mother, you know that children are going to put off to the very end doing the hardest thing. So, what you do when you're a mom is to say, no, we're going to do the hard things first. When we're doing homework, we're going to do the hard problems first, we're going to write the hard papers first because you get it out of the way. And then you know that regardless of how much time is left, you've attended to the things that are going to have the greatest impact.

Now, that is the way the leadership of this House needs to move forward. They need to go back and learn a Kindergarten lesson. They need to go back and think about what they learned there. You do the hard things first.

FISA is a difficult bill. We are pleased that there are some issues that take a lot of work, that we have to work to build consensus, that we have to look carefully and study these; the Nation benefits and our constituents benefit by that. But to put it off, to choose to not address it, to leave it at the back of the line for partisan political gain is dead wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mrs. Margaret ``Midge'' Weinberg for her public service to the Germantown community.

Since joining the Maternal League in 1986, Mrs. Weinberg has been greatly involved with caring for young mothers and their babies by

making it her mission to help teenage mothers learn effective parenting skills through the Maternal League's successful Sunshine program. Serving as corresponding secretary, historian and parliamentarian, Midge has been indispensable to the efforts of the League and has proven time and time again her ability to avert any crisis with her quick thinking and calm presence.

When she's not dedicating her time to the Maternal League you can often find Mrs. Weinberg serving as co-chair of ``This Side Up,'' teaching safe sleeping practices to caregivers of newborns, as well as serving on the boards of Bethany Home, The Parenting Center and LeBonheur Club.

In culmination of all her community efforts, Margaret Weinberg has been recognized by the Germantown Lions Club as their Citizen of the Year for 2007. Her experience and leadership make her an invaluable member of the Germantown community and a shining example for others to follow.

Please join me in honoring Margaret Weinberg and wishing her the best on this well-deserved award.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Franklin High School Varsity Cheerleaders, of Franklin, Tennessee, on their excellent teamwork and recent second place finish at the 2008 UCA National High School Cheerleading Championships in Orlando. Competing against over 80 teams in the Medium Varsity Division, the well-trained team quickly rose to the top tier and garnered a silver medal finish. Additionally, the FHS cheerleaders won the ``Smooth Moves Award'' for displaying the best partner stunt sequences in their division.

This national recognition has brought well-deserved attention and accolades to these girls, whose hard work and team spirit are evident to all. The Franklin High School cheerleaders can be seen on ESPN this Sunday afternoon, representing with energy and distinction the City of Franklin and the great state of Tennessee. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the Franklin High School Varsity Cheerleaders for their discipline, perseverance, and athletic excellence.

Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I rise today. It is disappointment over the fact that this body still has not brought to the floor the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Protect America Act.

We have heard the colloquy that has taken place on this floor this afternoon. We know that a bipartisan solution to this was passed in the Senate with 68 votes. We also know looking at our calendar that obviously the issue is not about time. The issue is about having the will to pass this bill.

The Protect America Act has expired. We are now under the old surveillance laws that were written in 1978. The intelligence community has expressed their desire to see this passed because they know that they are having to waste valuable time working on bureaucratic red tape and legal paperwork and dealing with trial lawyers, instead of spying on terrorists who seek to do us harm.

I would encourage the majority to bring forward the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Let's work to keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this bill. It doesn't produce one bit of energy. It does not generate one kilowatt of electricity. It does not move us toward energy independence. Certainly those are things that need to be a priority when we discuss energy.

Now the price of a barrel of oil, we have talked about that today. It is topping $100, but where was it a year ago? It was at $56 for a barrel of oil.

I like to talk about what that means to my consumers and the impact that has on my constituents in my district. We have seen the price of a gallon of gas go up 75 cents per gallon in the Seventh District of Tennessee over the past year. Let's say a typical mom in Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District fills up her 15-gallon tank once a week. That is $47 per fill-up. Every month she is spending $44 more on that gasoline than she was last February. The difference for the year is $528 more coming out of her pocket to pay the additional energy cost.

Now, there is a bill before us that would tax energy companies and stop new domestic oil and gas production and discourage new investments in refinery capacity. Instead of making America more energy secure, we are seeing things that would drive us to be more dependent on sources from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and other nations.

It would be great if we were to have a debate on revolutionizing energy and revolutionary energy legislation. But, in reality, the legislation we are discussing today does not alleviate the strain on the consumers. It would be great if we were talking about energy independence. It would be great if we were talking about increasing refinery capacity and if we were going to look at short-term, mid- range, and long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs.

I would encourage all to oppose this bill. Let's talk about solving the energy problem.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women in our intelligence agencies are facing uncertainty. They are telling us this, and that is posing a very real national security risk to us in our homeland.

Today I rise to encourage this House to close the terrorist loophole for good by passing a bill that would permanently update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The Senate passed this bipartisan bill with 68 votes. The House leadership will not bring it to the floor. They had another opportunity today, and they passed on that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, time has run out. The Protect America Act has expired. The Democratic leadership of the House has had more than 6 months to tackle this problem. They continue to delay. Let's not delay another day. Let's bring our intelligence capabilities into the 21st century. Let's pass the Protect America Act now.

Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to spending some time on the floor over the next several months and several weeks and spending some time talking with our colleagues and talking with the American people about the budget.

Everybody hears a lot about the budget and about this budget document that is several hundred pages thick, that it is what directs the spending, and I think that most Americans know that the House of Representatives is basically the keeper of the purse, if you will, for the American public.

Now, some of my colleagues from the Republican Study Committee and I want to make certain that we all understand how this money is spent because we fully believe that the American people have the right to know, they have the right to know and they should know, how their budget gets spent, how those tax dollars get spent because we know, Madam Speaker, this is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. And we want to shine the light on how those dollars are being spent. We want to break down this process. We want to demystify the process and invite the American people to join us and follow us.

We believe Government spends too much money. We believe that Government never gets enough of your money. They never get enough of the taxpayers' dollars and, indeed, one of my favorite analogies is from one of my favorite plays, ``Little Shop of Horrors,'' and I think we have many Americans who fully believe that the U.S. House of Representatives, the Congress, that the Federal Government, that this big enormous bureaucracy that liberals have built as a monument to themselves, the bureaucracy never gets enough of the taxpayers' money. It's like Audrey II in ``Little Shop of Horrors,'' never can get enough to eat. And what that bureaucracy wants to just chomp away on every day is your money. It is the taxpayers' money.

So we want to make certain that we spend some time going through this budget process spelling out where those dollars get spent, how the dollars get spent, actually, basically, holding a classroom for our colleagues, spending some time talking about the budget document; talking about the consequences that come with baseline budgeting; talking about what would happen if we went to zero-based budgeting; talking about performance-based budgeting; dissecting the appropriations bills; highlighting the risk of growing entitlements; and also addressing the waste that we find in earmarks.

So today as our first session, we thought it would be a good idea to review how Washington spent the taxpayers' money last year.

We have it broken down by household, and we always find that when we speak in terms of billions and trillions in Washington-speak, that we are talking about numbers that are really big. So we went in here and said how much is it per household that was spent in 2007 in the name of Government. What did we appropriate and spend of your money? Came out to be $24,106 per household. That's the highest total since World War

I thank the gentleman from California. And if he would yield for a moment of colloquy.

I want to go back to the issue of the deficit, because you mentioned that the deficit had gone down over the past few years and this year the deficit is going to more than double. And of course we know that much of that is because of increased spending. And I would like for you to go back and touch on that point one more time.

If the gentleman will yield. What we saw from the `01 and `03 tax reductions was that the Federal Government's revenue, the money the taxpayers are sending in for us to appropriate and spend on behalf of them at the Federal level, that money has been increasing in double digits every year since we started the tax reductions, which allows our taxpayers to keep more money in their pockets. So, what we saw was we made those reductions, and then the Federal Treasury is bringing in more money from the taxpayers. But what we also saw was that Congress continued to increase the percentage and increase their spending.

And if the gentleman will yield, what we also saw was that the deficit was down, both as a percentage of the GDP and also in the amount of the deficit, the dollar amount, much of that due to the Deficit Reduction Act that we passed that was the `06 budget. And then what has happened last year and what we will see this year is that that deficit is going to double because of increased spending.

And if the gentleman will yield. One of the things that we have long supported is balancing the budget and making certain that we do have a balanced budget, like many of our States have and like many of our counties and cities operate under a balanced budget, but we don't. And we do have our entitlement spending with the chart in front of you.

2050. I will yield back to the gentleman from California to show where

we get to the point there at 2050 where it takes all of our tax revenue to pay our Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And I yield.

Well, I appreciate that. And especially when you consider the fact that 77 million baby boomers are going to retire between now and 2029. You were just pointing to 2030. And where we are with getting to that budget in 2030, you would be able to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense when you get to the line on 2030. And I think also, as we look at our entitlements and we look at Social Security, we know that in 1960, we had a 5:1 worker ratio, five workers for every one retiree. In 2007, this past year, we've had three workers for every one retiree. And by the time we get to 2030, we're going to have two workers for every one retiree. So you're going to have a married couple with children supporting their family plus supporting a retiree, and I think that that adds to the push that we feel and the urgency that we feel.

You're exactly right. And I thank the gentleman from California for all the leadership that he brings to this issue because beginning to deal with the long-term structural issues that exist in this budget are vitally important to us. It is something that has to be dealt with, and it's something we can't kick the can down the road. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I look forward to hearing him talk a bit more as we go through the coming weeks about what we should do about entitlements, how we should address this issue, how we should make the budget process more transparent, and how we need to go about reforming these processes and changing how we spend the taxpayers' money, because we do fully believe, Madam Speaker, that the taxpayers do have the right to know and should know how this body spends their money.

At this time I want to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is a member of the Budget Committee and has been an advocate for reforming budget processes and reforming the way we go through this.

And at this time I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments on how we make certain that the taxpayers know how we spend their money.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership and his guidance on so many of our budgetary issues and for his desire. Madam Speaker, it is a true desire that he has to be certain that we provide transparency to the American people and that we become good stewards of the tax dollar, that we exercise good stewardship, because these are dollars that the taxpayers send to us and entrust to us to use. As I said earlier and as the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out so well, $21,992 per household in taxes, and even that is not enough to meet the $24,106 that the Federal Government spent per household. And this is where some of that money goes:

Social Security and Medicare, $8,301 of that $21,992 went to Social Security and Medicare. Defense saw $4,951. The anti-poverty programs, which are our TANF programs, supplemental security income, things of that nature, $3,500. Interest on the Federal debt, $2,071; Federal retiree benefits, $907. This is all out of that, per family, per household. Health research and regulation, $664; veterans benefits, $627; education, $584; highways and mass transit, $418; justice administration, $392; natural resources and the environment, $305. And certainly we know much of that money is going into bureaucracy, much of it is going into wasteful spending.

At this time I want to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), who has been a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Energy Subcommittee, to talk a little bit about energy and environment spending and some of the ways that we need to put the focus on how the taxpayers' dollars are being spent on those issues, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for continuing the conversation about how we should be good stewards with the taxpayers' dollars and looking at how we spend those environment dollars, $305 per family, spent on environment and energy programs last year. Unemployment benefits, as he said, the best economic stimulus is a job, unemployment benefits, $299 per family. As you talk about developing energy resources, community and regional development, $282 per family. But his point is it is imperative that regardless of what the sector, regardless what we are talking about, whether it is Social Security, defense, antipoverty programs, community development, or unemployment, it is imperative that we exercise good judgment and we use wisdom as we make these decisions, because the taxpayers do need to know how we are spending their money and how it relates to each and every family and what their share of that pie is.

Really, the leading expert on the family budget in the House is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who is chairman of the Republican Study Committee which is embarking on this project to demystify the budget and to make certain that our constituents and our colleagues all understand how we bring the budget together.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas for his comments.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I want to go back to a point that you made. The tax burden on the average family, already they are turning over $21,992. The Federal Government is spending $24,106. So they have got this debt, this deficit in there, that is being passed on to their children and grandchildren. But you said that tax burden is getting ready to go up $3,000?

I thank the gentleman for that. So we have got the $21,992 that the average household paid in 2007, and then they had on top of that the $2,100 deficit for the year, and the Federal Government spending $24,106. But what you are saying is the current budget policies are going to push that up even another $3,000 per family over the next 3 years.

I just highlight to my colleagues that we have talked a good bit today about the overall budget process and why we think the taxpayer has the right to know how this body spends your money. The taxpayer has the right to know what is going to be there in the form of a deficit and a debt that their children are going to have to pick up the burden on and carry that burden.

The taxpayer has the right to know what is looming with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and the entitlements that are there that are put on automatic pilot. They have the right to know what the budget processes are, what is the difference in baseline budgeting and zero- base budgeting and performance-based budgeting; what are the benefits that would be derived by transparency.

They have the right to know how the Budget Committee goes through the process of setting the parameters on this budget. And certainly they have the right to know what takes place in the appropriations process. They have the right to know what is wasteful spending and what are earmarks and what is in front of us with this entire document.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time that you have yielded to us. We are going to be back next week. We are going to continue to talk about this issue. I hope that people will follow this with us at House.Gov/Hensarling/RSC. We would hope that we hear from them and that we bring an element of transparency and therefore accountability to the budgeting process.

Mr. Speaker, I know today we're going to talk a lot about FISA, but before we do I want to rise to commend the University of Memphis men's basketball team on an outstanding season. So far the Tigers have amassed 24 wins, no losses, earning them the top national ranking in college basketball.

Thanks to the enthusiastic support of the Memphis Tiger fans, and especially the ``Blue Crew,'' the Tigers hold the Nation's longest home court winning streak, 47 wins in a row.

ESPN has called them and their coach, John Calipari, relentless and unselfish.

I applaud the Tiger basketball team for setting an example of teamwork and tenacity that all teams, individuals and even this Congress would do well to follow.

On behalf of the people of the great City of Memphis and the great State of Tennessee, I congratulate the Tigers, and I wish them luck on the remainder of the season.

Thank you for making us proud.

Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago today, a deadly series of storms rolled across the South bringing destruction and heartache to many of my constituents in Tennessee, and I rise today to recognize the people affected by these storms in Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Kentucky, and to commend them for the character and determination that they displayed and to encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 971 to recognize that courage and character.

In visiting the communities that were hurt by the storms, I drew true inspiration from the people that I met. In the midst of destruction on an unimaginable scale, shaken and grieving individuals were pulling together with the spirit of determination and cooperation. Neighbors are helping one another, churches and schools are functioning as headquarters for emergency aid, serving hot meals and giving out supplies. Emergency responders have proven their mettle, and local and State officials are focused on how they can best move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the spirit of the people in the community. Support H. Res. 971, and I wish each family well as they rebuild.