Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for the work that he has done on this. I also want to commend him for his appreciation for how we approach education and how we approach access to education in this country. His work in the committee has not gone unnoticed, and we do appreciate that commitment.

I do rise today to support the McKeon substitute that we have before us, and I think that it addresses some of the problems that so many Members on both sides of the aisle have problems with in the underlying legislation. You cannot deny that there are nine new entitlement programs that are contained in the underlying legislation, and quite frankly, we have heard from so many people who have expressed concern over this.

As we are at a time when people talk about the need to reduce the size of the Federal Government, to reduce the bureaucracy, to reduce the number of programs, here comes a piece of legislation, and lo and behold, you're going to have nine new programs.

Now, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there are so many that say, why would you do this? Why would you not do an assessment of the needs and then put the money where the needs are?

And Mr. McKeon has done that, as he has addressed the Pell Grants and spending the funding, increasing the Pell Grants, which address the access component that is so important to our students.

Another component that is in there that I think many of the Members would be interested in is the changes that it makes in providing funds for year-round Pell Grants, there again answering a question and solving a problem that we hear from our constituents and the type Pell Grant program that they want, the access that they want, being certain that we're going to help those students who wish to pursue their education not only in the fall, not only in the spring, but the summer as well. We know that this is very important as people look at new type schedules, as they look at moving on through the educational process and getting into the workforce.

We know that we have different areas where we need employment and being able to finish a little bit earlier. Not everybody wants to go on a 4- or 5-year program. There are some people that want to go through in a 3-year program, 3\1/2\-year program, and so this addresses a societal change and a need that is there that allows that flexibility that students want. And that is where we need to place the emphasis, allowing people to take control, individuals to take control and make decisions that are going to suit them and not having the bureaucracy make those for them, which all too often, when we create nine new entitlement programs, with nine new bureaucracies, we don't see fast decision-making on something. We see this go into that black hole or the terminal put on hold that so many of our constituents continue to complain about every day.

I would also like to commend to this body and thank Mr. McKeon for the work that puts the emphasis on our military by providing for them extended deferment options for our returning soldiers who may need extra time to get settled and to return to careers and be able to begin repaying any outstanding student loans. Certainly in my district, the Seventh District of Tennessee, this is something that has been recognized as a need. We have so many that have served so honorably with the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, and this is a provision that is important. It is one that is recognized by us, by the minority, by those of us on this side of the aisle, and it's one that we do express our thanks for being included.

The McKeon amendment, the substitute is the right move. It is the right balance. It puts the funding where it is needed by increasing those Pell Grants, and I do rise in support of it, and I thank the gentleman for his work.

It is a pleasure to join you. And I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk with our constituents about this program.

It is amazing to me as we are looking at this and looking at the reauthorization of it and looking at what has been a very successful program when it has worked as a block grant program, and then look at the problems that would arise as it moves to being an entitlement program. And this is something, though, that, unfortunately, it seems to be more or less the method that the Democrat majority is using as they move forward.

This is the ``Hold on to Your Wallet'' Congress, and they are expanding programs. Today we have done the college cost of savings. It sounds good, but, my goodness, nine new entitlement programs that they have voted to establish today, nine. And it is not going to have an effect with making certain that people have the ability to get into college and then stay in college. You have got all these different programs that appeal to special interest groups but not to the average family that is sitting down at the table and taking out a pencil and a piece of paper and saying, How do we make all of this fit?

I have just been amazed listening to the debate today as it pertained to education. And, of course, we are seeing this as we are working through our appropriations bills. They are spending more money. They are spending above the President's request. They are proving Ronald Reagan right at every turn. He has said, ``There is nothing so close to eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program.'' And certainly we see that. They are given the opportunity, and what are they doing? They are starting new programs. They are starting the bureaucracy; certainly not the kind of change that the American people thought that they were going to get. And we see that as we look at the SCHIP program.

Now, those of us who have watched health care and worked on health care issues at both the State and the Federal level know the value of having this program and having it work and States having the flexibility that is there. But what we are seeing is the SCHIP program being hijacked to help the liberal left move their agenda of socialized medicine a little bit further toward the finish line. And when they talk about Medicare for everybody, when they talk about expanding Medicaid, and when they talk about moving SCHIP from a block grant to an entitlement and then expanding the reach of that program, that is what they are doing.

SCHIP is to be for children. We have States that are using it to pay for adult health care. SCHIP was originally capped at $40 billion over a 10-year period of time for block grants, for children's care. What has happened, Congress has granted an additional $676 million in new Federal spending for State bailouts through 2026. So, there again, we hear accountability and we hear our constituents talk to us about accountability and the importance of accountability, but what we see is our colleagues on the left who will say, ``Well, if somebody gets in trouble, let's pay for it. Let's pay for it. Let's let the Federal Government pay for it.'' But the problem here is we forget, this is not Congress's money. It is not the bureaucracy's money. It is not SCHIP's money. It is not CMS's money. It is the hardworking family that goes to work every day, that earns that money, that sends it to the Federal Government. This is taxpayer money.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today we have 6 million children that are covered in SCHIP. We also have 600,000 adults that are covered in SCHIP.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is happening because States are deciding that they are going to take the money and then use it for some things other than the children. Maybe they don't have enough children that fall below that poverty level or the 100, 200, 300 percent of poverty, wherever those levels may be for those specific State programs, so you have part of that money being used for adults.

Now, the problem that has come before us is SCHIP has to be reauthorized before September 30th, and the funding will expire. Now, this is a program we don't want to expire. We would like to see it continue as it was originally set up to continue. We do not want it to morph into other things and be a program that also covers adults, be a program that covers those that are not falling into the category of being needy children. We want to make certain that it remains a block grant, that States are given flexibility, and that the money is used to cover the children, the population for which it is intended. That is how accountabilities should work with these programs.

Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it permanent. They are not interested in addressing how the money is being spent or whether a less costly, more efficient system could end up serving children better and meeting the needs of those children in the appropriate way.

One of the things that they are also wanting to do is to change the income levels and include those that are at 400 percent of poverty. So what we would have is families that are making $60,000 to $84,000 a year would end up being eligible for SCHIP for their children. So what we would have is the IRS looking at a family's tax return and saying, ``You are rich. You are going to pay the AMT.'' And then the SCHIP program looking and saying, ``Well, you fall within the guidelines of 400 percent above poverty, and you qualify for this wonderful entitlement called SCHIP.'' So that is the kind of frustration that we see in the bureaucracy that causes frustration and a lot of questions from our constituents and causes them to say, ``Wait a minute. How is this money being used?''

Now, we also hear from our constituents that they don't want more of this control centered with the bureaucrat. They want to be able to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. They want to be able to make choices for themselves. And they sure don't want socialized medicine and government-run health care.

We have heard one of our colleagues say, do you really want the bureaucracy that can't seem to straighten out Katrina, that can't seem to handle homeland security, that can't seem to get their hands around passports, to then manage health care from cradle to grave? And those are the right questions for our constituents to ask. And as they bring those questions forward, we say: And one of the ways that we need to address this is through making certain that SCHIP stays as it was intended to be, a block grant program that was put in place to assist the States in providing health care for children at low-income levels, those needy children.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman. And yes indeed. You know, one of the things that one of my constituents is fond of saying when they come to town hall meetings and gatherings is, Marsha, whatever the government giveth, the government sure can take away. And we need to keep our attention to as we talk about this health care. Do we really want to put a bureaucrat behind a desk making a decision for the type health care that our child is going to receive? Or do we want to make certain that we, as parents, and as patients, with a physician, have the opportunity to make those decisions about health care, and do we want to make certain that we are moving toward a market-driven health care system? Or do we want to move toward socialized medicine system? And those are questions that the American people are certainly asking.

You know, one of the things, as we've looked at this, and you hear the discussion about what it's going to cost, and generally, as with so many programs that come from the left, they will say, oh, but it's only going to cost this amount. And it's not going to be that much more expensive to pick up those extra 45 percent of the children to move us to 95 percent. It's not going to cost us that much. And it's going to pay dividends in the long run.

Well, you know, the interesting thing about that is the way government structures its budget. We're not looking at the 10-year, 20- year, 30-year cost. We're looking at a 5-year snapshot. Many of our States, when they construct their budgets, they're doing cost accounting, which is a 1-year view into what is taking place.

And even at this, you know, CBO has scored this bill at $50 billion, and we're finding out that the cost is more like a $108 billion to cover the cost between adding an additional 1 to 2 million extra children. And that doesn't even get into considering some of the income requirements for recipients. And this is going to be an interesting issue of debate.

And I yield to the gentleman.

Yes. And one of the points that I would make in this debate is that in fiscal year 2007 alone, SCHIP will cost the American taxpayer $11.5 billion. Now, under the plan that the Democrat leadership is pushing forward for expansion of this program, that cost would increase fivefold. That would increase fivefold. This is what it would cost turning it from a block grant with flexibility to the State and moving it to an entitlement where you're going to put it on auto pilot.

And people say, what are entitlements? What's the difference here? When you're talking about Medicare, when you're talking about Medicaid, when you're talking about some of our Social Service programs that are entitlements that every year they just grow right along. There's not a check and balance. You're not working on outcomes. You're not working on making certain that you're achieving efficiencies. You've got it on auto pilot.

Now we've established nine new today, nine new entitlement programs in education. That is what the Democrat leadership wanted. It's not what the American people wanted. That's what they wanted, entitlement programs. And what we know is they would increase the cost fivefold on this plan.

Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the SCHIP expansion would generate a real shift away from private health insurance and that private health insurance market for children. And for every 100 children who get public coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children. So you change the way that market is going to work. And it is of concern to us. We know that this is something that will cause a lot of questions.

We are very concerned with what we hear they are pushing to do to try to make this palatable so that they can pull in votes to pass this SCHIP program. We know that our physicians have a problem with the payment system for Medicare reimbursement, and certainly, the gentleman from Georgia, being a physician, understands this so very well. And we've seen reductions in payments for Medicare payments to those physicians. And so they're going to include this in the SCHIP bill.

Well, the Medicare payments don't have anything to do with the SCHIP block grant. But in order to try to pull together those votes and pull together something that they think the Republicans can't afford to block, they're going to put that in there.

Now, if I were a practicing physician dealing with the SGR and with Medicare reimbursement, I would be highly offended that I'm going to be used as a bargaining chip in the Children's Health Care Insurance Program.

Now, they're also going to look for ways to improve programs that provide financial assistance to low income Medicare beneficiaries for premiums, cost sharing and prescription drugs. So they're going to set up a generational battle and say, well, we'll do this on SCHIP, but we're going to take away some of the benefits from the Medicare part D and the Medicare Advantage. So they're going to take away a little bit from the seniors and then try to put that into the children's health care.

Now, if I were a senior citizen, there again, if I liked my part D and my Medicare Advantage, I wouldn't like the fact that they're going to use me as a bargaining chip.

And then we find that they're going to provide a special focus on addressing the health care needs of those living in rural areas. Well, if I lived in a rural area, and if I had a community health center in my area, and of course, in my seventh District of Tennessee, I have plenty of rural areas and plenty of rural health centers. I wouldn't like the fact that I'm going to be a bargaining chip.

And it is unfortunate that this seems to be the path that they are going to choose to travel. Rather than addressing the issue straight up, rather than addressing the needs of the States, rather than addressing how do we best meet the needs of children, they're going to pull all these different things and pull them into one bill and try to make something they think that there are plenty of people that they can't vote against it.

So I find that, indeed, unfortunate and something that, when we talk about health care, preserving access to health care for all of our constituents, it is, indeed, unfortunate that that bargaining chip-type mentality, that let's make a deal with the hold on to your wallet Congress, is the way they want to operate and do business.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

You know, as you were saying that, I'm reminded of what we in Tennessee went through in 1994 and 1995 as we saw the advent of TenCare in our State, which was the test case for Hillary Clinton health care. And we know what has happened in our State of Tennessee, and the fact that TenCare now is consuming about two-thirds of our State's budgets. It is a very, very difficult program.

And somebody always is going to pay. Somebody always has to pay the bill. And what we are seeing with the American public is, they know that it is the taxpayer that is going to pay; that there are not things that are free. Someone pays for that, and they, the taxpayer, going to work every day, American families holding American jobs, earning a pay check that, unfortunately, the Federal Government has first right of refusal on that pay check, they take their share before you get your share. And it happens every single pay period.

And so many people are tired of it. They're tired of government not being accountable, and they are tired of Congress having an insatiable appetite for their hard-earned money. And it's what causes them to contact us when they hear about how these appropriations bills are being handled, when they hear about the increase in Federal programs, when they hear about the increase in spending. And, yes, indeed, as I've told my constituents this weekend, I'm not surprised that the numbers for Congress are as low as they are. People wanted things done differently. And this is not the kind of change they wanted. What they're saying, this is exactly what we didn't want. It's exactly what we didn't want.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor James King, M.D., a family physician in Selmer, Tennessee and president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). King was elected to the position by the Congress of Delegates; the AAFP's governing body, in October 2006, where he previously served 3 years as a member of the AAFP board of directors.

Dr. King received his bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee, Martin, and earned his medical degree at the University of Tennessee Center of Health Sciences, Memphis, in 1982. He completed his residency at the University of Tennessee Family Medicine Residency, Jackson-Madison County General Hospital, in 1985. King is board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine and is an AAFP fellow.

King is in private practice in the rural community of Selmer and serves as assistant clinical professor at the University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences, Memphis. He is also on the medical staff of the McNairy Regional Hospital in Selmer and serves as medical director of Chester County Healthcare Services.

Prior to his service with the AAFP, he was an active member of the Tennessee Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP). King has served on the committees on public relations, finance, and legislation and governmental affairs. He also has served on the Long-Range Planning Committee, Nominating Committee and Membership Committee. As a member of the TAFP board of directors, King has served as vice president, president-elect, president and board chair.

King received the Outstanding Model Office Teaching Award from the University of Tennessee Family Medicine Residency, Jackson, in 1990 and the TAFP's Family Physician of the Year Award in 1997.

Active in his local community, King has presented the AAFP's Tar Wars tobacco-free education program to area fourth- and fifth-graders on behalf of the TAFP since 2000. He has also had many State and regional appointments, including serving as the chair of the McNairy County Board of Health, a member of the TennCare Steering Committee of the Tennessee Department of Health, a member and then chair of the Primary Health Care Liaison Committee, State of Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. James King for his extraordinary contributions to medicine and for the profoundly positive impact he has on our community.

Mr. Speaker, since we have all been gone, the Glasgow Airport has been bombed, Piccadilly Circus in London was the site of an attempted terrorist attack, another attempt on a hospital, and within 48 hours, the British Intelligence Agency rounded up several credible suspects. Their use of intelligence should be commended. They have faced terrorist attacks on their soil for over 30 years and put in place the tools to deal with these.

On the other hand, it seems the liberal leadership of this Congress wants to backtrack in our attempts to track and survey potential terrorists by scaling back our critical intelligence-gathering efforts.

They took issue with the program designed to monitor phone calls from potential terrorists. They railed against the PATRIOT Act. They even shifted funds from critical intelligence-gathering programs to put it into a slush fund to study global warming. Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, global warming didn't have one single thing to do with putting a bomb in Piccadilly Circus or trying to blow up the JFK airport. Global warming didn't bomb the USS Cole or take down the Twin Towers. Climate change can be studied, but it need not be done at the expense of human intelligence needed to help eliminate international terrorism. We need to adjust our priorities. It's time to get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The majority has adequately explained the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I note that during the full committee consideration of this bill the minority was assured that this act was in no way to be construed as advancing any effort to establish a national holiday honoring Cesar Chavez. Further, the majority gave assurances that this bill was not going to be used to promote House Resolution 76, which urges the establishment of such a holiday. With this understanding, we will not object to the consideration of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been watching as we are pulling together this year's energy bill for the House; who is doing the cobbling; what they are including in the package, or, curiously, what they are leaving out.

This is the current House leadership's second attempt this session to produce an energy bill that would address our energy dependence on unstable parts of the world, our strategic vulnerabilities that arise from that dependence, and the disastrous effects that high energy prices have on our ability to retain and produce American jobs.

You would think that the Energy Committee would be a pretty good place to start on this. But last week, provisions in our committee's bill promoting additional energy production,

especially production focussed on the clean and efficient use of American coal, were stripped. And unless my colleagues in committee are successful in putting them back in this week, then the Democrats will deliver another energy bill that does not produce an ounce of energy.

It is time for us to address this issue.

I thank Mr. Jordan for the good work that he is doing right here. He is exactly right in the amendment that he is bringing forward, hold constant, hold it level.

Mr. Chairman, we hear this from our constituents every single day. We all know that the American people are certainly frustrated with the way they see Washington spend money, and the amount of money that they spend.

What our amendments are doing is just to say, just pare it down a little bit. Let's require the bureaucracy to institute some efficiencies. Let's require them to get their House in order.

Now, quite frankly, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think that it is a very positive step to look forward and say let's hold the bureaucracy accountable. Should they be able to move forward and not put best practices in place? Should they be able to just every year get an increase when we have men and women who go to work every single day? They may work for a period of 2 or 3 or 4 years and not see an increase in their salary.

We may have families that look at their budget and say that they are not seeing an increase. To say, you know, to not increase spending puts us on a downward trend.

I truly take exception with that. It is our constituents who are saying you need to start putting some accountability measures in place, you need to reduce what this Federal Government is going to spend because they tax too much and certainly, in order to pay for all of this increase in spending, and this is an increase, it exceeds the President's request by $1.9 billion, which is a 7.6 percent increase. In order to pay for this, they are willing to push forward the single largest tax increase in history because they spend too much money.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of MG Schuyler Bissell, USAF (Ret.), who passed away on June 13, 2007 at the age of 76. Major General Bissell lived his life with honor. He exemplified dedication, and he committed himself to serving others. This is the inheritance he leaves his family and all those who knew him.

A fellow native of my hometown of Laurel, MS, General Bissell began his service in the Air Force in 1952. He would eventually complete 119 combat missions over North Vietnam at the controls of his F-4C Phantom. For his heroism he received three Distinguished Flying Crosses and was awarded the Air Medal a remarkable 10 times. A Command Pilot, he would eventually accumulate over 5,500 flying hours.

After several commands in the fighter community, General Bissell transitioned into the field of military intelligence. He would go on to serve as the U.S. Defense Attache in Israel, as Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Intelligence, and would conclude his career as the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

General Bissell and his wife Polly settled in the Nashville area in 1992 as he began a second career in service to our community. At St. George's Episcopal Church, he served as a lay Eucharist Minister, as an usher and greeter, as Chairman of the Parish Life Committee, and as a member of the Capital Campaign Committee. General Bissell would found a group called Champions in Christ at St. George's in 1999. His leadership led to the exponential growth of this program. Most recently, he felt God's call to begin working on a Pastoral Healing Ministry.

General Bissell was dedicated to his country and community, but above all to his family. In addition to Polly, he leaves behind two daughters and six grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of MG Schuyler Bissell.

Mr. Speaker, well, here we are again. Another day, another several billion dollars in new spending proposed by this ``Hold Onto Your Wallet'' Congress. They have already passed the largest tax increase in history, and they spend too much money.

Today's tax du jour comes in the form of the Foreign Ops bill. The bloated 2008 spending bill will fork over $34 billion of your tax money, an increase of more than $3 billion. A subtle change means that under the current bill language, the Mexico City policy, which assures that nongovernmental entities that promote abortion would not be provided U.S. funding, could be completely disregarded and these entities would receive U.S. taxpayer funds.

The provision would mandate U.S. subsidies to organizations that actively promote abortion in foreign nations. Abortion has been a tragedy for many women here in the U.S., and it will carry with it the same hurt and trauma when it's used abroad.

If this language stays in the bill, the American taxpayer would be actually paying for an abortion for someone half

a world away. I urge my colleagues to vote against new spending and ``no'' for taxpayer-sponsored abortions.

Thank you, Mr. Smith, for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a philosophical difference of how we approach things. This is about respect for life, our's and those in other countries. I commend the gentleman on the amendment, and I do rise in support of this amendment and of the Mexico City Policy and making certain that we pass the Smith-Stupak amendment. It will strike the language that would undermine that policy.

It is not going to take away the $441 million for family planning. It is going to put a bright line of separation between abortion and family planning. The U.S. should not be in the business of exporting abortion overseas. It has been a tragedy for women here in the U.S., and it will carry the same hurt, it will carry the same trauma if it is used abroad.

So I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support.

Mr. Chairman, this is quite a debate that we are having tonight, and I appreciate the vigor and the energy that colleagues on both sides are bringing to this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I do have to stand and really oppose some of the things that are being said here. How interesting it is that we are hearing spending reductions called irresponsible, that we are hearing that it is jeopardizing our foreign operations, that it is devastating.

You know, what we may want to do is reframe this debate. I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for trying to make a 1 percent reduction.

Now we heard this referred to as the Matthew 25 bill. Maybe we should make it the Genesis 1:1 bill and go back and look at the beginning and talk about how did we get where we are today.

They want to talk about deficits. Well, it is historically what my colleagues on the left have done to grow a huge bureaucracy that continues to need to be fed and programs that grow and grow and grow.

Now one of the things that we have heard is that we are going to have to fix this now. My colleagues only want to talk about today, yesterday or the day before. They don't want to go back and talk about previous administrations where we have piled on, we have piled on, we have piled on, and now we want to grow this budget 9\1/2\ percent. We want to pay for it with the largest tax increase in history.

I would offer to my friends that, yes, indeed, let's go back and make it a Genesis 1:1 bill and look at the very beginning. You tax too much; you spend too much. And it is right that we would choose to find a 1 percent reduction. What we are irresponsible to is the American taxpayer who is sick and tired. They are truly ill and fatigued when it comes to paying more and more of their budget.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, what an incredibly wonderful debate we are having. It is a philosophical debate. Government is not the answer. Government many times is the problem. More spending is not the answer. It is priorities and where you choose to put that money. That is where you find your answers in this.

Now one of the things that we are saying is make a reduction. My goodness, look at the States. Many of our States have made across-the- board reductions. You know what? Across-the-board reductions work.

My State of Tennessee, oh, my goodness, we were going to have to have an income tax. Oh, my goodness, they were going to shut down every program in the State, had to have it, had to raise taxes. You know what? We defeated that income tax, Mr. Chairman. The people of our State said, no, we have had it. We are not putting another penny into the State treasury.

Now what we see is a, believe it or not, Democrat Governor who came in and took what we Republicans had said and made across-the-board cuts. Not 1 percent. Not 2. Not 5 percent. 9\1/2\ percent. 9\1/2\ percent. And I would encourage my colleagues to know that greater efficiencies were there, that they now have record surpluses.

One of the things that we have to realize, the American taxpayer is tired of sending money to Washington and see it go into a bureaucracy and know that they are not seeing the results that they get.

Mr. Chairman, maybe it is because I have the old Davy Crockett district. I know that what you have to do is be very careful with the money that you have to spend. You have to make priorities.

And yes, indeed, national security is a priority. We know that. We know that border security is a priority. We know that. But what we have to realize is we have to be a good steward of the taxpayer dollar.

Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to start to tighten its belt. Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize it cannot grow. Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize we need to be responsible to the taxpayer and reduce what we are spending at the Federal level. They are tired of paying for the largest tax increase in history. They know that government spends too much. They know that this budget is bigger than it ought to be, and they don't like it, and we are hearing about it.

What my colleagues and I are saying is, you know what, let's find some ways to make some reductions. Let's make certain that we are good stewards of every dollar that comes our way.

Mr. Speaker, we in America are at an energy crossroad. Now, one road will lead to price controls and a potential energy crisis that would remind us of the 1970s. The other would lead to cutting-edge technology that will provide affordable, reliable energy for decades to come.

Yet, the liberal leadership in this House has chosen to revert to the 1970s and repeat that history. Today, the Energy appropriations bill under consideration will underfund nuclear production by $20 million in one account, hydroelectric power by $20 million in another account, and other forms of American productivity by hundreds of millions of dollars.

And where does the money go? Well, it goes to fund research for climate change in another bow to the religion of global warming.

And in coordination with other House and some Senate legislation, we find out that some of these proposals could end up raising the price of a gallon of gas over the next couple of decades to $6 a gallon.

We need to focus on energy independence today. It is what the American people want.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the body aware of the loss of our colleague and friend, Robin Beard, former Congressman from the old Sixth District, who passed away last Saturday. His district basically overlapped with the current Seventh District of Tennessee. He served in this body from 1973 until 1983.

Robin Beard really had a storied and amazing life in which he dedicated himself to public service, and he did love it.

He received a B.A. in history from Vanderbilt in 1962. He was a veteran, serving 4 years in the Marine Corps, where he was a Marine Corps officer in charge of the Gemini IV offshore recovery mission, and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel.

While in Congress, he served on the Armed Services Committee. He was a strong supporter of and friend to Fort Campbell, which was located in both his district and mine.

He was appointed by the House Speaker as a congressional advisor to the Strategic Arms Negotiations in Geneva and the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament.

He also served as an assistant Republican whip, was cochairman of the Republican Research Committee on Defense, and an executive committee member of the Republican Study Committee.

His expertise extended to domestic issues, and he served as an executive committee member of the Congressional Task Force on Economic Policy.

After leaving Congress, he continued to serve the public, twice named as NATO Deputy Secretary General.

He is being laid to rest today in the Protestant French Huguenot Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

He is survived by his wife, Cathy, two children and five grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the body join our Tennessee delegation in a moment of silence in remembrance of our former colleague, Robin Beard.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is that the Federal Government does spend too much money. We all hear it from our constituents. They are really aggravated with the amount of spending that they see coming out of this town, and there is a good reason for that. It is because it is their money. They earn that money and they send it to Washington, and then there is a lot of aggravation with how we choose to spend their hard-earned dollars.

And the gentleman is so correct in his amendment, moving this back to last year's levels.

Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we know is it would give a $1.3 billion savings for the American taxpayer, and we know that principles like this and operations like this work. When you go through spending reduction, it works.

Our States are great labs for finding ways to find efficiencies in government, and there's a reason for that. It's because many of our States have balanced budget amendments. And many of our States have frozen at previous years' levels, or they've been reduced 1 percent, 2 percent or 5 percent across the board.

And what they have found out is that, in their operations, they can move in and find efficiencies and find ways to seek a savings, and still have the same caliber and quality of program that they have had. But, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that they do find is that many times those programs are more effective.

So I commend Mr. Jordan for the work that he has done to find a $1.3 billion savings to make certain that the pressure is there on these departments to live within their means, to try to do our best, to avoid what the Democrats are wanting to pass, which is the single largest tax increase in history, and to make certain that we give a message to our constituents that we have heard them and we agree with them. Government spends too much of their hard-earned money.

Mr. Speaker, I read in the Charlotte Observer about a gentleman who decided to retrofit his 1981 diesel Mercedes with vegetable oil and got a knock on his door by the tax man. His crime was choosing to take a stand against the rising cost of gasoline, OPEC, and other international energy cartels by converting his car into clean- running alternative energy. His punishment was a $1,000 fine by the North Carolina State Government and $1,000 notice from the Feds. So much for innovation and alternative fuel research.

The predicament was chronicled in the Charlotte Observer on June 15, and what we're finding out is he's not alone. Many innovators around the country are creating unique ways to exercise energy independence. In so doing, they're demonstrating to the Federal Government that the American people are more than qualified to break their addiction to foreign oil. Good old American ingenuity always comes through.

As we take up consideration on the Energy Approps Act for 2008, it's instructive to consider what they know. If you want to get more innovation, incentivize it. If you want less of it, tax it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, American businesses in the private sector continue to advance the use of information and e-commerce technology to strengthen their bottom line and increase customer service. However, too many government agencies continue to use antiquated operating systems that do not use taxpayer dollars efficiently or create optimal conditions for customer service.

Right here in the House of Representatives, we offer Americans e- commerce services in the form of ``Write Your Rep.'' I am sure most of my colleagues and their staff use this program, and they use it with efficiency. It helps us to stay in touch.

I have a military post in my district, Fort Campbell. It is located in Montgomery County, Tennessee. I also have 60,000 veterans that are there. One of the things we find is that many times our agencies, working with these constituents, continue to do business on antiquated systems that don't optimize efficiently.

That is why I am offering this amendment today. Increasing the use of e-commerce technology and procedures in the bureaucracy will allow critical agencies funded under this act to operate more efficiently. But, more importantly, it will allow our members of the military and our veterans to gain access to records, especially health records, that they need in a timely manner.

I want to thank the chairman for recognizing this important business objective. The underlying legislation takes a step forward to the goal by encouraging the agencies to expand the use of e-commerce.

My amendment, however, is an important step further. It would direct the agencies funded under H.R. 2642 to expand the use of e-commerce technologies in the conducting of their business practices within the limits, within the limits, of the existing statute and funding.

It is a straightforward, simple amendment. As we know, the bureaucracy is not going to do this on their own. They need the oversight from Congress.

If successful, we have got three points we hope it would achieve: number one, lead to greater transparency in agency asset and records management; number two, enhance governmental reform and efficiency; and, number three, spur agencies to build best practices and conduct themselves in a more businesslike manner.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for thinking about the records process with our veterans and our military.

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